# Fermenting on Hot Break?



## Bribie G (4/4/13)

I know a couple of brewers here just tip all their hot break into the fermenter and report good results. I did a side by side experiment with the cold break a few years ago and it didn't seem to affect the quality of the finished beer at all.

Has anyone done side by sides with hot break / no hot break?

If this method works it would probably really decrease losses and make everything simpler.


----------



## manticle (4/4/13)

You'd need to try some long term side by sides since one of the main effects of HB is on accelerating staling reactions, I believe.


----------



## Bribie G (4/4/13)

Might try a batch. The first question I guess would be: if it works ok then why do all commercial breweries remove the wort off the hot break before fermenting? And I guess the answer would be that they don't want valuable fermenter real estate taken up by crap that they can't bottle, keg and sell.

For a quickly drunk keg brew the staling might not be an issue.

Actually I'd guess a side by side would be fairly simple.

Do two identical brews and cube one with the hot break, the other without (as far as possible).
When fermenting, pour the clear top halves of both cubes into one fermenter and all the crud into the second.
Pitch with the same yeast.

Bottle at least some of each brew and sample at monthly intervals.


----------



## manticle (4/4/13)

My understanding is that a fair amount of reseacrh has been carried out into the effects of HB on a commercial scale.
Considering shelf life and storage can be unpredictable, I can imagine that very few commercial breweries would even consider risking it and their equipment is more than likely designed to remove it with ease. I believe there are other negative contributors from HB as well, including haze.

I've never seen it as difficult to avoid so I do and I save the trub for starters (allow the break to settle, decant clear wort) so there is very little waste. Add carrageegan, short whirpool, stop draining at the right point.

As homebrewers we like to observe things for ourselves in small batches so I can understand the desire to see for oneself but I'm pretty certain the effects are well documented in a variety of studies.

Less so cold break and I ferment with mine. I'd like to see more brewing science articles about that - not found many through my own searching.


----------



## wbosher (4/4/13)

Does any one really keep beer long term? I wish I had the self control to do that.


----------



## carniebrew (4/4/13)

I put at least 3 bottles of each of my brews away in a 'long term storage' box in the cupboard, they don't get touched until they're at least 3 months old. The plan is to try each one at 3, 6 and 12 months. If I keep more than 3 then I add some intervals in between. Tasting notes at each interval go into my brew log (Excel).


----------



## manticle (4/4/13)

wbosher said:


> Does any one really keep beer long term? I wish I had the self control to do that.


I've aged some beers for up to 2 years before bottling.

Others won't last 2 weeks.

Beer dependent.


----------



## tricache (4/4/13)

I have seen a lot on the US forums that they scoop it off...I can't imagine it would do anything crazy, it would drop out in fermentation with the rest of the "gunk" in the beer


----------



## QldKev (4/4/13)

Can seem to find it, but there was another side by side test done on here a couple of years back. They claimed that the beer with the hot break fermenter out better and tasted cleaner.

edit: Thinking about it it could have been a discussion referencing a US test, and I think they had a blind panel test.


----------



## manticle (4/4/13)

tricache said:


> I can't imagine it would do anything crazy, it would drop out in fermentation with the rest of the "gunk" in the beer




I don't understand the logic here - yeast and hops drop out too but they make a pretty crazy difference most of the time. Chemical reactions occur during fermentation and conditioning all the time.


----------



## warra48 (4/4/13)

wbosher said:


> Does any one really keep beer long term? I wish I had the self control to do that.


I still have about a dozen bottles of a Belgian I brewed 3 years ago. Wish I'd kept it all. It's better now than it was early.
Also had a Stout which lasted very well for 2 years in the bottle.


----------



## waggastew (4/4/13)

I partial mash and end up with about 7L of wort in the kettle. I therefore am a bit reluctant to leave all the trub (incl HB) in the pot as I would only get about 4-5L clean as I don't have a tap on the kettle. I use whirlfloc so the first 4L are clear but the last couple tend to drag a bit of trub with them. I pass the wort through a strainer as it goes into the fermentor but I usually leave about 500mL to a 1L behind. I have however been known to pour additional water through the trub in the strainer to get all the goodness out.

Bottom line is it ain't pretty or good practice but my beers get plenty of positive comments (and the odd award). I have never had problems with most of the documented areas of 'head retention problems, poor flavor stability, and harsh bitterness'*. I wonder if other issues at a HB level i.e. oxidation during bottling are a bigger issue and mask the problems?

* http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/library/backissues/issue1.4/barchet.html

The other aspect I always wondered about was that if the hot break makes it into the fermentor surely it precipitates out onto the bottom in the first few minutes/hours? Unless it is resolubilised by the fermentation process or interacts with yeast/alcohol/fermentation products surely it doesn't make it into/affect the final beer. There is bound to be alot of research about that but probably not at small volumes?


----------



## tricache (4/4/13)

manticle said:


> I don't understand the logic here - yeast and hops drop out too but they make a pretty crazy difference most of the time. Chemical reactions occur during fermentation and conditioning all the time.


Isn't hot break clumped up proteins? A lot different to hops which is plant matter which is used for bittering, flavour and aroma...or yeast is a microorganism which is used for flavour, aroma and producing alcohol itself


----------



## bum (4/4/13)

"I ferment in my kettle all the time and it didn't kill me. Not even once! Waste of time, all this brewing practice and research. It's just for getting pissed anyway!"


----------



## thylacine (4/4/13)

Bribie G said:


> I know a couple of brewers here just tip all their hot break into the fermenter and report good results. I did a side by side experiment with the cold break a few years ago and it didn't seem to affect the quality of the finished beer at all.
> 
> Has anyone done side by sides with hot break / no hot break?
> 
> If this method works it would probably really decrease losses and make everything simpler.


*basicbrewingradio.com*

*February 23, 2012 - "Trub Experiment Results"*
* "James and Chris Colby, editor of Brew Your Own magazine, go over the results of the BYO-BBR Collaborative Experiment on kettle trub in the fermenter."*


----------



## Lurks (4/4/13)

Since obviously what we need is another barely valid anecdote, I thought I'd chip in.

