# BIAB: Tipping boil dreggs into the fermenter



## InterCooL (2/3/16)

Hi guys

I've finally purchased a Crown urn. I was previously brewing in a pot.
My urn has 3L of dead space at the moment. I may be able to reduce this with a pickup tube, but don't have one currently.
I use a hop spider to boil with.
I no chill, so I don't wait for 20mins for trub to settle before siphoning out.

So my question is, can I just tip the last 3L of wort into my cube? Or should I leave it there.

Thanks

David


----------



## InterCooL (2/3/16)

I should have added that I cold crash at the end of fermentation to try to drop most sediment out of the beer


----------



## nosco (2/3/16)

Trub in the fermenter doesnt matter but most people try to avoid it. It all depend on how you tranfer to the fermenter from the cube i guess. I couldnt be stuffed with a syphon so i just tip it in. You can still avoid the last 3lt or like this. You could make an extra 3 litres so that the 20lt you put into the fermenter is mostly wort. If you want 23lt of beer then maybe not.
At a minimum try getting a pick up tube. A 90 degree elbow is ok. Do a bit of a whirlpool and transfer really slowly at first and then open up the tap until the hose is full of wort. Try and resist opening the tap right up. Keep the lid on too as much as you can. You can still do a 20min wait even with no chill as long as the wort doest go below 80 c to be safe.


----------



## Rocker1986 (2/3/16)

InterCooL said:


> Hi guys
> I've finally purchased a Crown urn. I was previously brewing in a pot.
> My urn has 3L of dead space at the moment. I may be able to reduce this with a pickup tube, but don't have one currently.
> I use a hop spider to boil with.
> ...


Are you saying you simply switch the urn off and then transfer it into the cube straight away with all the shit still in suspension? Probably not the preferred practice of most...

I use a hop spider too which is actually a home made job out of a hop sock. At flameout I rest the lid on top of it, and it sits slightly above the rim of the urn so steam can still escape but it keeps heat in pretty well. I leave it sit 15 minutes before transferring to the cube; last time I measured the temp at transfer and it was still sitting at 92C.

I can easily get 25 litres of trub free wort into my fermenter out of my Crown urn doing this. Another thing I've done is ditched whirlpooling it; I just let it settle out by itself as I found with whirlpooling the trub entered the tap outlet sooner than it did without it. Sometimes I tilt the urn back so it settles away from the tap outlet. I can tilt the urn carefully forward to get as much clean wort out as possible before the trub begins to make its way into the outlet, usually by this time the cube is completely filled. There is a fair bit less than 3L left in the urn by this stage. I use 25 litre cubes, but I do have 3 20 litre cubes for my "keg only" batches (obviously when these are used the volumes in the urn are reduced to match).


----------



## MHB (2/3/16)

Trub (well lets say specifically Hot Break) does matter!
In fact it's one of the main reasons we boil a wort, link posted for the I don't know how manyth time The Function of Wort Boiling, by T O'Rourke
There are a bunch of other really good informative pages there that can be downloaded for free, mostly designed for people working in biggish breweries, but still well worth reading.
Mark


----------



## Liam_snorkel (2/3/16)

at a _home brew_ scale it doesn't seem to be an issue. Have a read of this:

http://brulosophy.com/2014/06/02/the-great-trub-exbeeriment-results-are-in/

and a listen to these (scroll down to the trub experiments):

http://www.basicbrewing.com/index.php?page=basic-brewing-brew-your-own-experiments


----------



## nosco (2/3/16)

It might not matter on a home brew scale but i reckon its still good practice and as Rocker said you should at least give the hot break time to settle out. I have noticed that it settles better with the lid on.
Not dreggs in the wort means it will clear easier and you avoid any chance of off flavours.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (2/3/16)

yep settles easier with lid on due to reduced convection currents. Leave the lid on while draining too. for the record I let mine settle & leave 90% of it behind in the kettle, but mostly because my cubes are 20 litres & I brew to fill 19 litre kegs. My broad point is that it is not the end of the world, and there is anecdotal evidence that there are no negative effects (at a home brew scale), at least in the short term.


----------



## MHB (2/3/16)

I have read a couple of the "reports" by brulosophy, frankly they aren't very good if you think of them in terms of brewing science.
The same process and reactions apply at any scale, we may be a bit less concerned about getting beer into a bottle that will still be sellable in a years time. But the effect of lipids and heaps of high molecular weight protein doesn't change with batch size.
If you were willing to do a bit of research on exactly what does happen when you leave too much of the hot break in the fermenter, I suspect you would insist on leaving it in the kettle.

Personally I have a lot of trouble understanding why people are so concerned about getting every drop into the fermenter, I would much rather have 19L of better beer than 20L of second best, but then I don't need the alcohol and I don't feel like I've been castrated if my better beer costs a couple of cents more, everything I have seen from brulosophy appears to be focused on cutting corners being lazy and getting pissed cheap - not on making better beer. 

Mind you, there is an ever growing amount of that sort of thinking here on AHB to! I suspect the number of people who are selling their gear, expressing dissatisfaction with their beer, having serious brewing problems is in large part related to this type of thinking.
It's worth following good brewing practice and doing the basic things that favor great beer, it isn't all that hard, it doesn't take much longer or cost much more and unless the alcohol is more important to you than the flavor - you will be drinking better beer.
Mark


----------



## Judanero (2/3/16)

Well said.


----------



## Rocker1986 (2/3/16)

I enjoy reading the Brulosophy blog, but I haven't changed anything about my brewing processes as a result of it, except for the yeast harvesting and the lager method (which works well for my tastes at least). I would rather have a little less beer that I'm really happy with, than a little more beer that I'm not as happy with.

I think a fair chunk of the reason why his experiments with differing methods appear to have little, if any effect on the beer is because they're all done in isolation, only testing one variable. I suspect those who are producing beers that are less than great are doing 3 or 4 or 5 different things badly, and these combine to produce a shitty outcome, whereas one in isolation may not.

The problem is though, that despite him actually writing on the blogs to basically take it with a grain of salt, some people will read all these experiments and figure well, doing that doesn't have a negative effect, neither does doing this, that and the other thing... then combine them all in one batch and end up wondering why the beer turned out badly.

Recommended brewing practices are based on proper scientific research and testing (hopefully anyway), which I trust over a few anecdotes.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (3/3/16)

MHB, nobody described it as science. Similar comments were made about BIAB and no-chill, but look how they've taken off. Any chance you could point us to actual research into the effects of fermenting on hot break?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (3/3/16)

Last time this topic came up:
http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/71545-fermenting-on-hot-break/
Enlightening, non-conclusive thread.


----------



## RobW (3/3/16)

The one and only time I let any hot break get into the fermenter the final beer was very average.
It had a nasty harsh taste that I've never found any other time.
The rest of the process was as normal.


