# Cold Break Experiment



## Bribie G (5/8/10)

Cold break is good, cold break is bad, I wish I had a hundred dollars for every time this discussion pops up on forums. My experiment today, with my double urn BIAB setup, is to do two identical brews then no chill them overnight. Tomorrow I'll pour the top half of each cube into a fermenter and the rest into the other fermenter.
So one will get little or no CB, the other will get all of it. 

4000g Galaxy Pale Pilsener
1000g Rice
330g Carapils 

20g Northern Brewer GER 60 mins
30g Saaz 10 mins

S-189 Lager yeast.

So lets sort the sheep from the goats.


----------



## Nick JD (5/8/10)

I put my cold break on my Weetbix.


----------



## MeLoveBeer (5/8/10)

Looking forward to seeing the results for this one.


----------



## tavas (5/8/10)

Sounds like a plan. Would be interested in seeing what results you get. I too am confused about whether cold break is good or bad.


----------



## hazard (5/8/10)

BribieG said:


> Cold break is good, cold break is bad, I wish I had a hundred dollars for every time this discussion pops up on forums. My experiment today, with my double urn BIAB setup, is to do two identical brews then no chill them overnight. Tomorrow I'll pour the top half of each cube into a fermenter and the rest into the other fermenter.
> So one will get little or no CB, the other will get all of it.
> 
> 4000g Galaxy Pale Pilsener
> ...



Well if cold break is bad, then no-one can use a plate chiller cause it all goes into the fermenter. But I know that many people do and still produce good beer. I have in the past just poured the whole kettle into a fermenter through a kitchen strainer, this captures hop residue but i assume it lets cold break through - hasn't prevented me from scoring a few places in brewing comps. So maybe rather than good vs bad it's a case of cold break no harm vs no cold break even better.

How will you evaluate results? A simple taste test? What would timing of taste test be? A potential pitfall of cold break might be long term stability - to test this you need to test (for example) after 1 mth, after 6 months, after 12 months. So if there is no difference after 1 mth you will still need to wait a while to sort out long-term effects.

But a good idea and will be interested to see results.


----------



## Bribie G (5/8/10)

Yup I'll 'blog' it on this thread, e.g. length and vigour of fermentation, clarity, taste, head retention, etc etc.


----------



## Nick JD (5/8/10)

Is it really a test on polyphenols? Question - will you polyclar?


----------



## Sammus (5/8/10)

who said it's bad? everything I've read says it's good...

also, I though that you barely even get a cold break no chilling, and furthermore, doesn't most of the cold break would remain in suspension for quite a while, even if it does form, I thought it took months to settle out properly.

I reckon it's hot break you should be testing, and may well be.


----------



## Bribie G (5/8/10)

Nick - Yes. As long as both batches are polyclared equally, the thing is not to do anything differently to what I normally do, except for the one test item. With cold break the argument isn't just about polyphenols, it also involves issues such as yeast nutrition, flavour etc.

Actually come to think of it, I won't be Polyclaring in cube, I'll be using that kettle fining we can't discuss on AHB  so the polyphenols, in theory, should mostly remain in the kettle trub.

Sammus - I get a lot of cold break no chilling, often I get an extra litre of clear hot wort out of the kettle that I put in a Schott bottle overnight and use for starter, and next morning there is nearly always a jellyfish in the jar  . I'll do it this time and post a piccie.


----------



## MHB (5/8/10)

A certain amount is beneficial, too much can cause problems, the only way to get too much would be to use high protein grain/adjunct, or perhaps to double the amount you get from an otherwise perfectly healthy wort which is just what this experiment may end up doing.

Fail to see just what you hope to achieve.

Bit like paracetamol a bit can be a boon too much will screw your liver, we already know that, neither outcome is neither outcome makes it intrinsically good nor bad, it's just a fact of life.

MHB


----------



## Bribie G (5/8/10)

The thing is with my new double set up, trying this out will take no further effort whatsoever. So why not. If anything, fermenter #1 will be a good demo of what a wort would be like if it had all the cold break removed (as recommended by Palmer) and therefore whether it would be a good idea to remove the cold break every time. At worst I'll end up with a not-as-palatable brew from fermenter #2 - using it up in some black and tans should solve that  
To actually encourage break I'll lash out on a few bags of ice from the IGA and do a more rapid chill than normal.