When I started AG, I really wasn't sure quite sure about the whole break thing. I was also no-chilling. I pretty much tipped the lot into the fermenter. I made some excellent beers but I also had the only two experiences I had of unquestionable staling. Both were dark beers, one was a stout. It started off okay and then went undrinking in the space of a couple of months. 

I've never had that happen again since leaving the hot break in the kettle. On the other hand, I've varied the amount of cold break I leave in the kettle from all of it to none and I haven't even seen a relationship with chill haze. So I'm not sure I give a rats about that.


----------



## Nick JD (4/4/13)

thylacine said:


> *basicbrewingradio.com*
> 
> *February 23, 2012 - "Trub Experiment Results"*
> * "James and Chris Colby, editor of Brew Your Own magazine, go over the results of the BYO-BBR Collaborative Experiment on kettle trub in the fermenter."*


This.

Have a listen.


----------



## CosmicBertie (5/4/13)

I put everything in too. Doesnt appear to me, or my (ex)drinking buddies, to have any discernible effect on the beer.

I've even experimented by putting a new batch of wort onto the full trub cake (yeast, hot break, and cold break) of a previous one, same results. And the beer ferments in about 4 days


----------



## tavas (5/4/13)

I have fermented on hot break once. Rancid rat piss would have been a better flavour.


----------



## Nick JD (5/4/13)

tavas said:


> I have fermented on hot break once. Rancid rat piss would have been a better flavour.


A quick listen to the podcast posted above will confirm that it was not your hotbreak that made your beer taste like ratpiss, but some other issue.

But I do admire your commitment to correct scientific due process that resembles theology.


----------



## treefiddy (5/4/13)

Podcast summary from Home Brew Talk here by rhamilton



> Wort stability / integrity testing: basically take your wort, jar it at room temps, and see how long it takes to show spontaneous fermentation. If it lasts 2-3 days, it's fairly stable. Make it 4 days and you know you are doing well. Under 2 days and you have too much contamination. Also a great way to troubleshoot suspected infections from equipment. To Trub Or Not To Trub Results: 19 brewers reporting on 20 beers Fermentation: 10 reported better fermentation with trub vs 3 without Visually: 4 liked trub, 3 liked trub-less Nose: 3 liked trub, 3 liked trub-less Taste: 6 liked trub, 7 liked trub-less Conclusion: No conclusive evidence of trub-less beers being better, but trub fermentations are stronger. Host also noted trub beers got clearer more quickly than no-trub brews.


----------



## Lurks (5/4/13)

The link to the podcast mentioned earlier. (mp3)

So the first thing that struck me was how our North American hosts were pronouncing trub as /tru:b/, rhyming with boob. So I went and looked it up. Turns out it's the German word for "lees" so, sure enough, this would be the correct pronunciation.


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

In German.


----------



## wbosher (5/4/13)

So basically, six of one, half dozen of the other...I'll probably just continue to throw the whole lot in.


----------



## Nick JD (5/4/13)

wbosher said:


> So basically, six of one, half dozen of the other...I'll probably just continue to throw the whole lot in.


The part to take away from that podcast IMO, was that _in certain styles_ fermenting on the hotbreak was neutral or beneficial.

As an example, porters and stouts might be ruined by the practice; or low OG beers; or IIPAs; or Australian Lagers might taste like armpits - oh, wait - they already do.

Me, since doing it across the board for all styles, I've not noticed any difference to the taste of my beers, but I have noticed the quicker ferment and lower FGs.

I also get between 5 and 10% more beer. In terms of real efficiency - that's huge.


----------



## jaypes (5/4/13)

My first AG beer I missed every mark and boiled off too hard, left me with 7L less than my target.

I fermented on the hot break and topped up with boiled water

Was one of the best beers i have made, needless to say I now try to keep the break out of the fermenter just for clarity and sediment


----------



## Tilt (5/4/13)

Great discussion going on here - just to clarify a query as part of the convo - there are different terms being used here for the "break material" sitting at the bottom of the fermentor. 
Are we pratically talking about* trub* (which is often a mixture of hot break, cold break and solid hop matter) rather than specifically hot break.? 
Do no chillers still get cold break? Do hop baggers get no hop material in their wort?
As far as I'm aware there's no practical way of separating the wort from the cold break and hops and just leaving behind the hot break.


----------



## Lurks (5/4/13)

Tilt: The podcast experiment seems to be pouring in the entire lot. Basically their experiment was to siphon off the first half of perfectly clear wort into one fermenter, then to tip the rest into another fermenter and compare final beers. 

No-chillers don't get cold break. I can honestly say that having started out no-chilling, I've really not seen any beer improvement at all by chilling and leaving out cold break. I only do it now so I can quickly pitch and be done. Plus siphoning hot wort is a disaster waiting to happen.

Hop bagging still results in hops in the trub, at least with the common sorts of hop sock., it's not a massive layer of hops as if you'd just thrown them in. My intuition is that most people would use some sort of hop sock? I don't know, I always have. It seemed logical that I wouldn't want all the hops in the bottom of my kettle which would probably impact efficiency given I wouldn't be able to collect as much wort.


----------



## Tilt (5/4/13)

Cheers Chinamat - thanks for clarifying - maybe we should ask for a change to the thread title - "Fermenting on trub".

Funny the assumptions we make hey - my trub always includes hot break, cold break (I use an immersion chiller in the kettle so I'm not handling hot wort) and a heap of hops (I throw them into the kettle sans hopsock as I'm looking for full free ranging utilisation of my hops).

Anyway - this has been a useful topic as it affirms there's nothing wrong with my current process. I ferment on about a fifth of the trub due to my pick up tube location in combo with my stinginess with not wanting to turn off the kettle tap too early (thereby losing a whole bunch of potentially useful wort). Good podcast too.


----------



## technobabble66 (5/4/13)

[i just put this in my Palindrome Ale post, but thought it relevant to this]:
...