----------



## MHB (3/3/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> MHB, nobody described it as science. Similar comments were made about BIAB and no-chill, but look how they've taken off. Any chance you could point us to actual research into the effects of fermenting on hot break?





Liam_snorkel said:


> Last time this topic came up:
> http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/71545-fermenting-on-hot-break/
> Enlightening, non-conclusive thread.


In reverse order, this is far from the first time this question has come up since the middle of 2013. Since then there has been plenty of discussion about the effect of hot break on beer and if you are really interested, rather than just trying to be lazy, pull out the old finger and do some reading for yourself - at least that way you might be able to place some value on the conclusions you reach, rather than just looking for some way to get around working toward good beer.

As for BIAB and No Chill, yes I remember the discussions around both as they were being developed, I like to think I among others contributed to the development of both processes. Both work and they work because they fall within good brewing practice. There is however a point that I would like to make.

There are consequences for every decision we as brewers make! As I have said before "_everything ends up in the glass_"

Take a look at BIAB, in comparison to conventional 3V systems or more advanced well designed recirculating systems (I brewed on a Braumeister for several years), its almost inevitable that more malt flour will end up in the boil.
This will (not might) will increase the amount of trub, as small starch granules in the flour will gelatinise in the boil there will be more Glucans and Starch in the wort. As the Glucanase and Amylase that are needed to modify these products have been denatured there will be an effect on your beer. It might not be large but it will be there; make enough changes and this and other changes do accumulate and you get a different beer.

No chill works of that there is no doubt. But how many threads are there on the effects on bitterness?
Some of our American friends have had issues with DMS that they don't experience when they chill quickly. Again the process affects the outcomes. If you understand a bit about the process of isomerisation of Alpha Acids, or the formation of DMS and its removal from wort these don't have to be a problem, but do requite that you modify your brewing process to achieve an intended outcome. Just using Low SMM Malt or Ale Malt rather than Lager Malt (especially 6 row) will reduce any DMS problems, but you do get darker beer if you use Ale Malt.

Over the last couple of years I have seen threads on home made malt (very questionable levels of modification and protein), short mashing times (probably gives more dextrin's), making 20L of beer in a 19L pot (without regard to the effect of L:G ratios on enzymes among other effects) short boils (affects bitterness and protein coagulation...) Turbid (opaque in some cases) going to the kettle, this one not separating hot break.

In and of them selves many of the process listed may not have a huge effect on your beer, but each will have an effect, accumulate enough change and there will be a big impact on your beer (generally negative).

Follow good basic brewing practices, use good ingredients, learn a bit about what the effects of your decisions will be on your beer and you will make better more enjoyable beer.
Mark


----------



## Liam_snorkel (3/3/16)

^ I agree, and never told anyone to disregard or avoid reading published brewing science.

The question was "can I just tip the last 3L of wort into my cube? Or should I leave it there."

the summary of responses in this thread are:
- it's not best brewing practice
- yes, you can, the effects on beer at home brew scale are inconclusive

MHB can you please point me to a published study on the effect of fermenting wort on the entire amount of hotbreak.


----------



## crowmanz (3/3/16)

Rocker1986 said:


> I enjoy reading the Brulosophy blog, but I haven't changed anything about my brewing processes as a result of it, except for the yeast harvesting and the lager method (which works well for my tastes at least).


FYI Brulosophy is no longer a single contributor, there is a team of homebrewers posting on the Brulosophy blog. Doesn't really change your argument, it is still a bunch of blokes testing individual parts of the process.


----------



## MHB (3/3/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> Snip
> MHB can you please point me to a published study on the effect of fermenting wort on the entire amount of hotbreak.


If you start with the link I posted above, just take a look at the bullet points above the opening paragraph




There are only 4 and I don't think there is anyone here that would argue with the other three.
The second one - Reduce the amount of congealable Nitrogen... Is what we are talking about. If you dump hot break into the fermenter some of the high MW protein will go back into solution, depending on the time,temperature and point in the process will affect how much. but as one of the main reasons we boil a wort is to reduce it, it make very little sense to allow it to go back into the wort.

The article is referenced, and to that list I would add Technology Malting and Brewing - Kunze and Foam by Charlie Bamforth, that's about $400 worth of books there and I an not lending you mine (too many missing books)

I don't know what more I can do for you, I'm not suggesting that one leave too much good wort in the kettle, (invest in a pick up tube) but strongly recommend that we leave the crap in the bottom of the kettle where it belongs.

If you or anyone else wants to learn more, invest in some good brewing text books, read all the relevant FREE IBD learning resources, go do a brewing class run by someone who knows what they are talking about - stop reading opinion by people whose only qualification is an ability to drink anything with ethanol in it and repeating it like its anything other than an ill-founded opinion.
Mark

Sorry, starting to get pissed off with the same crap endlessly recirculating, the BS here is getting too deep, might be time to go back into hibernation. DO THE BASICS RIGHT and you will make better beer.
M


----------



## Liam_snorkel (3/3/16)

so how much of the precipitated nitrogen compounds are reabsorbed during fermentation, and would the use of PVPP (or bentonite?) flocculant post fermentation take care of that?
The current answers to OP's question remain:
will my beer be ruined: no
will MHB be angry: yes


----------



## Barge (3/3/16)

MHB said:


> If you start with the link I posted above, just take a look at the bullet points above the opening paragraph
> Capture.JPG
> 
> If you dump hot break into the fermenter some of the high MW protein will go back into solution, depending on the time,temperature and point in the process will affect how much.
> M


This is where I have an issue. I agree that a function of wort boiling is to precipitate high MW proteins. I have seen no study that shows the solubility of these proteins as a function of temperature. I can find no published Ksp for these proteins. 

In my opinion your statement is speculation. 

I agree that there are plenty of studies that have looked at the effect of hot break turbidity on fermentation and that there is a negative effect with respect to stability. As far as I have read, that is the only impact but I'm happy to be shown otherwise. 

I think in the context of small batch brewing, long term stability is less of an issue. It is of concern to some brewers, some of the time and those brewers should be aware of the impact.

The assertion that brewers who choose to ferment on hot break are just piss heads who are looking to get drunk, cheap, is offensive.

The argumemt that you shouldn't ferment on break because that's the way it's done is about as unscientific as it gets.


----------



## InterCooL (3/3/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> The question was "can I just tip the last 3L of wort into my cube? Or should I leave it there."
> 
> the summary of responses in this thread are:
> - it's not best brewing practice
> - yes, you can, the effects on beer at home brew scale are inconclusive


That totally sums up my thoughts. I am completely lost


----------



## Barge (3/3/16)

The best advice I can give is to brew 2 identical batches, back to back. Same yeast, grain bill, hopping schedule, fermentation temp. etc but leave the hot break behind in one batch and transfer it all to the fermenter in the other. 

