roger456 wrote:Proteins aren't converted to anything by enzymes in the mash. You've got to boil hard to get good hot break to get that shit out of solution, then chill the fuck out of your wort to get good cold break. The proteins will have coagulated, and (given good sanitation) you will have clear, stable beer.
Unless I have a complete brewery breakdown, I will not ever do a no-chill brew.
Well Roger456. Thats a mighty strident statement of your opinion. I dont think that it reflects the truth. But if you can effect reality by the firmness with which you state your view of it, then it might be getting close.
Here's my response. Its just my interpretation of the theory, so of course it needs to be taken with a measure of uncertainty built in.
High molecular weight protiens can in fact be nicely converted in the mash into both shorter protiens that are good for your head retention and also into amino acid chunks. The enzymes responsible for this are collectively known as proteases and the two main ones are protienase and peptidase. So I believe you are not quite right about that. Not of course that that has anything to do with No-chilling. No chilling has nothing to do with the mashing phase of wort prduction.
A reasonably vigarous boil will do just fine to coagulate the protiens that constitute hot break; and in fact too hard a boil can break the break up and cause some of it to re-dissolve. But, again, thats beside the point as no-chilling has nothing whatso ever to do with the boil phase of wort production.
You dont in fact have to "chill the fuck"out of your wort to get a good cold break. The cold break will form when the wort reaches the right temperature, regardless of how fast it gets there. In my experience (not sure about the theory) the break forms bigger "flocs" when the wort is chilled quickly, and this allows the wort to clear faster for a clean transfer.
But of course, speed is not an issue for no chill. The cold break can form slowly, in small chunks. Fine, it has at least overnight and probably longer to settle out and be excluded from your fermentor.
I have transferred crystal clear hot wort from my kettle to a no-chill container, and had a good two inches of cold break appear in it overnight. Thats pretty much just as good a break as I get when I use my whirlpool chiller. So I'm for sure not freaking about the lack of cold break on those occasions when I decide to no-chill. There is no need.
Good, clear, stable beer... well. I suppose thats at least partly in the eyes (taste) of the beholder. I have found little evidence that no-chill beers are either less good, less clear or less stable than chilled beers. The stable bit might still be up for grabs... I'm not sure if there are many/any aged no-chill beers around to prove the point one way or the other. Then again... the Belgians have been cooling their wort in Coolships for centuries and they are notorious for making beers that dont last very well...... aren't they???
But the good & clear parts... sorry. You are just wrong if you think a no-chill beer would be unable to meet those criteria. They can and do. Often and easily.
So Roger465... if you dont want to ever do a No-chill brew. Cool. I'm certainly not going to twist your arm. But I would suggest that the reasons you give for your decision are a little less rock solid than you might have given the impression that they are. They might still be perfectly valid after all, but they aren't exactly beyond argument.
Thirsty
PS. This is off topic here. So if you wish to debate further, then there is a thread called New Ideas to Chill Wort in the Brewing Equipment section. Thats where we should be having this discussion and where I will look for and make any further response.