Sod that. i've wasted 10-20% of my wort trying to avoid cold break! [plus lots of time filtering hot break] I'm definitely not bothering to filter the next few.

So, why wouldn't i just throw some ice into the kettle at flameout (ignoring the infection issue slightly), drop it to 80°C, throw in a small truckload of hops, throw in more ice to drop the temp to ?..35-40°C..?, then pour into the fermenter (bit more cooling & aeration), pitch the yeast at 22°C, & sit back waiting for beer magic???

[the ice is from boiled water, or for the well-geared, use a chiller instead of ice...]


----------



## seamad (5/4/13)

That's going to lower your OG


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

seamad said:


> That's going to lower your OG


And body and flavour and, well, the beer, IMO.

Let's ignore all that for a minute - technobabble66, why do you feel this plan alters the amount of break materials that you end up with in the fermenter? That plan changes your beer significantly (can be factored in to the recipe, of course), introduces an infection vector and doesn't seem to have any benefit for the context in which you've introduced it here at all.

Tilt, I'd be very interested to see your thoughts on how one might NOT ferment on trub.


----------



## Tilt (5/4/13)

Yeah Bum - thats partly my point. 
My process includes fermenting on *some* trub - and this thread takes it further to ferment on *all* of the trub. 
If there was a problem with trub fermented beers then it might be worthwhile filtering the wort pre ferment or racking off the trub at 12 hours into the ferment. 
Nothing here indicates trub is a problem so no reason to bother. Suits me .


----------



## Sam England (5/4/13)

I did some side by side ferments a couple of years back and found that it's definitely worth leaving most of the break material out if you can (see here aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/69672-kettle-contents-to-cube/?p=992932). Some cold break obviously gets across, but as discussed previously that's more beneficial than detrimental from what I've read.

To summarise the experiment and my other post, I made Ross' NS Summer Ale, skimmed as much hot break as possible off at the start of boil, whirl-flocced and chilled to pitching temp. 25L batch, top 15L as control into fermenter 1 (F1), 2nd 5L into fermenter 2 and the remaining 5L of trub and wort into fermenter 3. They all had a suitable US05 starter split appropriately between them and were fermented at the same temp. There was about 2L of trub in F3 after settling but it was pretty light and pillowy. F2 & F3 were 6L glass jars with airlocks that I had been using for starters. Blind tasting with a few homebrewing mates and we couldn't pick the difference between 1 & 2, but 3 was definitely the worst. Still drinkable, but it had an astringency or funny taste that wasn't appreciated. I know this is diluted across a whole 25L normally and wouldn't be as noticeable, but it's convinced me to stick with dumping the trub before fermenting. I also use bags for my hops which were flowers in this case, to reduce the amount of trub I get.

Cheers,
BB


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

tilt said:


> Yeah Bum - thats partly my point.
> My process includes fermenting on *some* trub - and this thread takes it further to ferment on *all* of the trub.
> If there was a problem with trub fermented beers then it might be worthwhile filtering the wort pre ferment or racking off the trub at 12 hours into the ferment.
> Nothing here indicates trub is a problem so no reason to bother. Suits me .


Why are you having trouble with the difference between hot break and trub?


----------



## Tilt (5/4/13)

No trouble with distinguishing between the two here.


----------



## technobabble66 (5/4/13)

bum said:


> And body and flavour and, well, the beer, IMO.
> 
> Let's ignore all that for a minute - technobabble66, why do you feel this plan alters the amount of break materials that you end up with in the fermenter? That plan changes your beer significantly (can be factored in to the recipe, of course), introduces an infection vector and doesn't seem to have any benefit for the context in which you've introduced it here at all.
> 
> Tilt, I'd be very interested to see your thoughts on how one might NOT ferment on trub.


At the risk of being a noob poking the hornets' nest:

I kinda thought if you did a bit of filtering either before pouring into a cube & into the fermenter for a no-chill process, or filtering after the chiller effort in your kettle, you would remove a lot (most?) of the hot & cold break; and that your beer would be much better for it - better stability, less chill haze, less astringency/harshness, etc. i know not all the trub would be removed with all the filtering i might try, and some will always get into the fermenter. I thought the idea originally was to minimise the quantity & hence the impact of the trub that got into the fermenter.

Now that appears to anecdotally *not* be the case for many home brewers. (not Blue Baggers, obviously)

& i wonder if i can simply circumvent the waste of wort & time by just pouring *everything* into the fermenter, rather than trying to remove a chunk of the 2 breaks/trub; and end up with the same quality. 

I think, as a novice, i'm probably just looking to confirm what Nick JD, etc, was saying - that it's ok to leave *all* the crud in there & just get fermenting already...

-------
:icon_offtopic: 
The dilution thing with the ice (drop OG, body, flavour, etc) is no problem - just a simple shift/increase in the ingredients calculations/proportions to compensate for the ice volume. 
* Am i missing something here?? Happy to be pointed in the right direction if i am!

The ice is boiled water, poured into ice trays, covered w Glad-wrap, left to cool, covered again with a hard plastic top, into the freezer overnight, & used the next day by being uncovered immediately before going into the hot wort.
I appreciate any additional friggin around always introduces some additional risk of infection, but this process really should minimise that quite a lot.

* Again, am i missing something here??

[the ice/hop stuff was just part of the discussion on late hop additions - apologies for the slight tangent with the ice thing & the hops thing. but feel free to read the Palindrome Ale thread & comment on that there too! ​ ]


----------



## wbosher (5/4/13)

Hornets nest poked h34r:

But seriously, everything I've read on this subject seems to point to one conclusion...there is no real evidence to suggest that either way makes any difference.

Personally I throw everything in, after a cc the beer is crystal clear, and no noticable foul taste. Having said that, my sence of smell/taste ain't too flash, but family and friends love my beer so I assume it's not too bad.


----------



## seamad (5/4/13)

It would take about 12.5l of ice to drop 20l 95C wort to pitching temp. Not going to work is it.