Taste the resulting beers. If you prefer the taste of one over the other then keep that in mind when you brew. 

For the record, I try to leave most of the break in the kettle. Mostly because, when I transferred the lot, I found that the sediment layer was very close to the tap and it was affecting the clarity of the beer. I could transfer to a secondary but preferred to leave most of the break behind to reduce trub in the FV.

I also use hop pellets without a spider/bag etc and prefer not to transfer the hop material as well. 

Finally, with a clear, clean yeast layer, I am able to harvest some good, clean looking yeast. Not that I've seen any evidence that repitching yeast mixed with break and hop matter is an issue. I just like the look of the yeast I collect. Shamelessly unscientific and totally aesthetic. 

I enjoy the beer I make, which is also enjoyed by people who know good beer.

Just try to keep an open mind and brew and read as much as you can. Stick to a basic recipe and make small changes here and there. If you don't like the way something tastes and you can identify the step in your process responsible for that, then there's not much more you can ask for.


----------



## InterCooL (3/3/16)

Thanks Barge, good advice

I'd like to do that, try the same recipe twice and see how it goes.
But then other people will probably say that it will also depend on the style of the beer, and other variables too.

In the end of the day, there seems to be far too many different styles of beer and recipes that I wish to try and I just get excited and go and brew a new beer all the time.
For example I just read "Radical Brews" by Mosher and saw a few recipes I want to try. But I had previously read "Bronzed Brews" and found a few there I want to try. Then I speak to my local home brewers club and they give me a recipe or two. Then they say "Oh you like drinking the Batch Brewing APA? Well here's a recipe you need to try:____"

So many brews, and only space for one fermenter in the fermenting fridge!


----------



## Barge (3/3/16)

I was the same.

In my first few years I never brewed the same beer twice. I learned a lot about beer styles but I think my knowledge and abilty to brew suffered as a result. 

After returning from a break from brewing I initially brewed a basic Summer Ale recipe about 6 times and played around with hops. I've done the same with a few different styles and the quality and consistency of my beers has definitely improved.

Members like MHB, Thirsty Boy and Doc Smurto bring a lot of technical knowledge to the forum and should be respected. Others such as Bribie and Qldkev bring years of experience in brewing as well. Take on the advice of these members. I certainly do.


----------



## Jack of all biers (6/3/16)

Whilst there is no absolutes in life, reducing the hot break content in the fermenter does do more than only reduce trub. On the balance of it all, one shouldn't argue that what MHB is pointing out is mere speculation and has no basis in proof. The articles MHB linked in have the answers:

*Extraction and precipitation of tannins/ polyphenols *
Simple hop tannins and most malt polyphenols are soluble in boiling wort and *moderately soluble in cold water*. Tannins/polyphenols are readily oxidised and polymerise to give an increase in molecular weight. Tannin/polyphenols also combine with proteins to form protein/polyphenol complexes:
• Proteins which combine with oxidised *polyphenols* are insoluble in boiling wort and are therefore precipitated during the boil to form hot break.
• Proteins which combine with unoxidised *polyphenols* are soluble in boiling wort but precipitate when chilled and can give rise to chill haze and cold break. The polyphenols may subsequently oxidise during beer processing and may produce *colloidal **instability* in packaged beer. Unprocessed hops contribute around 40% of the total polyphenol content to boiled wort, however *most hop polyphenols are removed as hot and cold break*. The rest of the polyphenols comes from the dry goods, (particularly the husk), and less polymerized and hence less likely to be removed.

I highlight *Moderately soluble in cold water *and* polyphenols *for a reason (see conclusion below).

Now in the article on Colloidial stablisation of beer from the same link given by MHB:

Professor J. De Clerck attributes three principal changes which occur in beer and which are brought about by the presence of polyphenols and tannins.
*• Increase in haze caused by the precipitation of protein substance.*
*• Increases in harsh or unpleasant after taste in beer *
*• Increases in colour, particularly following oxidation.*
The first manifestation of the loss of colloidal stability is observed as chill haze, which is a reversible association between small low polymerised polyphenols and proteinaceous material. The tendency to form chill haze progressively increases over time. Oxidation of some polyphenols – flavanoids in particular, lead to the formation of condensed (polymerised) products. These are active precursors in haze formation, leading to permanent (irreversible) haze formation (see illustrations below). To avoid colloidal haze production the brewer has to control the brewing by the selection of brewing materials and production and storage of packaged beer. These steps can be divided into:
• *Controlling the protein content of the beer*
• *Controlling the polyphenol content in the beer*
• *Controlling the physical conditions in the brewing process*

And in a later paragraph on *Controlling the protein content of the beer:*

The brewer has to strike a balance between reducing protein content to improve colloidal stability and affecting fermentation and beer quality. 

Under *Controlling the polyphenol content in the beer*:

The polyphenols from hops are generally highly polymerised and are precipitated with hot and cold break before filtration and hence have little adverse effect on beer stability.

And (thrown in for good measure as I'm a believer in cold conditioning);

Proteins and polyphenols form complexes at low temperatures, and hence are removed during cold maturation and cold filtration


And under *Controlling the brewing process*:


Attention to the brewing process can reduce the level of the protein and polyphenols finishing up in the final beer, thus reducing the *tendency to produce colloidal instability *


Now it's a given that there are two articles in full that go into far more detail about those points and others, however the above does summarise to the observant reader that by reducing the amount of protein break that gets into the fermenter, one reduces the polyphenols from hops and tanins that have polymerised to the hot and cold break. Now given that these are *moderately soluble in cold water* (wort is mostly water) then they can and will re-disolve back into the wort during the colder conditions of fermentation and can increase the chance of colloidal instability. For those that wonder what colloidal instability is, I suggest reading the above articles in full.

Now will your beer be ruined by having hot break in it, *NO*. But, understanding that it will be improved in stability, longevity of flavour, reduction of harsh after tastes and reduction of haze by reducing the amount that gets into the fermenter is important to an overall understanding of brewing in general.

My solution to the OP's question is that you could get that pickup tube you suggested, or you could siphon the bulk of the hot break out by siphoning or filtering it out. The simplist way to siphon is to use a kitchen sieve with a sterilised stocking leg wrapped under it and pour your wort through it. This is what I do and as long as you let it gently filter through you will get bright wort running out. This *reduces* (not eliminates) the hot and cold break (and hops too) from getting into your fermenter.


----------



## Barge (7/3/16)

Tannins and polyphenols are.stated as being moderately soluble. The protein-polyphenol complexes that form as a result of boiling are insoluble. Hence, they precipitate out. The article is saying that it is important to boil wort to turn the moderately soluble polyphenols into insoluble protein-polyphenol complexes. Once formed, I'm not convinced they will re-dissolve and have seen no data or evidence that supports that they will.