----------



## unrealeous (5/8/10)

Sounds like a good experiment Bribie. 

I put my hand up for independent taster, since out of all the people I'm come across on this site, I feel I'm the most impartial. I'll pm you my address when you can send a half dozen bottles of each


----------



## Thirsty Boy (5/8/10)

Sammus said:


> who said it's bad? everything I've read says it's good...
> 
> also, I though that you barely even get a cold break no chilling, and furthermore, doesn't most of the cold break would remain in suspension for quite a while, even if it does form, I thought it took months to settle out properly.
> 
> I reckon it's hot break you should be testing, and may well be.



Why on earth would you not get a cold break in no-chill? You do.

As mhb said, the general consensus is that cold break isn't so bad, but too much can be a problem. Which is handy, because cold break is damn hard to get rid of, home brewers who think they are getting rid of it by using an immersion chiller are (for the most part) kidding themselves. A lot of German brewers who are obsessed with "clean" tasting beer think that cold break makes a negative difference and take steps to reduce is - floatation, racking, etc. But mostly brewers leave it in there.

Mind you, anyone who is rep itching yeast from conical fermenters is getting rid of most of it by discarding it at cropping, so it might only be one brew into a blend that gets a fermentation that even had much cold break in it.

The notion that it is in any way "good" for the beer is arguable, besides with anything short of filtering your cold wort, you are going to have way more than enough left inthe wort for even the supposed good effects to happen.

This will be an interesting one I think Bribie... No-chill is probably one of the few ways to get rid of a decent proportion of the cold break. I reckon maybe leave teh cubes for a bit longer and rack the "top half" pretty carefully, you should get pretty damn break free wort, and teh other half will have a double dose. The sort of lager you are going to make will show up the difference if therre is one.

Blind triangles first please.... No use trying to work out what the differences are if in a proper test the tasters can't even tell the beers apart.

TB


----------



## Nick JD (5/8/10)

Thirsty, I'm wondering, are the polyphenols "locked" up in the protein of the cold break? 

Could it be that by no-chilling we can separate out the cold break completely, but in the time between cooling and pouring into the fermenter the dominant problem with cold break has still leached out into the wort?

I'm saying this because I have had hazy beers with _zero_ cold break poured into the fermenter. Has all my polyphenols come from hops (no hop material in fermenter and no late additions)?


----------



## mb83 (5/8/10)

Might it not be better to syphon off the top half of each cube instead of pouring?
I know when I pour from my cubes everything mixes back up again?

Cheers,

mb83


----------



## Thirsty Boy (5/8/10)

Nick,

Chill haze and cold breAk are essentially the same thing. If you were to chill your wort down to chill haze forming temperatures, the chill haze would be cold break (mostly anyway). So even though you got rid of all the cold break in your cube... Not all of it had formed, only the stuff that remained insoluble at the temperature your wort was when you transferred.


----------



## Bribie G (5/8/10)

mb83 said:


> Might it not be better to syphon off the top half of each cube instead of pouring?
> I know when I pour from my cubes everything mixes back up again?
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



I never keep wort in a no chill cube for more than three days at the most. If the 'experiment' leads me to prefer racking the wort off as much of the CB as possible, I might fit the cubes with taps to make this easier. I know a tap is one extra place for nasties to hide but a couple of days should be safe.


----------



## sandjeep457 (5/8/10)

Great experiment.
I am doing 12 litre half size BIAB batches and cool the Pot in the Swimming Pool (It is currently at 7 degrees due to Melbournes great weather). Takes about 20 minutes to cool to yeast pitching temp.
However, when pouring the cold wort into the Fermenter, I have about 30% of the wort in cold break - I pour the clear Wort off the top but there is always about 3 litres of mixed up cold break in the bottom of the Pot (I use 1/3 Whirlfloc Tablet). 