----------



## manticle (5/4/13)

Why would you add iced water at all?

Filtering a no chill brew when running into the cube will not remove cold break as it hasn't formed yet.

Leaving behind most of the hot break is dead simple and much easier with a carrageegan addition and whirlpool than employing extra equipment that may also aerate the brew while hot.

Someone above said no chill brews don't get cold break. That is incorrect. Cold break forms as the brew cools - it just happens quicker when you chill.

I haven't had a chance to listen to the broadcast yet - can someone who has tell me the age of the beers they sampled which were fermented with all the break material?

I'll hopefully download and listen some time this weekend.
For what personal experience is worth - some of my early AG brews got pretty much everything thrown in and I enjoyed them so I don't believe hot break is an instant killer. However none of those were aged (greedy) and I have since made a system that very easily avoids HB and devised methods that reduce the waste (and sometimes age some beers) so it's not something I'm personally needing to test but I'd be interested in the results of somebody else's side by side.


----------



## Nick JD (5/4/13)

Listen to the podcast! :angry:


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

wbosher said:


> But seriously, everything I've read on this subject seems to point to one conclusion...there is no real evidence to suggest that either way makes any difference.


Is everything you've read the opinion of lazy homebrewers? That is a serious question. Have you read any texts (even HB-level texts) that support the idea that hot break in primary has no negative side-effects?


----------



## Nick JD (5/4/13)

bum said:


> Is everything you've read the opinion of lazy homebrewers? That is a serious question. Have you read any texts (even HB-level texts) that support the idea that hot break in primary has no negative side-effects?


Have you read any that say it does?


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

Yes, I have, on many occasions, read about that negative effects hot break has on beer stability. Many of my batches last months or are designed to age for months before cracking the first bottle. Stability is something I need to consider. I accept that the minimum grain to brain crew needn't share this concern.


----------



## Nick JD (5/4/13)

What are the compounds that affect the stability?

Are they easily removed with products like polyclar?

EDIT: or are there compounds that change the nature of the fermentation, and these lead to stability issues?

TBH, my main worry with adding all the hotbreak was the fat content of the stuff - and head retention being affected. That didn't happen. The real difference between hot and coldbreak is fat. They are both essentially "Barley Tofu" one being full fat and the other lite.


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

You probably have noticed that I am not the most sciency of brewers. I don't spend a lot of time remembering the details, I just try stuff out or remember upshots and go from there.

Yeah, I recall the fat/head retention thing. It hasn't manifested that way for you, that's great but to say that it can't occur (either expressly or by inference) in an environment such as this is not a fair thing to do.

I do recall reading something about it affecting yeast health too. Has some effect on the cell walls? I _think_ this is where the stability issues arise. If I remember this correctly then I can't see polyclar being any help although I guess it could easily improve the head retention side of things.

[EDIT: I half an entire sentence]


----------



## Bribie G (5/4/13)

Chinamat said:


> ........
> 
> No-chillers don't get cold break. I can honestly say that having started out no-chilling, I've really not seen any beer improvement at all by chilling and leaving out cold break. I only do it now so I can quickly pitch and be done. Plus siphoning hot wort is a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> ..............


No chillers get heaps of cold break, that's the jellyfish thing floating in the cube the next day. Doesn't do any harm.

Palmer says that you need to chill quickly to get the break. Love his little heart and arsehole but Palmer is a bit behind the time when it comes to no chill.


----------



## Lurks (5/4/13)

I meant the break in the kettle so as to be potentially avoided (during transfer) as per discussion. Indeed Palmer and the whole posse of old school brewers have banged on about the need to chill and avoid cold break, which as we know isn't really backed up by modern experience. 

As far as hot break, I recall reading some papers on this. The wisdom on this is mostly that proteins in your beer are a risk of longer term stability and staling. So as Manticle points out, it's not that useful to comment exclusively on brand new beers from the trub/no-trub experiment. On the other hand, if you're going to swill it down...

I wonder if chilling fermenters pretty much settles out the proteins anyway so they don't end up in your keg/bottle, which would seem to negate some of the stability concerns. On the other hand, as I mentioned early on, I managed to crank out some rancid stale beers by chucking everything and leaving it for months (in PET). Aside from this anecdote, poor wort stability from hot break is quite well attested. I think Manticle actually provided the link to that paper that I read first time around?

Back on the experiment. It strikes me that the taste differences they get are generally down to having a higher quality ferment in the +trub vessel. This is probably a bit artificial though because surely most of us do suck up cold break (and all no-chillers) and maybe a bit of trub. So you'd hope to be getting near the yeast health benefit as per the +trub experiments in this podcast right?


----------



## felten (5/4/13)

:icon_offtopic: I wouldn't say I've heard him bang on about it, but you have to remember that Palmer's online book is about 13 years old. And even the latest edition of How to Brew is coming up on 7 years old.

Maybe there's a 4th edition coming.


----------



## Bribie G (5/4/13)

Chinamat is on the ball, I found during my experiment with cold break that the material just seems to settle out and remain neutral at the bottom of the fermenter. FV 2 got all the break, FV 1 got the top clear halves of two cubes (identical brews). It's obvious where the break of all descriptions ended up, very little difference in the two finished beers.


----------



## Nick JD (5/4/13)

bum said:


> I do recall reading something about it affecting yeast health too. Has some effect on the cell walls? I _think_ this is where the stability issues arise. If I remember this correctly then I can't see polyclar being any help although I guess it could easily improve the head retention side of things.


That's what I have also read. However, the findings from that podcast were unequivocally that (even in the cases where the tasters prefered the no-break-material sample) the fermentation was more vigorous, quicker and more attenuative.


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

The findings of drunk pricks from the internet, yeah? In the study run by other drunk pricks, yeah?

[EDIT: and I'm fairly sure that if I ran all my batches at ~30C I'd experience all those things. I have no idea why these qualities keep getting mentioned as though they prove something.]


----------



## goomboogo (5/4/13)

bum said:


> The findings of drunk pricks from the internet, yeah? In the study run by other drunk pricks, yeah?