----------



## Bribie G (7/3/16)

As the OP does, I BIAB using a Crown Urn.

*Firstly, the rest after boiling.* My method has always been (and with the previous Birko urn)

At the end of the boil

Add a good dose of Brewbright
put the lid on the urn
Stand at the wall next to power point
When the steam starts to blow out of the nostrils and before a boilover
Switch off and set timer for 20 minutes then drain into cube(s)

My no chill cubes are religiously treated with Sodium Percarbonate and kept Starsanned between uses. The only cube infections I've ever had (three of them to be precise) were when I moved house and somehow the lids got cracked open a bit during transit. Normally I pitch within 3 days anyway, otherwise pop cubes (2x 10L) in the ferm fridge at zero.

*Hot break and general gunk reduction, and reclaiming wort from the dead space*

I always took it as a given that BIAB produces miles of trub compared to sparging or recirculating systems, and that's just a downside you have to put up with. Eminent forum members assure me that it's impossible to create a proper grain bed with BIAB because the wort instantly "channels" through the grain when you haul the bag, and the wort takes the path of least resistance. Most haulers treat the bag like they are mud wrestling a Nubian wench anyway. 

My last few brews I've challenged the notion and gone very gentle on the hoist... I have a pulley system ... and now get very little hot break or hop debris compared to my previous ... way hay and up she rises ... quick haul of the bag.
As described in my other thread I accidentally did this first time and was immediately struck by the difference. Also I no longer do a mashout but did a ramp to 70 on my latest brew (more later).

In order, these are the things that I find markedly different compared to my previous routine:


Coming up to the boil, there is a far thinner layer of dirty foam
When the boil breaks through and the foam is pushed to the sides of the urn the wort, instead of looking like soup is already clear
It is already starting to break, I can see right down into the wort.
At the end of the boil, adding Brewbright clumps it even further.
Previously Brewbright was absolutely needed to get any clumping.

Now, using the 20 minute rest, from a 24L total volume I can collect 21L of crystal clear wort into the cubes (My 10L cubes, as usual with cubes, have deformed a bit over the years and can take a tad more).

Then with gentle tipping I drain off an further litre into a Schott Bottle and put it aside, usually about half a cm of hot break drops out.

Posting the pic from the other thread, this is the result in the urn, around two litres:


You can see the urn bottom through the dregs, and it's been similar in the 4 brews I have done so far including latest Aussie Pale that I mashed at 64 then ramped to 70 but with a good rest before hoisting.
Urn dregs can be further cleaned up by running all the dregs into Schott bottles. As an experiment I did just that with my latest brew and got a litre of clear wort after settling, that I've currently got working in a starter.

So for the OP:


Best practice is to reduce trub as far as possible
Use hop straining method, a lot of the sludge is green shyte, especially in Aus where we mostly use pellets
Create grain bed by lifting very gently. Yes this is a grain bed.
Use Brewbright
Rest after boiling - if anything still lives in there I'll shake its hand and take it out for an Angus Burger meal.
Be a sanitisation Nazi with cubes, and try to pitch soon.

That way you should lose around a litre of wort to break.


----------



## Siborg (7/3/16)

I'm interested in this because of how my brew went down on the weekend. I've only recently gotten an immersion chiller after no-chilling for so long (need to buy a cube or two for no-chilling... I do miss it). Anyway, I'm using the Keg King RoboBrew, which is kinda like BIAB but the bag is a SS malt pipe (kinda like a dumbed down Braumeister). 

I brewed an APA, with a decent amount of hops (about 100g of pellets all up). Got a little bit of grain material in the boil (think I need a mesh of some kind at the bottom of the malt pipe aka braumesiter). Added half a tablet of irish moss. Whirlpooled. Chilled. Waited. 

When it came to filling my fermenter, the first thing I got was a tonne of trub, then it went clear (really clear - happy with that). But I had a shitload of trub, assuming hops and proteins, in suspension. These have all dropped to the bottom, but I'm worried about the health of the batch. I didn't deliberately pour that stuff into the fermenter, but there must have been so much of it at the end of the boil/chill that it was over the tap in the pot. I still left 2-3L of even more sludge in the bottom of the boiler which was tipped down the drain instead of into the fermenter. 

My concern is how the brew is going to come out. Like I said, I've only ever no-chilled in the past, and my boilers have been big enough to leave all the trub at the bottom and only grab the good stuff. I've never tipped the little bit of trub in the bottom of the cube into the fermenter either. So, if this turns out bad, I'm going to have to look at some enhancements to my setup/process to reduce the amount of trub material going into the fermenter. Or, I could just be worrying about nothing....


----------



## Liam_snorkel (7/3/16)

crash chill at end of fermentation to drop all that trub out.


----------



## Siborg (7/3/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> crash chill at end of fermentation to drop all that trub out.


I always do that. It's already dropped (they were quite big clumps) at fermentation temp of 19 degrees.


----------



## MHB (7/3/16)

Siborg
The extra trub is probably mostly Cold Break, which you wouldn't have had in the kettle unless you were using an immersion chiller. Cold break is very light and fluffy and takes a fair fraction of forever to settle, so its still floating around near the bottom and getting sucked out the tap.
Cold break is not really something to get upset about - unless there is so much that it starts to interfere with the yeast - this usually only happens with high protein malts or lots of adjunct (six row malt). A certain amount is important for good yeast nutrition.
There are squillions of different proteins in a wort, during the boil the bigger (higher molecular weight) proteins are precipitated first and should be on the bottom of the kettle along with a lot of other stuff that makes up the hot break (tannin's, lipids, hop debris...) there are so many different proteins in wort that we don't even look at them individually, just group them by size, if you look at the article I posted a link to, there is a graph showing how the various sized proteins are affected by boil time.
If there are too many of the high MW proteins in the fermenter, as the pH drops during fermentation and the yeast is looking for nutrients it will pick apart the break material, more of it (or fragments of it) and some of the lipids (very head damaging and contribute to stale flavours) will end up back in the beer. The other problem is called yeast coating, too much trub can coat the yeast and reduce its ability do make wort into beer.
Mark


----------



## Dave70 (7/3/16)

InterCooL said:


> Hi guys
> I've finally purchased a Crown urn. I was previously brewing in a pot.
> My urn has 3L of dead space at the moment. I may be able to reduce this with a pickup tube, but don't have one currently.
> I use a hop spider to boil with.
> ...


I allow for 2L of kettle dead space in Brewmate. Still hit my numbers and don't feel cheated for leaving some greenish brown sludge in the bottom of the kettle.
Never use to be bothered by it all that much but figured after going to the effort of building a wort chiller and using it, its pissing in the face of my own reason not to go that little bit extra and draw off as clean a wort as possible. Tough also as I'm impatient as buggery to get that shit squared off and inoculated. 
Just have another beer - and chill mun..