So very keen to see how you go Bribie Island man. It will increase my output a lot if I can pour it all into the fermenter.

cheers,
Sandy


----------



## Nick JD (5/8/10)

BribieG said:


> I never keep wort in a no chill cube for more than three days at the most. If the 'experiment' leads me to prefer racking the wort off as much of the CB as possible, I might fit the cubes with taps to make this easier. I know a tap is one extra place for nasties to hide but a couple of days should be safe.



My much-maligned kettle chilling lets me pour while seeing what's going on and in a smooth single action. I watch the cold break start to appear when there's about 2L left - I often keep pouring about a liter of this break material in (probably half the cold break) when I notice the hot break popping it's head up to the rim of the pot.

The two look quite different. Cold break looks like omlette and hot break looks like curds. 

A tap would have to be very high up in the cube to not draw the breaks out - it's not hard or compacted like yeast trub.


----------



## ekul (7/8/10)

I did the a brew the other day that had all the hot and cold break in it, it was the most vigorous fermentation i've ever had to date, there was bloody yeast everywhere. The last brew i've put down was the clearest wort i've ever had, i could see the bottom of the pot) and it still hasn't fired up yet.
This doesn't prove anything cause they were two different brews but i'm not going to be so padantic about not getting it in anymore, thats for sure.

I am interested to hear your result bribie.


----------



## Sammus (10/8/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Why on earth would you not get a cold break in no-chill? You do.



I guess its residual memories from reading Howtobrew so long ago. JP says it at the top of http://www.howtobrew.com/section1/chapter7-4.html

though his reference http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backi....2/barchet.html doesn't mention the need to rapid cool, at least I couldn't see it in my skim over...


----------



## Bribie G (10/8/10)

I reckon John Palmer is to a certain extent talking out of his whoopsie when he discusses no chilling methods. Also I bet he considers BIAB the work of the Devil :lol: 
Mate some of the 'greats' of the brew world such as the great Graham Wheeler and Roger Protz can get it wrong and the pom forums certainly let them know about it. Beauty of forums.


----------



## felten (10/8/10)

I wonder if that info has changed since the 1st edition of his book (11 years ago?), he's up to the 3rd edition now.


----------



## Sammus (10/8/10)

BribieG said:


> I reckon John Palmer is to a certain extent talking out of his whoopsie when he discusses no chilling methods. Also I bet he considers BIAB the work of the Devil :lol:
> Mate some of the 'greats' of the brew world such as the great Graham Wheeler and Roger Protz can get it wrong and the pom forums certainly let them know about it. Beauty of forums.



yeah am well aware of their fallibility, was just pointing out where I got the idea. After reading his reference I'm not really convinced as I was. But to be fair, BIAB _is_ the work of the devil


----------



## sandjeep457 (10/8/10)

JP does say to chill as fast as possible in the book I ahve - it is the latest version.


----------



## ekul (15/8/10)

I have set up an experiment of my own.
I also have a few litres of trub left in the bottom of my kettle. I know there is more beer there but it has so much break in it its not funny. 

Anyway, the last time i made a batch up i was going to collect the last 6 litres of break and let it settle. However when i got to the break a sizeable amount of soot from the side of my pot fell in so idecided not to collect it.

Just for laughs i collected a 3L bottle worth of the breaky material to see how much beer i'm missing out on. The 3L bottle settled into about 500ml break and 2L beer. 
After it had settled out i realised that i had a little bit of yeast cake left over in a 100mL measuring cylinder cause i'd just bottled. Thinking of bribie's experiment i decided to chuck that in. I've been away for the weekend but i just came back and it is fermenting fantastically. I will bottle it when its done and then let everyone know the results.

There are a few problems with this experiment though. 
1. A heap of soot fell in the kettle, i tried to miss it but maybe a little went in. This may affect flavour. 
2. I can't remember how sanitary i was with it all, i know the yeast cake bit i through in was exposed to air for a good hour at least, and i may have even sipped out of it.
3. No temp control for the 3L bottle, and its been sitting in a semi light place


Even if this experiment fails i will try again. If a wort with 30% break can ferment out with little worries then a larger wort should be fine. My only worry is when i harvest the yeast cake i will be collecting the break as well. 

Any news on your experiment bribie?


----------



## Bribie G (15/8/10)

Quick tea break at work so I'll be swift.