At least it's a peer reviewed study.


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (5/4/13)

Great topic, nowt to add. I didn't post to up my count.

Between some interesting articles, anecdotes, arguments & both bum & NickJD being civil to each other & keeping away from personal attacks, this is what makes AHB such a great resource.

Carry on, gentlemen.


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

That's a fairly generous interpretation of the term "drunk pricks", Goom.


----------



## tiprya (5/4/13)

Anyone got a link to this paper that shows detriment to long term stability by fermenting on hot break?


----------



## manticle (5/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> . They are both essentially "Barley Tofu" one being full fat and the other lite.


According to Bamforth and Lewis, there are other differences besides lipid content.

Polyphenol and carbohydrate concentration is higher in cold break, protein levels are higher in hot break. Hot break particles are larger (~8 times) and flocculate. Close to 5 times more hot break forms during a typical boil than cold does in a typical chill, bitter acids don't exist in cold break and lipids are only found in hot break.

Both types of break contribute to various types of haze (cold to chill haze for example) and non-biological haze is one factor in oxidation reactions and reduction of shelf life. Non- biological hazes are the result of reaction between protein and polyphenol. Polyphenols can be removed post fermentation with silica gels, PVPP, tannic acid and other products. Haze can also be precipitated (and therefore separated from the beer) by extended cold storage. Removal of too much protein (or particular proteins) will affect foam stability/head retention so the best products are designed to target polyphenols without damaging the polypeptides responsible for foam.

I may be reading into this but if hot break has a much higher protein content and cold has a much higher polyphenol content, then the inclusion of both in the wort is to be avoided.

Tiprya - I'll look for some more decent brewing science material on the issue. Maybe Thirsty Boy or MHB if he ever comes back might have some decent links. A lot of commercial stabilisation prcesses though are focussed on removing polyphenols and or polypeptides (also according to bamforth)


----------



## Nick JD (5/4/13)

bum said:


> The findings of drunk pricks from the internet, yeah? In the study run by other drunk pricks, yeah?
> 
> [EDIT: and I'm fairly sure that if I ran all my batches at ~30C I'd experience all those things. I have no idea why these qualities keep getting mentioned as though they prove something.]


February 23, 2012 - Trub Experiment Results
James and Chris Colby, *editor of Brew Your Own* magazine, go over the results of the BYO-BBR Collaborative Experiment on kettle trub in the fermenter.

But seriously bum, listen to some of this stuff they're doing. It's not going to be awarded doctorates of philosophy any time soon, but to devalue it like that is a bit trite.

They've recently done a lot on no-chilling. Something we all know works, but the Americans are still skeptical about.

Progress is fueled by the open-minded. Give it a go sometime.


----------



## Nick JD (5/4/13)

FFS, Mantickle - listen to the ******* podcast.

If you post one more time in this thread before listeing to it.

I'm going to strangle a lion cub. It's THAT serious. No frickin kittens here!

The concensus was _better clarity_ when fermented on trub. You book-learnin' folk done gone stopped looking at the real world.


----------



## Spiesy (5/4/13)

manticle said:


> I've aged some beers for up to 2 years before bottling.
> 
> Others won't last 2 weeks.
> 
> Beer dependent.


Jesus. Must be a terrible beer to last 2-years if other's don't last 2-weeks...


----------



## manticle (5/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> FFS, Mantickle - listen to the ******* podcast.
> 
> If you post one more time in this thread before listeing to it.
> 
> ...



I have full intentions of listening to the broadcast when I get around to it- people were asking for some of the scientific references. Apart from that, I was disagreeing with your assertion that cold and hot break are the same.

You quote one reference - one. That somehow negates every single other one that exists. Science doesn't work that way.

I'm not holding onto the 'book learned' opinion if you read what I have written throughout the thread. If you paid attention to my posting history, you'd also know that my brewing practices are far from being purely informed by book learning and are at least as informed by experiential brewing.

It's a discussion, something that I'm interested in and enjoying re-reading why brewers on many scales consider hot break so bad and analysing, with an open and critical mind as to why that is so and where the idea came from. Your magical podcast is one part of that - ONE. It doesn't make or break brewing truth any more than a single paragraph by Bamforth or Fix will.

No need to be a rude prick or nasty to furry predators. I'll listen to the podcast at some point AND continue to post topically relevant material as I see fit. You can continue to ferment on hot break. Won't faze me one iota.

Cheers.


----------



## bum (5/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> February 23, 2012 - Trub Experiment Results
> James and Chris Colby, *editor of Brew Your Own* magazine


You mean homebrewers with connections to advertisers?

I jest(ish). I'm sure those guys are better brewers than me but it doesn't make a really small (and unqualified for all I know) set of assessments entirely convincing. There isn't even any sort of consensus. Looks very much like people are hearing what they want to hear to me.



Nick JD said:


> It's not going to be awarded doctorates of philosophy any time soon, but to devalue it like that is a bit trite.


Yeah, fair enough but to present it as proof that hot break has no ill effects is equally flawed.



Nick JD said:


> They've recently done a lot on no-chilling. Something we all know works, but the Americans are still skeptical about.


To be honest, all of my AG brews have been no-chilled and, despite my best efforts, I have never properly nailed a US-style hoppy brew with the method. I've made some really nice malty beers but awesome New World styles elude me somewhat. I recently bought a plate chiller to see if it is me or process but I'm playing my hand a little early here as I have not used it. It is certainly a valid process but I'm not sure it is a one-size-fits-all thing and some healthy skepticism might be a good thing.



Nick JD said:


> Progress is fueled by the open-minded. Give it a go sometime.


Meh. I've BIABed and no-chilled and done all sorts of other "wrong" things. Some things work for some people and not for others. I see no reason at all to shit on leaving hot break in the kettle. Oh nos! I lost 4 bottles worth of beer. **** me drunk. We aren't accountants. Well, some of us probably are but we shouldn't be in the shed.