----------



## Siborg (7/3/16)

MHB said:


> Siborg
> The extra trub is probably mostly Cold Break, which you wouldn't have had in the kettle unless you were using an immersion chiller. Cold break is very light and fluffy and takes a fair fraction of forever to settle, so its still floating around near the bottom and getting sucked out the tap.
> Cold break is not really something to get upset about - unless there is so much that it starts to interfere with the yeast - this usually only happens with high protein malts or lots of adjunct (six row malt). A certain amount is important for good yeast nutrition.
> There are squillions of different proteins in a wort, during the boil the bigger (higher molecular weight) proteins are precipitated first and should be on the bottom of the kettle along with a lot of other stuff that makes up the hot break (tannin's, lipids, hop debris...) there are so many different proteins in wort that we don't even look at them individually, just group them by size, if you look at the article I posted a link to, there is a graph showing how the various sized proteins are affected by boil time.
> ...


Cheers for the info, Mark. Yeah, it's only my second time using a chiller, so I've never seen cold break in my brews before. We'll see how this turns out.


----------



## Benn (7/3/16)

What would happen if after cubing when the wort has reached "room temperature" you chilled the cube down to just above freezing? Would this create more cold break? Could the cube then be allowed to rise up to pitching temp before being transferred to the fermenting vessel and all the additional cold break be left behind in the cube, or will the cold break somehow re-absorb back into the wort once the temperature begins to rise to pitching temp?


----------



## MHB (7/3/16)

The "extra" precipitate would be mostly what is called chill haze - what we remove when we lager a beer (takes days to weeks to settle).
As with chill haze in finished beer, if you let the beer/wort warm back up it would promptly redissolve.
Looks like a lot dicking around to achieve not much.

Its really easy to leave the trub in the kettle, its quick and effectively removes the stuff that causes problems and keeps the wort components that we want in the wort to make good beer. I cant for the life of me see why its so hard to understand or why anyone would want to add extra trub to their wort. Trub separation is one of the basic brewing processes preformed in every brewery in the world. Just do the basics right, if you are having a quality issue you might need to refine your processes, but get the basics right first!
Mark


----------



## Barge (7/3/16)

MHB said:


> If there are too many of the high MW proteins in the fermenter, as the pH drops during fermentation and the yeast is looking for nutrients it will pick apart the break material, more of it (or fragments of it) and some of the lipids (very head damaging and contribute to stale flavours) will end up back in the beer.
> Mark


This is the bit I'm interested in. I haven't found anything that explains this. I would love to read about it. Also, why isn't cold break a problem? Wouldn't the yeast just pick this apart also?

I understand that you may not be able to provide a link to this but do you have a source for this information so I can read it for myself?


----------



## MHB (7/3/16)

Barge
I just went and re-read the relevant section in Kunze, that is my go to reference for anything technical. I know its expensive and very biased toward big lager brewing but it really is my brewing bible, if you are interested enough to buy one it will I believe repay the investment over and over.

We want (NEED) a certain amount of protein in the wort for good yeast nutrition, the amount you get from cold break is more than enough, if you were trying to make something down the Becks end of the scale, maybe a more than too much.

The size of the protein and what yeast can drag across its membranes determines how the yeast handles different proteins, like if it finds Sucrose in the wort it will excrete Invertase to convert the sucrose into glucose and fractose that are then imported into the cell and treated more like maltose, the yeast responds to its environment but the enzyme stays in the beer
One of the enzymes yeast can excrete is Protease-A which is a big head negative, remember that enzymes ones excreted into the beer just wander around breaking all the proteins that build body and head into peptides that don't help us at all.

Yeast also needs some sterols and fatty acids and zinc, enough of these will get through for yeast nutrition. But lipids aren't all created equal, some are good for the beer (or yeast) some aren't, the worst ones tend to be concentrated in the hot break. Some of these can literally turn to soap in the ferment (look up off flavour "Soapy") others can lead to very fast staling of the beer.

The big problem is when we try to look at just one part of the process, without taking account of all the knock on effects that will follow down stream. We really have to look at brewing as an integrated whole.
Mark


----------



## hotmelt (7/3/16)

Make yourself a trub ring like this. It's just a cheap bowl minus the bowl bit.Just as the trub breaks the surface place the ring with a pair of tongs.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (7/3/16)

ingenious!


----------



## nosco (7/3/16)

Wouldnt work with my element


----------



## Droopy Brew (7/3/16)

Great thread- learning a heap from this one, particularly from MHB.
Just to take it off topic for a sec (as it seems the OP has his answer), something you said below caught my eye. I have had this soapy taste in a number of brews but only from those that have used a particular batch of cascade flowers. Any chance these flowers may contain the lipids that can produce the soap flavour?


But lipids aren't all created equal, some are good for the beer (or yeast) some aren't, the worst ones tend to be concentrated in the hot break. Some of these can literally turn to soap in the ferment (look up off flavour "Soapy") others can lead to very fast staling of the beer.


----------



## razz (7/3/16)

hotmelt! That is sensational. Please upgrade your status from "partial man" to "ALL MAN"


----------



## Black Devil Dog (7/3/16)

hotmelt said:


> Make yourself a trub ring like this. It's just a cheap bowl minus the bowl bit.Just as the trub breaks the surface place the ring with a pair of tongs.


You've just reduced 'loss to trub' to about 0.5 litres.

Thanks for doing that.


----------



## Barge (7/3/16)

Thanks for that Mark. It certainly is a better explanation than substances that were rendered insoluble will re-dissolve. I will have to consider getting a copy of Kunze and reading up on it. I still think that, for my beers, it's less of an issue as I tend to brew beers that are best consumed fresh. Good to know the actual biochemistry though.


----------



## manticle (7/3/16)

InterCooL said:


> Hi guys
> 
> I've finally purchased a Crown urn. I was previously brewing in a pot.
> My urn has 3L of dead space at the moment. I may be able to reduce this with a pickup tube, but don't have one currently.
> ...


Why can't you let the wort settle? I no chill and let the wort settle first. Still 80 odd degrees after 40 minute rest.

3 L of overall trub isn't much*. If you really need to maximise wort recovery, run the last few litres into an alternative vessel (clean, sanitised), allow to settle, decant that off the trub when sttled and cool, reboil and use as starter wort or in a bitsa keg.
The gunk is gunk and as much as people argue (against well documented evidence) that the gunk does little/no harm, I've certainly never read that it does any good.

I recover wort (clear) from the trub to use in starters but I still leave the majority of trub behind (goes into the compost eventually so still useful).

*batch volume dependent - I am presuming 20ish L batch.