Running a bit late with the experiment, I've been tied up with comp brews. However I go tthe double batch done last night - a batch of XXX golden lager of the Castlemaine Perkins persuasion 

This morning the bulk of the clear wort with some cold break went into ferm 1 and the reast into ferm 2, I'm fermenting it mid ale temp with S-189 so monitoring, and should have something to report in next few days. 

Cheers
BribieG


----------



## rich_lamb (15/8/10)

Good work Bribie, the more experimentation the better, and I hope we learn something from this one.

I'm not sure if we aren't all talking around different things on the subject of cold break. My understanding from my own brewing is that you want to precipitate as much of it as possible prior to and during the ferment, to reduce haze, increase stability and most importantly improve flavour in the final beer.
Having the break present in the fermenter should have no large effect.
I've definitely noticed reduced break and lower flavour quality in my beer since going to no-chill about 2 years ago, and I'll be going to a plate chiller soonish, not to remove the break from the fermentor but to precipitate it.

Now, this assumes there is some theory to removing the break from suspension by the speed of chilling (?). If that's the case then this experiment may not show up much as with no-chill you won't separate out much of the break in the space of a day or two (there will still be a lot either dissolved or in suspension).
So I eagerly await your results!

Oh, like the new avatar - haven't been on for a while so it's new to me.


----------



## Bribie G (16/8/10)

Day 2
16 degrees.


#1 good krausen, almost white like the head on a beer
#2 good krausen, fair amount of brown / tan crud in the krausen as can be expected

If cold break is a good yeast booster, interested to see which one finishes first. So far the krausens are running neck and neck.


----------



## ekul (17/8/10)

I thought i'd updated my experiment but apparently i haven't. The 3L bottle i had my experiment in exploded! I Had squeezed all the air out in the morning and must've sealed the lid on too tight. When i came back a few hours later there was only a mess remaining. So it must've been fermenting pretty hard to break the plastic.

I am gong to repeat this experiment in more sterile condtions with temp control. Then i will bottle and post tasting results. My beer will contain 30% break (both) and the rest wort.

I'm going to use the rest of the break to play around with trying to make it floc harder, sick of losing all that good waort mixed up in the break.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (17/8/10)

Ekul - just slightly off track here, but relevant for your sentiments if not your intentions with this experiment.

Take your break/beer mixture, pour it into a funnel with a tea towel lining it, recirc a little till it runs bright, walk away for teh hour or so it will take to filter through.

Quick re-boil of the wort to sterilize and you have perfect starter, force test etc etc wort to play with.

Did it for ages.

TB


----------



## MitchDudarko (17/8/10)

I can't wait to see the results of this one.


----------



## haysie (17/8/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Blind triangles first please.... No use trying to work out what the differences are if in a proper test the tasters can't even tell the beers apart.
> 
> TB



I agree with blind first, no final gravities known of course, as i assume the yeast count isnt accurate between the two. My betting brain says the cold break cube wins only for the 50 50 reasoning, my brewing brain says cold break will win, its a nutrient, a flocca of shite and with that in mind. lower f/g`s.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (18/8/10)

Yep, and proper triangle ones too... Preferably with multiple tasters and multiple rounds of tasting. Crunch the numbers... If the tasters can tell them apart statistically more often than chance... Then the beers are meaningfully different. Then you can start tasting and asking how and why they are different (of course ignoring the opinion of any tasters who weren't able to do better than chance on the triangle tests)


----------



## jayse (18/8/10)

BribieG said:


> Snipped>
> ... I'll be using that kettle fining we can't discuss on AHB



What? unless its made from sunn bears or something else illegal or maybe morally wrong I can't see why such a thing can be.

I don't expect a response as I am sure what ever the reason its complete bullshit. Is the reason simply because it causes the idiots to pipe up and post the ussual slanging matches?

Either way i don't really care, sorry for the off topic just thought it stupid.

Good luck with the experiment, you can send a bottle of each this way if you want any extra feedback.

Cheers
Jayse


----------



## Bribie G (23/8/10)

Primary finished, I raised the beers to 19 degrees for a couple of days then into cubes for a couple of weeks of lagering. 