{EDIT: _Horrific_ punctuation error]


----------



## dicko (6/4/13)

And some more reading,

http://aussiehomebrewer.com/index.php?s=42f1b2b693b8301e50feb6410ba39e4c&app=googlecse#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Skim%20hot%20break

Cheers


----------



## Degraves (6/4/13)

i listened to the podcast and fell asleep, FFS how boring.


----------



## mje1980 (6/4/13)

This could be the new HSA home brew debate, now that people are sick of arguing about No chill hop utilisation rates. I'll warm up some popcorn.


----------



## bum (6/4/13)

Process will never get that contentious here again. The people with the knowledge to actually support their positions have buggered off. The fact that it is only Nick and me arguing if something should or should not be done should be proof enough of that.


----------



## Nick JD (6/4/13)

bum said:


> Yeah, fair enough but to present it as proof that hot break has no ill effects is equally flawed.


It's not presented that way, and I have not presented it that way.

They clearly point out that in some cases it may result in worse beer. They're genuinely surprised by the results - and the guest guy is finding it very difficult to stomach if you pardon the pun.

My horse in this race has always been my annoyance that there used to be a mindset that AG brewing was something that requires a vast knowledge base and extensive expensive equipment, so I get off on this sort of shit ... but I'm not going to drop due scientific process and say fermenting on hotbreak has no ill effects. I'm gonna say its ill effects are vastly overplayed and in some cases moot.


----------



## bum (6/4/13)

I agree that in some cases the point is moot (as I alluded to above). If a brewer makes and drinks a batch, say, every week or two weeks (i.e. a cycle where they finish drinking the most recent batch while the current batch is being force carbed/bottle conditioned/whatevs) then probably none of the ill effects will be noted (unless the head retention thing comes into it). Sit on the same batches for a few months and I think the story will be very different.

AG brewing does not require vast knowledge but, in all seriousness, look around at the quality of the threads lately and tell me that _some_ knowledge wouldn't be a nice thing to have.


----------



## manticle (6/4/13)

Just for Nick, I'm listening to the podcast.

About 30 mins in and if you are basing your 'just chuck it in' philosophy purely on this, I'm surprised.

Notwithstanding the incredibly small sample group and complete lack of controls in the 'experiment' (data collected by people writing in and measured by things like preference), the general conclusion is .....well....inconclusive. it certainly isn't solid enough to just completely discard anything previously written by Narziss, Briggs, Fix, Bamforth etc.

Some trubby pale ales were preferred despite possibly harsher bitterness. A non trubby Black IPA was preferred by the brewer while the announcer liked the trubby one. A Kolsch was considered cleaner without trub by the brewer, a hefe was similar although the brewer's club colleagues thought differently.

As mentioned in a previous post, I have previously thrown all trub in, back when I brewed on a weber barbecue with two small tapless pots and chilled in the bath*. Beer turned out fine which tells me what the podcast tells me and what I have always maintained - hot break won't immediately destroy your beer. That seems to be the main point of this podcast but why is that so interesting? The proper studies on hot break effects talk about things like long term stability, subtle differences etc. It's about improving and streamlining process to make the best product possible (at least as far as the market is concerned) not keeping poison out of your beer. The surprise that trub doesn't make beer automatically taste like arse and in some cases may have slight benefits is strange considering that this is already known. There is a literature review which I am trying to find (previously linked by MHB and bigfridge) for example which finds most of the ideas in the podcast pretty much covered - some protein carry over may have benefit to head retention, flavour etc, some studies found big negatives, some very little, some benefits. Some say yes, some say no which means not everything is known. The podcast says the same thing with more variables.

*Back before book learning turned me into a total academic bewer with my fancy Kmart esky and my elitist 'ferment directly in the NC cube in a water bath' bizzo.

I asked if the podcast contained anything about long term stability - your response was "listen to the ******* podcast angry face'. One sentence to say 'no but they mention it would be a good idea to leave a few bottles in a hot place for a while and see' could have been pretty easily written. If I can try and summarise my experiences or a chapter or paragraph in a book, you could courteously summarise an answer to a reasonable question. 60 mins to find out that one of the biggest negatives in regard to HB inclusion isn't covered but that it might be a good idea for another show?

A link here on lauter turbidity - keep in mind that lauter turbidity is turbidity of the wort pre-boil (so more to do with recirculation or lack thereof). Turbidity is still protein related and these proteins are still considered to have similar effects to hot break on stability. I'll see if I can hunt up the review because it mentions quite a few other studies (both pro and con turbid wort) which people can research for themselves.

http://www.endoc.net/PDF2/0424.pdf


----------



## pcmfisher (6/4/13)

This podcast, does it begin with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?


----------



## Nick JD (6/4/13)

manticle said:


> I asked if the podcast contained anything about long term stability - your response was "listen to the ******* podcast angry face'.


I asked you to listen to the podcast as you are involved in a discussion regarding its outcomes. Hence angryface.

I agree with your and Bum's stuff on long term stability (and I think this is where homebrewers often taking their knowledge from the commercial brewing field may not always be applicable) but would love to hear what compounds actually cause this instability and if they can easily be removed.


----------



## Nick JD (6/4/13)

So, having a quick squiz at this abstract ... again: crystal clear wort pre-boil is another myth.

Different lauter turbidities (standard 43 EBC vs. turbid 82 EBC
on average) were obtained by variation of the lauter procedure,
particularly deep raking, in this study. The resulting worts were
used for repitching the respective
yeast into six subsequent fer-
mentation cycles. The resulting beers were investigated in terms
of flavour quality, flavour stabil
ity, non-biological stability and
foam stability. Worts gained from turbid lautering showed very
similar analytical data compared to the controls (except for a
slight but significant increase in linoleic acid). There was an im-
provement in fermentation performance in terms of a pH de-
crease and a decrease in extract. The resulting beers were quite
similar, and the staling indicators increased slightly, but not sig-
nificantly, due to turbid lautering. Both types of beer were evalu-
ated on tasting as being of a high flavour quality and neither a
professional panel nor a non-professional (customer) panel was
able to distinguish the difference, between standard and turbid
lautering, in terms of fresh and forced aged beers. Due to turbid
lautering the non-biological stability appeared to be slightly, but
not significantly, decreased while on the other hand the foam
stability was significantly improved due to turbid lautering. In
conclusion, *fermentation perform*
*ance may be improved by more*
*turbid lautering,* and the negative consequences often reported
for the resulting beers appear to be overestimated, since the
quality parameters of the final beers had not deteriorated signifi-
cantly.