----------



## mashhammer (7/3/16)

hotmelt said:


> Make yourself a trub ring like this. It's just a cheap bowl minus the bowl bit.Just as the trub breaks the surface place the ring with a pair of tongs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Holtmelt

When you say "a bowl minus the bowl bit", did you mean cut the bowl in half?


----------



## Jack of all biers (7/3/16)

Barge said:


> Thanks for that Mark. It certainly is a better explanation than substances that were rendered insoluble will re-dissolve. I will have to consider getting a copy of Kunze and reading up on it. I still think that, for my beers, it's less of an issue as I tend to brew beers that are best consumed fresh. Good to know the actual biochemistry though.


Proteins rendered insoluble can be rendered soluble again. It's generally a matter of pH and amount of time. The different protein molecules normally repel one another as they have different charges with some being hydrophobic (repel water) and others not (soluble). Protein molecules in the boil coagulate due to heat and pH affects on them making the individual protein molecules chemically bind into larger protein coagulates. These protein coagulates also bond with the polyphenols (husk and hop tanins).

The Isoelectric point of the protein coagulates, once rendered insoluble in the boil is about 4.9 pH. Anything one side or the other of this Isoelectric point (pH level) adds H+ or donates H+ ions to the surrounding molecules. This means that given enough time at pH ranges away from this Isoelectric point the proteins will again begin to repel one another and at the same time release the polyphenols. Obviously such reactions are complex and are reliant on factors such as pH and time. 

So most worts post boil are 5.1 to 5.3 pH and are brewed out within 7 -10 days reducing the pH down to between 4 and 4.5 pH. Sour beers will have a pH lower than 4 generally. They remain at that pH for some time. This means that the lower pH has X amount of time to work on adding H+ ions to the insoluble protein coalgulates

For instance a beer fermented out with a pH of 4 will break down the hot break protein coagulates quicker than a beer at pH 4.5. A beer at pH 4.9 will be much more stable, but even then there are other factors at play that affect the chemistry of all the molecules in a beer.

This is the science behind the reason for reducing the amount of hot break one should allow into the fermentor. Obviously other factors can reduce the amount of hot break and other haze factors (particulates) in beer (filtering/lagering/racking et al), but if given the choice, I'd rather not let large amounts of it in in the first place.

References are a plenty, but the two main ones relied on to write the above are; http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/An_Overview_of_pH and http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/How_pH_affects_brewing

If the conclusions that I have made can't be believed then so be it.


----------



## hotmelt (8/3/16)

mashhammer said:


> Holtmelt
> 
> When you say "a bowl minus the bowl bit", did you mean cut the bowl in half?


Sorry I missed a word out there.It was a cheap dog bowl cut along the top rim, but I suppose any bowl with a lip on would do depending how high/big your trub cone is.


----------



## Barge (8/3/16)

The braukaiser article explains how bringing proteins close to their isoelectric point during the boil causes proteins to lose their folded structure, exposing hydrophobic amino acids which causes coagulation and precipitation. 

"the main effect that a changing pH has is its ability to change the electrical charges on molecules. And that is no different with proteins during wort boiling.

But in addition to that, another structural aspect of proteins matters. Proteins are chains of amino acids that are folded into a structure that allows them to do their job in an organism. Some of these amino acids react well with water, they are called hydrophilic, while others try to avoid water and they are called hydrophobic. In water soluble proteins the hydrophobic amino acids are oriented such that they face towards the center of the protein and therefore can react with each other rather than with the surrounding water while the hydrophilic ones face outward.

When the protein coagulates its chain of amino acids is not broken but it looses its folded structure..."

There is NO discussion that this process is reversible at different pHs. I'm not saying that it doesn't. I'm just pointing out that it's not clearly stated that it does. We may infer that, with a change of pH, the proteins become more soluble. However, as their structure has also been changed, we don't know this for sure.

You need to be careful when you read between the lines. Again, I'm not saying excessive hot break is not an issue. I just haven't read anything that explains why it's an issue. 

If, as MHB offers, enzymes break down these complexes and release protein, I can see how that's a potential problem. 

Also, IF proteins become more soluble after coagulation at different pHs, despite having their structure changed, that could also be a problem. Does the protein structure change back at different pHs? Wasn't discussed by braukaiser.


----------



## MHB (8/3/16)

Barge
Lets turn this around, there is buckets of good research that says there is a right amount of protein and other products to supply good yeast nutrition, the right quantity of particular MW proteins for head and body, the optimum amount of and type of lipids for the yeast to grow new yeast, the amount of zinc needed....
If you or anyone interested read a book like Kunze these are all well defined in mg/L.

There is always some carry over of break material, both hot and cold, it is also well established that if you follow good brewing practise and take all reasonable steps to minimise hot break transfer there will be more than enough to satisfy the above requirements (in fact a lot of pale lager brewers take steps to reduce both hot and cold break) because there is more than enough.

Both more and less will have effects, negative ones, just like pitching yeast there is a well established optimum pitch rate, consequences for both over and under pitching. you or I can both choose how much yeast we pitch, or in this case how much trub we add to our beer but there are consequences. Your choice if you can live with them.

I was filling up my car last night, there was a sign that said I shouldn't smoke or use my mobile while filling the car. I could ignore that advice, I'm sure the exact risk of lighting up hasn't been empirically researched (shortage of volunteer subjects) so you could argue that it isn't really scientifically good advice.

If anyone wants to propose that a change to the brewing process as developed and well researched, I think they should be the one asked to present some evidence that the effect is at best benign or hopefully beneficial.

Lots of good reasons to think too much break has negative effects on beer V un-scientific blog by myth buster
May not have proved the case to your satisfaction but if you wanted to place a bet, I know where I would be putting my money.
Mark


----------



## Barge (8/3/16)

It's not a case of *proving *that keeping hot break out of wort is best practice. Scientists aren't in the business of proving. For me, it's the difference between doing something because that's the way it's always been done and doing it because there's evidence and an explanation as to why it should be done that way.

I don't like to do things for no reason. The reasons you gave around enzymes breaking down proteins makes sense. I'm looking forward to reading more of the evidence around this. The argument that denatured proteins will re-dissolve doesn't make sense. I would need to read more about it.

For the record, I haven't cited brulosophy as evidence. I'm also saying that excessive trub in the fermenter seems to promote premature staling and is possibly detrimental to head formation. I have noticed neither of these effects in my beer. As I've also stated, I now tend to leave as much break as possible in the kettle to reduce the amount of trub in the fermenter. I do this to produce a cleaner yeast cake for repitching and to reduce the amount of sediment so that it's not picked up during kegging. I advocate that brewers try for themselves and see what happens. If, in the case of a previous thread, they are producing 12L batches and lose 25% to hot break, they could consider fermenting on it to see if it has an effect. Some people are suggesting it MUST. I'm saying that it MIGHT.