To recap, #1 is the little or no cold break, #2 got a lot more.

During fermentation, both beers kept perfect pace with each other, bloop for bloop through the airlocks (yes I know we are talking kittens airlocks here but I have a good seal)  
Both have attenuated identically to just at tad below 1010.

Most noticeable is the layer of cake on the bottom. 

#2 would have to have at least twice the sludge in the bottom of the fermenter.







And on racking to lagering cube, the resulting difference in yield is quite noticeable.






There is a slight difference in taste, at this stage. #1 seems to be a bit sharper and dryer, #2 seems somehow "fuller" and more bready. Early days. 

So it's obvious that the yeast cake is not just yeast, it contains a lot of ex-cold-break material. So with a typical AG brew, if you pitch yeast cake you are not just pitching yeast, you are also pitching some second hand cold break debris - which bears thinking about. 
The "good yeast nutrient" theory doesn't seem to be borne out here, the two beers fermented and attenuated in tandem, to virtually identical gravity.

So at the current stage : all I can conclude from this so far is that cold break steals green beer volume.
It's very hard to remove cold break from a single brew as it's quite fluffy.
However when it's been through a fermentation it seems to 'curdle' and become far more flocculent. Here's a pic of the glass of sludge I drew off to "clear the throat" of the fermenter before running to lagering cube:






After 20 mins or so it's starting to form a distinct layer. So it's got me thinking that - until we see what the final flavour, clarity and stability is then an idea could be to (initially) brew a litre or more over the desired 'yield' to get a full cube for lagering, and leave the cold break-derived material behind when you rack to secondary or lagering. 

More in 2 weeks.


----------



## RobW (24/8/10)

BribieG said:


> So it's got me thinking that - until we see what the final flavour, clarity and stability is then an idea could be to (initially) brew a litre or more over the desired 'yield' to get a full cube for lagering, and leave the cold break-derived material behind when you rack to secondary or lagering.
> 
> More in 2 weeks.



That's what I do, except I lager in kegs. My fermenter volume is 25l and I draw the first 1 or 2 litres into a plastic fruit juice bottle, then fill the keg with the clearer middle part and run the remainder into a second plastic bottle. The 2 fruit juice bottles go back into the fridge to settle overnight. The clear beer can be poured off the break & trub and bottled normally (usually end up with about 6 - 8 long necks).


----------



## stm (24/8/10)

Excellent work to date Bribie.

"So at the current stage : all I can conclude from this so far is that cold break steals green beer volume"

Not really because you got a lot more volume into the fermenter(s) by chucking in all the wort including break material. Less wort loss but more trub loss.


----------



## bcp (24/8/10)

BribieG said:


> So it's obvious that the yeast cake is not just yeast, it contains a lot of ex-cold-break material. So with a typical AG brew, if you pitch yeast cake you are not just pitching yeast, you are also pitching some second hand cold break debris - which bears thinking about.
> The "good yeast nutrient" theory doesn't seem to be borne out here, the two beers fermented and attenuated in tandem, to virtually identical gravity.



Help me understand your conclusion... 
You're attributing the higher yeast cake to a 'lot of ex-cold-break material' because:
i. The yeast cake is bigger, and
ii. They fermented at the same rate & to the same attenuation?

Are there alternative hypotheses? Such as... well let me try one - 
* Yeast apparently consumes cold break (but i don't know if that means some components of it or all of it)
* Therefore there could actually be more yeast and reduced quantities of cold break
* But the additional yeast for another undetermined reason didn't result in a faster fermentation or greater attenuation. (eg, new yeast busy with cold break, same oxygen levels meant it couldn't attenuate further...)

Is that also still wildly possible? 

Of course your original conclusion sounds far more likely, i'd just love to know what's really happened to the cold break - whether it's still all there or something has changed. Without being able to put it under the microscope...


----------



## Nick JD (24/8/10)

_Brewing Science and Practice_ says that this is roughly what's in Cold break.

Proteinaceous matter 45-75%
Polyphenols 10-30%
Carbohydrates 20-30%
Ash 2-3%


----------



## hazard (6/9/10)

Bribie, how's the experiment going - any updates? In particular, I'm keen to hear if you notice difference in foam formation/ retention.