----------



## manticle (6/4/13)

The thread was not initially about the podcast and listening to it is not a pre-requisite to participating in the thread.

Again referring only to what I've read but the bamforth/Lewis text suggests the polyphenols and polypeptides (the reaction between which leads to haze and staling) can be removed post fermentation. I mentioned this in an earlier post that you dismissed because I hadn't listened to the podcast. Now that i have, you could re-read it.

The podcast doesn't actually tell me much more than homebrewers hear 'hot break is best left behind in the kettle' and neglect to ask why, as they do for so many other things, then are surprised they find out it is not Satan's excreta.. The science side of things that I've been exposed to has never suggested it is instant beer dismissal getting a touch of fluffy egg white in your fermenter and my experience is likewise. That some homebrewers accept things on face value rather than critically analyse how and why doesn't surprise me.

^That study I linked precisely because it is one of many that says one thing (there are others that say the opposite) that adds to a body of knowledge by questioning 'accepted' ideas. That's how knowledge is built up - it's not one big universal truth. You can't cite one single paper NOR one single podcast and say 'it is so because X says so'.

Again too - lauter turbidity is related to wort clarity post boil only insofar as they are similar compounds being carried over from one process to another. Those proteins, etc can still be left behind in the kettle.

Anyway I don't have access to the articles I would like to on HB (as opposed to lautered wort clarity) so hopefully someone else could find and link, purely for interest. I like reading 'n' shit.


----------



## treefiddy (6/4/13)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2006.tb00716.x/pdf Review

Also (no online source)

Dickel, T., Krottenthaler, M., & Back, W. (2000). Studies into the influence of the cold break insertion on beer quality. _Monatsschrift Fur Brauwissenschaft, 53_(5-6), 95-100.

Abstract: In several research studies at the Faculty for Brewery Technology I, Technical University of Munich, Freising-Weihenstephan, the influence of the cold break insertion was studied on a practical scale to obtain information on the necessity of cold break separation. It was found that if the cold break separation is removed the taste of the beer changed, but the flavour stability and the reduction force, chemical and physical stability and the foam characteristics of the beer did not suffer as a result. A cold break separation therefore does not appear to be necessary if reliable a hot break separation and perfect yeast management are practised by the brewery and the created flavour profile is desirable and the beer's quality is sufficiently constant. 




Just feeding the fire.


----------



## manticle (6/4/13)

That's the review I was looking for - the online library link I had was defunct.

There are a number of cited studies within that article from both sides of the camp which would be of interest to some people here if they can find them. Again - lauter versus post boil clarity is a distinction worth making.

Thanks for the info on the cold break study too. I'll be hunting that up for my own interest.


----------



## Nick JD (6/4/13)

So long-term stability is an issue with hotbreak in the ferment.

Why? Polyphenols?


----------



## manticle (6/4/13)

Polyphenols reacting with polypeptides, (as previously stated), leading to oxidation reactions.

I could be cheeky and suggest you 'read the ******* books' but I'll resist and hunt up chapters and relevant chemical pathways even though my understanding of them is far from complete.

If I understand correctly, you have access to Briggs et al, brewing science and practice? I would assume there would be some discussion in thee - my copy is on an old hard drive getting repaired so I can't check myself now.


----------



## Nick JD (6/4/13)

So if you polyclar then filter (or decant off settled material) you will suffer none of these hotbreak stability issues?

Do you use poloyclar for your long term stored beers? Or do you believe that polyphenols only make their way into beer via break material?


----------



## manticle (6/4/13)

I don't polyclar or use any fining besides kettle fining(whirlfloc or sometimes carrageegan).

The chapter I mentioned earlier in Bamforth and Lewis mentions a number of post fermentation clearing agents, including PVVP which have various levels of efficacy at removing polyphenols, polypeptides or both. Which polypetpides are targetted is also important as some of those contribute to head retention so are best not completely removed. I don't know if you can say 'do this and you get none' as nothing is totally black and white. There are observed chemical reactions and pathways, then theories formed around how those pathways come about which are challenged by some studies and 'confirmed' by others. It's an evolution, not a single, infallible truth or dogma. From what I can gather, the text I'm referring to suggests that post fermentation removal of haze forming compounds is an effective stabiliser, with some limitations and comprimises (as there are in most things).

As for belief - I don't believe anything. I read, I get ideas, I brew, I see what works for me. Brewing science is a big mysterious world in which i have an interest but I know 3/5 of **** all about most of it. It's an evergrowing body of hypothesis, theory and experience and on a much smaller scale, so is my brewing.

I'm equally interested in brewing culture and history.


----------



## jkeske (6/4/13)

I took part in the Basic Brewing experiment

I've posted this before, but it seems appropriate to add it to this thread

Style of Beer: Cream Ale
Type: All Grain on Direct Fire RIMS Brew Date: 7/01/2012
Boil Time: 90 min Brewhouse Efficiency: 85.00% 
Ingredients
Amt Name Type %/IBU
2100.00 g Bohemian Pilsner (Floor Malted) (2.0 EBC) Grain 1 40.4 %
2100.00 g Perle Pale Malt (2 Row) UK (6.3 EBC) Grain 2 40.4 %
800.00 g Rice, Flaked (2.0 EBC) Grain 3 15.4 %
200.00 g Wheat, Flaked (3.2 EBC) Grain 4 3.8 %
30.00 g Hallertau [7.50 %] - Boil 60.0 min 21.2 IBUs
20.00 g Hallertau [7.50 %] - Boil 1.0 min 0.6 IBUs
1.0 pkg Safale American (DCL/Fermentis #US-05)