I'm not saying that it's best practice or advocating that everyone do it all of the time because it doesn't matter. If the best practice of brewing is as well researched as you say, then it should be quite easy to explain WHY it's best practice. I'm not a believer in received wisdom.


----------



## MHB (8/3/16)

Frankly I think we have fundamentally different wold views!

I think there is no point in spending any more time discussing this further unless you can define exactly what you would regard as "Proof".
I would also suggest that if any brewer is loosing 25% to trub that rather than doing something that is (at least) probably less than best for the beer they look at their process. Advice on reducing trub loss to something reasonable would I believe be much more helpful.
M


----------



## schtev (8/3/16)

MHB said:


> Lots of good reasons to think too much break has negative effects on beer V un-scientific blog by myth buster
> May not have proved the case to your satisfaction but if you wanted to place a bet, I know where I would be putting my money.


Thanks for your intelligent input in this thread MHB. I've previously dumped the hot break straight into the fermenter believing it didn't really matter, but you've convinced me otherwise.


----------



## wobbly (8/3/16)

schtev said:


> I've previously dumped the hot break straight into the fermenter believing it didn't really matter, but you've convinced me otherwise.


Urban myth and shoddy single point so called testing/experimentation by Brulosophy have a lot to answer for in suggesting that brewing best practice can be overlooked in favour of quick and simple processes 

Wobbly


----------



## Barge (8/3/16)

MHB said:


> I think there is no point in spending any more time discussing this further unless you can define exactly what you would regard as "Proof".


As a scientist I don't operate with the concept of "proof" in mind. 

From here



*MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.*
*CORRECTION: *Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that _any_ idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.


*MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.*
*CORRECTION: *This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that _supports_ one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.

I operate on this principle. If there is so much evidence that explains why it is best practice, I don't see why it's so difficult to produce. I'm not saying it's not best practice, and I'm not saying there won't be issues. I'm just trying to understand why it's an issue (the biochemistry) and what impact it will have. As I've said, I typically leave the hot break behind for the reasons I've stated. Stability and head retention were never among my concerns. 

If schtev now decides to leave the hot break behind, all I'm asking is that he considers why and if changing his practice changes his beer. Is he doing it because someone says so, or because he's had specific issues with his beer? Is he doing just to see if it makes a difference? And if it doesn't would you keep doing it? 

There's nothing wrong with questioning the received wisdom of others and gathering empirical evidence.

Lastly, I'm NOT saying that brewing on hot break is a good idea. I'm just questioning it. If people questioning the wisdom of other's is so upsetting, then I agree that we indeed have different world views.


----------



## schtev (8/3/16)

Barge said:


> If schtev now decides to leave the hot break behind, all I'm asking is that he considers why and if changing his practice changes his beer. Is he doing it because someone says so, or because he's had specific issues with his beer? Is he doing just to see if it makes a difference? And if it doesn't would you keep doing it?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with questioning the received wisdom of others and gathering empirical evidence.


Well said I think. For me, I will try leaving the hot break behind for a combination of those reasons.


----------



## TheWiggman (8/3/16)

I get where you're coming from but I typically will run with common wisdom (first by determining whether I think they are wise) because generally if "that's always how it's been done" there is a very good reason why. I also look at what the big brewers do and where they spend their money, because they are not interested in spending money on useless steps because to the contrary, it is science that drives their practices. 
So I started with that - 60 min mash, mash out, clear runnings, 60 min boil for ales, chill, rack off leaving trub behind. Not because I researched heavily the effects of mash times, grain crush, starch conversion and enzyme chemistry etc, but because everyone does it. But now that I have a grasp on things, I might challenge that 60 min single temp rest for future brews and gain a better understanding of the chemistry as to why we typically go with 60 mins. 
Regarding trub, it's common practice, the big players go to extra lengths to remove trub which costs time and money, experienced professionals do it, thus for me who does this as a hobby that's good enough cause for me to follow suit. Plus the links posted provide details on the 'why' at a scientific level (or more to the point the chemistry, and therefore why by extension). I'm sold. 
As before, should it be removed? Yes. 
If it's all tipped in will I get away with it? Yes, but the beer will likely suffer as a result.


----------



## manticle (8/3/16)

I'm with the leave it camp because I've never heard a good argument for its inclusion as previously stated.
However Barge's questions are more than fair enough and I too am interested in the answers.
I don't own kunze (would be a very good investment for a club, expensive for an individual) but various texts by noonan, fix, de clerck and lewis/bamforth all suggest hb is worth removing but without a great deal of information why. I have some pdfs from other well established brewing science authors I'll read if I can find them. One author referenced in de clerck (kutter, 1934 I think) suggests the effect on flavour and stability is actually insignificant. However the same page mentions other substances in the hb which will negatively affect yeast function, including small amounts of heavy metals.

@MHB - I thought discussing brewing on this level, rather than 'can I add more sugar to get drunk'? would interest you.
To be fair to Barge, his/her questions have elicited detailed responses which multiple users have found informative and go way beyond the investigation level of brulosophy (something I also have little time for). I'm not going to be tipping my sludge in any time soon because I neither need it nor want it but reading, understanding and being more informed is exciting for many of us.


----------



## MHB (8/3/16)

I think I have demonstrated more than just a little interest in this question. I'm not going to sit down for a week to scan and post copies of every brewing text I own, (the mods would probably have to regard that as a breach of copyright and delete it) and well frankly I couldn't be arsed.
There has been more than enough reference made to good quality well researched information to satisfy anyone other than the willfully ignorant or stupid that there are no benefits to deliberately increasing the trub level in the fermenter. There is lots of information that suggests strongly that actively working to reduce the trub is beneficial.

The counter argument being that some brewers cant tell the difference.
Even on just a balance of probabilities, excluding trub would be the way to go.

There are plenty of references to research over the last 100 years where the fact that lower trub levels made for better beer and that, that could be identified by tasting (see Faults following). Once that has been established why would any researcher want to spend their career defining why (and it might be hard to get a grant), tho there are plenty of well known good reasons why we should exclude hot break.

Just for fun, I have posted this before
View attachment Complete_Beer_Fault_Guide.pdf

Press Ctrl F to open the search box and put in "trub" if you have the patience try searching "break" lots more mishits but some good on target ones to.
Another read
View attachment Lipids in wort.pdf

Mark


----------



## Jack of all biers (8/3/16)

Barge said:


> There is NO discussion that this process is reversible at different pHs. I'm not saying that it doesn't. I'm just pointing out that it's not clearly stated that it does. We may infer that, with a change of pH, the proteins become more soluble. However, as their structure has also been changed, we don't know this for sure.
> 
> You need to be careful when you read between the lines. Again, I'm not saying excessive hot break is not an issue. I just haven't read anything that explains why it's an issue.
> 
> ...