After reading too much stuff on the internet, I recently decided that i should exclude cold break from the fermenter. Traditionally, afetr chilling (immersion chiller) then whirlpooling, I rack as much clear beer from the kettle until I start picking up break, then strain remaining wort into the fermenter through a kitchen sieve. This keeps hops out of the fermenter, but maybe some break material gets through. So i changed my process 3 or 4 brews ago to this: after racking clear beer, I tipped the remaining wort + trub (about 4 L) into a sanitised container, then let settle in the fridge for a few days. Then decant clear wort off the trub and add to the fermenter.

Unfortunately my brewing is like my tax return - records are hazy at best. So can't say for sure which brews have suffered this process (I also find unlabelled jars of yeast in the fridge too, a bit annoying especially because I can't blame anyone else but me). Anyway, what I have also found recently is that my last few brews don't have any head. There is carbonation, and the beer will foam slightly on pouring, then its like a glass of coke, you can see the bubbles rising and hear them popping, but no foam.

Now as we can see from Nick's note below, cold break is mainly protein. And what is it beer that causes foam - protein! So I am guessing that total exclusion of cold break is leading to lousy foaming. 

To test this, last brew I went back to my previous process, made sure I got lots of break into the fermenter. Just bottled this on the weekend so will be a few weeks until I can verify my hypothesis, but hope to get some further dat from your experiment.


----------



## Bribie G (6/9/10)

I kegged the two on Saturday night and they are gassing up in the kegerator. As I kegged straight out of lagering at 3% it was a good opportunity to check for differences in appearance, they both looked identical in the glass and aroma was the same. Forgot to take a hydro reading for final attenuation, I can do that anytime with some flattened beer.

Again, I noticed that the cold break beer seemed to have somehow a 'fuller' richer flavour than the non coldie but it's too early in the piece and beers that have tasted like crap out of lagering have scrubbed up beautifully in the keg in the past. Also being a XXXX clone you can't expect too much out of flat green beer at this stage  What I want to do is take a couple of CPBF bottles of each to the next Bris club meeting Thursday fortnight and see if I can arrange a wee tasting panel in advance.

I'll post again at the end of the week with any less 'structured' findings if there's anything worth posting :icon_cheers:


----------



## beerdrinkingbob (6/9/10)

Hey Bribie,

Very novice question, I know what hot break looks like, well i think (skin etc that can be seen on top of the boil), not cold break though?? Is it the cloudy stuff at the bottom of the pot, I haven't been putting this in my brews but I'm loosing as much as 3 and 4 ltrs from 19. Kinda hoping the I have been leaving it out incorrectly! 

Good thread too, cheers mate :super:


----------



## unrealeous (6/9/10)

beerdrinkingbob said:


> Very novice question, I know what hot break looks like, well i think (skin etc that can be seen on top of the boil), not cold break though?? Is it the cloudy stuff at the bottom of the pot, I haven't been putting this in my brews but I'm loosing as much as 3 and 4 ltrs from 19. Kinda hoping the I have been leaving it out incorrectly!


Good pictures of it here - http://forum.northernbrewer.com/viewtopic....15c8aa59045ed96


----------



## Nick JD (6/9/10)

beerdrinkingbob said:


> Hey Bribie,
> 
> Very novice question, I know what hot break looks like, well i think (skin etc that can be seen on top of the boil), not cold break though?? Is it the cloudy stuff at the bottom of the pot, I haven't been putting this in my brews but I'm loosing as much as 3 and 4 ltrs from 19. Kinda hoping the I have been leaving it out incorrectly!
> 
> Good thread too, cheers mate :super:



If ya get some voile and line a colander with it, and pour the break + wort into it and wait for an hour the running collected into the bowl underneath it are clear, with a very fine break material at the bottom that did get through the voile. This settles out and you can pour off about 90% of the collected wort.

I pour it into a pot and bring it to the boil, cover it in gladwrap and when it's cooled, add it to the fermenter. Almost zero losses.