*Separation** & Fermentation*
After boiling, the wort was whirlpooled then cooled with an immersion chiller for 45 minutes to let the trub settle. 3 gal of clear wort was siphoned into the first fermenter. The remaining wort was then stirred to rouse the trub off the bottom of the boil kettle and 3 gal were siphoned into the second fermenter. I estimate that 2/3 of the trub was carried over into the second fermenter. Both fermenters were aerated and pitched with 7g of dry US-05 yeast . The fermenters were then placed in a temperature controlled water bath and fermented at 18c. The OG of both samples was 1.048. Overall the "Trub" sample showed a stronger fermentation. It showed fermentation activity sooner, finished fermenting sooner and had a slightly lower FG than the "Clear" sample



 

Pic1 The picture on the left shows samples taken directly after the wort was put in the fermenters. The Trub sample is noticeably more turbid. The picture on the right was taken 2 hours later. The trub has begun to settle out forming a layer on the bottom of the Trub sample

*Differences in the beer visually*
There was no difference in the head retention/volume, but there was a clear difference in the clarity. The "Clear" sample was cloudy whereas the "Trub" sample was clear



 

Pic2. The "Trub" sample is much clearer than the "Clear" sample

*Tasting results*
My results: I completed 2 separate triangle tests 1 week apart. Because of the obvious visual difference I used white plastic cups which didn't allow me to identity differences in the clarity of the beers. In both tests I was able to correctly identify the odd beer and correctly identify which beer was the Clear sample and which was the Trub. The taste was very similar, and it is hard to pinpoint the exact flavor difference. The only way I can describe it is that the Clear sample had a bit of an aftertaste (astringent might be the best description) and the Trub sample tasted cleaner. I think watching the side by side fermentation gave me some preconceptions on potential differences in the beers which is what allowed me to identify the slight difference in taste. 

Additional results: I had 9 other people complete triangle tests. The participants ranged from other home brewers to people who rarely drink beer, and none of them had any knowledge of the difference in the beers before the test. Of the 9 participants 4 of them correctly identified the odd beer in the test. This is slightly higher than random (you would expect 1/3 to get it correct by just guessing), but I think the only conclusion I can make from this is that there are no strong differences in the taste of the 2 beers. 

*Conclusion*
The sample with the trub had a stronger fermentation, was clearer and, to me, tasted better, but the taste panel found no significant difference in the taste of the 2 beers.


----------



## Crusty (6/4/13)

Great test jkeske & for me, no surprises with those results.
What we were led to believe to make great beer at home is highly debatable & I think we need to look really hard at the competition results all around the country. It proves beyond any doubt in my mind, that a turbid wort to the boil kettle along with fermenting on the break material & no chilling can & does produce exceptional award winning beers.


----------



## Lurks (6/4/13)

Regarding Kühbeck, Back and Krottenthaler (2006) review paper linked earlier, and some of the papers that are reviewed in that paper, this seems to concentrate on a degree of lauter turbidity as quite distinct from brewing with hot break. 

Also the above review appeared in a 2006 issue of the journal of the institute of brewing. In effect it was a literature review before the author's own study that appeared directly after. http://www.endoc.net/PDF2/0424.pdf

To put all of this in context in a paraphrase. There is no literature on brewing on hot break, all of these studies remove it. The authors state that lauter turbidity helps fermentation, which should be obvious by now, but the total compounds involved in the process are fairly low because they're removing the hot trub.

What can we take from this? Well, this study shows much benefit in turbid wort, assuming something gets into the beer which doesn't get removed in the hot break. That seems to be the same benefits discussed in this round of experiments on the podcast and so on. The literature has strengthened my intuition that it would not be necessary to stick all the hot break in to get the same benefits. The above study showed that a turbid lauter but removing the break resulted in low levels of staling and oxidation. It was there, but it was low.

I think this suggests that it's helpful to suck up *some* break. I'd be worried that long term staling is still a risk if you chucked the lot in. 

(I tapped up something like this earlier and then thought it was too nerdy to post and cancelled... but since we've taken this turn...)


----------



## treefiddy (6/4/13)

It's not exactly what people are after, but it's more useful than anecdotes.
The non-turbid wort whirlpools well, allowing for effective separation of break material.
The turbid wort doesn't whirlpool so well, allowing hot break into their fermentation vessel.
Close enough.


On a side note:

Crompton, I. E. and P. K. Hegarty (1991). "*The importance of polyphenols in cold break formation*." _Proc. Congr. - Eur. Brew. Conv. 23rd_(Copyright (C) 2013 American Chemical Society (ACS). All Rights Reserved.): 625-632.

Abstract: The pptn. of protein-polyphenol complexes is of considerable importance in the brewing process, resulting in the formation of both hot and cold break. Excessive cold break can lead to problems, such as off-flavors, poor fining and hindrance of accurate control of yeast pitching rate. The chem. characterization of hot and cold break is described. The factors which influence the quantity of cold break formed are described. Wort polyphenols are a major factor influencing cold break formation; removal of polyphenols from hot wort prior to cooling minimizes the amt. of cold break formed.

These guys reckon excessive cold break leads to problems, but that's not why I've posted this.

It looks like the inclusion of hot break helps cold break formation.
No chillers (and plate chillers to an extent) do their thing after separation of hot break (whirlpool), meaning that their cold break precipitation/separation could be less than optimal.
Whirlpool immersion chillers would get maximum precipitation of hot/cold break from wort.

So if you no chill and want to get rid of as much break material as possible, you should include more break material?


----------



## Lurks (7/4/13)

That's very very interesting that hot break helps cold break form. 

The literature seems to indicate that the mechanism for action in terms of enhancing yeast activity and dropping out of suspended proteins is based on particulates of various sizes in the trub. Which is also how pvpp helps. This is suggestive of pvpp in the kettle being (particularly?) beneficial to no-chillers and plate-chillers _if_ they are excluding all hot break material.


----------