----------



## haysie (6/9/10)

unrealeous said:


> Good pictures of it here - http://forum.northernbrewer.com/viewtopic....15c8aa59045ed96




Those pictures look more like hop trob than break. Having a read though, he claims to have used flowers with a braided p/up.

Have a look here

pic 1 is very similar i.e hot break and hop trub, the next pic = cold break


----------



## BjornJ (6/9/10)

Interesting experiment, BribieG, thanks for taking the time to post it.
Just like your hop tea experiment it opens for interesting questions around the reasons for things we all do because we read it somewhere.
Not saying it's right or wrong to include cold break (because I have no idea :lol: ) but good work on doing the actual test.

When I brew I always throw out 2.5 litres from my 40 litre Birko Urn left in the urn after the tap stop running with the cold break.
Your experiment may open for using this in the fermenter, OR keep throwing it out because I have read it's bad to add cold break, hehe.

Let us know how it goes, looking forward to the blind testing.

thanks
Bjorn


----------



## beerdrinkingbob (6/9/10)

Thanks boys,

That's the Stuff, hoping even more now that the end result of this thread is a good one, for cold break I mean :drinks: 

Nick thanks for the tip too, Is the reason you boil it again so u don't chance infection, sorry if this take it slightly :icon_offtopic:


----------



## Bribie G (8/9/10)

Drinkin buddy from round the corner and I had a taste out of the 2 kegs - they are gassed now and running almost clear - and I didn't tell him they were from the same batch. They have definitely turned out as two quite different tasting beers. Identical colour and clarity, but the cold break brew has a lingering bitterness (not in a bad way) and somehow a more 'assertive' body and mouthfeel, whilst the non cold break beer is definitely lighter in body and less bitter. I wonder if the polyphenol-lipid complex which is Cold Break absorbs a lot of the AAs and hop oils which somehow get 'liberated' again during fermentation? 
The difference in flavour is almost analagous to having a swig of Coopers Pale Ale, then a swig of Coopers Sparkling Ale. It really hits you, and it's a hard thing to pin down exactly what it is.

Interesting tasting test at BABBs in a couple of weeks :icon_cheers: I'll have to get a few volunteers rounded up before the meeting.


----------



## beerbrewer76543 (8/9/10)

+1 awesome sharing of your experiment

it wouldn't be a credible thread without at least one +1 in it


----------



## Nick JD (8/9/10)

BribieG said:


> Drinkin buddy from round the corner and I had a taste out of the 2 kegs - they are gassed now and running almost clear - and I didn't tell him they were from the same batch. They have definitely turned out as two quite different tasting beers. Identical colour and clarity, but the cold break brew has a lingering bitterness (not in a bad way) and somehow a more 'assertive' body and mouthfeel, whilst the non cold break beer is definitely lighter in body and less bitter. I wonder if the polyphenol-lipid complex which is Cold Break absorbs a lot of the AAs and hop oils which somehow get 'liberated' again during fermentation?
> The difference in flavour is almost analagous to having a swig of Coopers Pale Ale, then a swig of Coopers Sparkling Ale. It really hits you, and it's a hard thing to pin down exactly what it is.
> 
> Interesting tasting test at BABBs in a couple of weeks :icon_cheers: I'll have to get a few volunteers rounded up before the meeting.



Top work, mate! I'm glad to hear there's a difference, could you keep a bottle or two of the kegs to taste test them both in say, two months? I think that might be where leaving cold break out might make a difference too.

Bob - yeah, I boil it because it sits on the bench for an hour collecting dust (with yeast and bacteria cities living on them) and sneezes.


----------



## hazard (8/9/10)

BribieG said:


> Drinkin buddy from round the corner and I had a taste out of the 2 kegs - they are gassed now and running almost clear - and I didn't tell him they were from the same batch. They have definitely turned out as two quite different tasting beers. Identical colour and clarity, but the cold break brew has a lingering bitterness (not in a bad way) and somehow a more 'assertive' body and mouthfeel, whilst the non cold break beer is definitely lighter in body and less bitter. I wonder if the polyphenol-lipid complex which is Cold Break absorbs a lot of the AAs and hop oils which somehow get 'liberated' again during fermentation?
> The difference in flavour is almost analagous to having a swig of Coopers Pale Ale, then a swig of Coopers Sparkling Ale. It really hits you, and it's a hard thing to pin down exactly what it is.
> 
> Interesting tasting test at BABBs in a couple of weeks :icon_cheers: I'll have to get a few volunteers rounded up before the meeting.


Intersting, will be good to see more results.

But back to my question in post #41 if i may - is there any difference in foaming properties?


----------



## felten (8/9/10)

have you tried the blind triangle test?


----------



## sandjeep457 (11/9/10)

Good, I like clean beers with no bitter after taste - so its not cold break 4 me.

thanks for the test Bribie man.


----------



## haysie (11/9/10)

I give a few stars to BG for the contribution. Alas the results are pissing in the wind arnt they? unless as felten mentioned, a triangular! 
I dont wear the bitterness for one minute as being fact, moreso to feed this thread. Too many variables to be taken serious IMO, . I read ithe thread and followed it and my thoughts were. waste of time n effort. Nothings proven, mostly heresay on the part of one lousy "experiment".
As noted in the thread by BG, the same volume wasnt fermented hence the yeast count is different hence the beer is different.
If I was to measure my cold break? at what volume and at what dilution should I bother FFS?

edit, the fullstops


----------



## Bribie G (11/9/10)

Same volume was fermented, but yield different due to bigger trub in #2. Initial yeast count would have been almost identical. 
As stated, results tentative until proper testing at BABBs meeting.
Pollux was up on holiday the other day and was very surprised at diff between the beers but as mentioned this is indeed subjective and preliminary findings.


----------



## BjornJ (13/9/10)

Pollux was there? Did he bring any "test bottles" back for the Sydney crowd? 

 

thanks
Bjorn


----------



## Pollux (14/9/10)

Sorry Bjorn, we didn't happen to think of that....

I have to say, from my subjective point of view I found the beer with cold break to taste a bit "meatier" it was almost as if the non CB was a watered down version of the CB one......

Otherwise the two beers were identical, head retention, lacing, level of haze (near nil) except the CB beer had in my opinion a slightly more copper tone.


----------



## Bribie G (24/9/10)

I took bottles of each down to BABBs tonight and about 7 people tried the beers without knowing which was which. It was not possible to do a blind triangle due to the nature of the venue but the general opinion was that the beers were very similar indeed but on balance most found the Cold Break one to be slightly more 'assertive'. As Ross pointed out, this could be due to the fermenter #2 getting the bulk of any hop material remaining in the cubes which could add a bit more hop flavour to #2. As the beers mature, subjectively they do seem to be less different than initially.

Aroma, clarity, colour, foam, lacing etc all indistinguishable but just that wee bit of a difference in the aftertaste and a very slight difference in mouthfeel. Which again could be attributable to more lingering hop in the cold break beer. I wonder as well if cold break, being a protein/lipid mixture might absorb a percent or two of hop oils etc, removing them from the clear part of the wort, that then get released back into the beer during fermentation?

I'm tending now to the opinion: "cold break? probably nothing to be concerned about".


----------



## bcp (24/9/10)

Bribieg, is there ANY discernible difference in head or head retention?

That's an association i've heard before, so interested to know.


----------



## Bribie G (24/9/10)

Nope, but working tomorrow afternoon / evening but on Saturday (both kegs are currently on tap) I'll scald up a couple of glasses till they are spotless and post a series of photos.


----------



## Bribie G (25/9/10)

Non cold break on left, cold break on right.

Non cold wins by a tad in the head retention department but nothing to get enormously upset about after a 5 minute rest. :icon_cheers: 
Edit as you can see in the first photo because I poured #1 first then #2, the head on #1 had sagged a wee bit in the meantime. 















Temperature 4 degrees

Palmer can bite his bum




edit: on the third photo taken with the door up to show clarity, you can see that at the 2 minute mark they were just about neck and neck.


----------



## bcp (25/9/10)

Interesting. I'm not sure i've ever watched a beer for five minutes like that, so i don't think it'll change my practice, which is to not put in all the cold break, but to not be real careful about keeping it out either. Thanks for checking that one out.


----------