No braukaiser did not discuss reversiblity of coagulation or denaturing of proteins. As with many scientific papers, they assumed either knowledge on behalf of the reader or that the knowledge about reversiblity would not be needed or of interest to the point at hand. I used braukaiser because it was the best discussion on the point that I could use to show that such chemical reactions exist and are taking place in a very complex environment. There are other scientific papers out there discussing coagulation of proteins (non-brewing so you may not accept them as evidence perhaps?) Would you believe that a cooked egg (containing proteins) can have the coagulation of the proteins reversed? Most people would say, bullsh*t right.



Barge said:


> As a scientist I don't operate with the concept of "proof" in mind.
> .......
> 
> I operate on this principle. If there is so much evidence that explains why it is best practice, I don't see why it's so difficult to produce. I'm not saying it's not best practice, and I'm not saying there won't be issues. I'm just trying to understand why it's an issue (the biochemistry) and what impact it will have.


But as a scientist, you are demanding "proof" from the articles that are available on the internet (or books that others may quote) to homebrewers. You have received a plausable explaination from MHB that you seem to accept. But surely this is not a scientific approach. Such things must be peer reviewed and published in an accepted scienfific journal before they can be accepted as a hypothesis (not proof). Or no?

Below are selected quotes from articles regarding reversibility of coagulated proteins. No need "to read between the lines" as you so [SIZE=10.5pt]condescendingly [/SIZE]put it. As you are a scientist I would have expected you to research better than you have rather than relying on lay-men, although I expect you will still have a problem with the below because they are not specifically studies on the affects of break down of hot break in beer/wort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturation_(biochemistry)
Reversibility and irreversibility[edit]
In very few cases, denaturation is reversible (the proteins can regain their native state when the denaturing influence is removed). This process can be called renaturation.[6] This understanding has led to the notion that all the information needed for proteins to assume their native state was encoded in the primary structure of the protein, and hence in the DNA that codes for the protein, the so-called "Anfinsen's thermodynamic hypothesis".[7] One example of renaturation is that an egg white can be uncooked using vitamin C or sodium borohydride.[


http://www.pnas.org/content/22/7/439.full.pdf

Striking changes in the physical properties of a protein take place during denaturation. At its isoelectric point a denatured protein is insoluble, although the corresponding native protein may be quite soluble. It was the loss of solubility that first drew attention to the phenomenon of denaturation, and denaturation is now usually defined by the change in solubility. The denatured protein after precipitation has taken place is called a coagulated protein, the process of coagulation being considered to include both denaturation and aggregation of denatured protein in the form of a coagulum. If the denatured protein is dissolved, by acid, alkali, or urea, the solution is found to be far more viscous than a solution of native protein of the same concentration.7......

....The denaturation of certain proteins, notably hemoglobin, serum albumin, and trypsin, is reversible.'....

EDIT - Goes to my point about lower pH taking less time to break down the coagulation bonds. I didn't say it would happen in a week, but it will happen to some of the coagulated proteins (hot break). Reduce the amount of protein break and you reduce the amount of protein particles that can break down and release themselves on your beer.


----------



## butisitart (8/3/16)

for what it's worth, i've started (only last week) tipping the last 2L wort into a sanitized gooney which is lounging in an ice bath, waiting for the trub to settle (about 15mins) then decanting the top into fermenter. best of both worlds.

next week i will look at leaving the bottom half settle for maybe 24 hrs, decanting again and using the clean part as a nice malty yeast starter.

don't know if this is good or bad, so if anybody has an intelligent no to this, (eg mhb??), then happy to listen


----------



## manticle (9/3/16)

I do this all the time.
You are still leaving the shit behind.
The yeast interacts with compounds within the break to produce negative effects (haze, instability, etc) so recovering more clear wort should have minimal impact. Just be sanitary.


----------



## MHB (9/3/16)

butisitart said:


> for what it's worth, i've started (only last week) tipping the last 2L wort into a sanitized gooney which is lounging in an ice bath, waiting for the trub to settle (about 15mins) then decanting the top into fermenter. best of both worlds.
> 
> next week i will look at leaving the bottom half settle for maybe 24 hrs, decanting again and using the clean part as a nice malty yeast starter.
> 
> don't know if this is good or bad, so if anybody has an intelligent no to this, (eg mhb??), then happy to listen


Cant see any problems with it, would wonder if its worth the stuffing around and extra cost (ice is never free) and by that time of the day its getting very close to beer o'clock and I am not looking for things that take longer.
We are talking (in most cases) less than $2 of wort - meh, but no problems with the process
Mark


----------



## manticle (9/3/16)

MHB said:


> I think I have demonstrated more than just a little interest in this question. I'm not going to sit down for a week to scan and post copies of every brewing text I own, (the mods would probably have to regard that as a breach of copyright and delete it) and well frankly I couldn't be arsed.
> There has been more than enough reference made to good quality well researched information to satisfy anyone other than the willfully ignorant or stupid that there are no benefits to deliberately increasing the trub level in the fermenter. There is lots of information that suggests strongly that actively working to reduce the trub is beneficial.
> 
> The counter argument being that some brewers cant tell the difference.
> ...


I agree with most of this (although no-one is asking you to scan every reference you have or anything close to it).

If you read what Barge has actually written, s/he is not asking you to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt either. S/he is interested in the actual biochemistry of what occurs when too much hb is carried over.
That kind of curiousity is a good thing.


----------



## MHB (9/3/16)

schtev said:


> Well said I think. For me, I will try leaving the hot break behind for a combination of those reasons.


Asking questions is something I to would encourage. The counter being that people reach conclusions like the above in direst response to what/how Barge (mostly) has expressed his comments.
As someone who brews, studies and teaches brewing I suspect you have little idea how intensely frustrating it is trying to help people make better beer in the face of the type of thinking being demonstrated here.
M


----------



## Liam_snorkel (9/3/16)

MHB said:


> willfully ignorant or stupid


very encouraging.


----------



## Barge (9/3/16)

MHB said:


> As someone who brews, studies and teaches brewing I suspect you have little idea how intensely frustrating it is trying to help people make better beer in the face of the type of thinking being demonstrated here.
> M


There's nothing like critical, independent thought to get in the way of mindless dogma.

Essentially it boils down to brewing on hot break negatively affects beer but we're not exactly sure why. It is hypothesised that enzymes break down protein-polyphenol coagulates and that denatured proteins might redissolve with a change in pH and could maybe possibly re-nature, but there's no evidence for this.

I think that summary represents a reasonable argument to leave hb in the kettle. It's just a shame that we couldn't come to that without it being taken personally.

Why not be upfront about the issue? The affect of hb on beer is reasonably well understood but the mechanism by which it creates a problem is less well understood. 

Pretty straightforward to me.


----------



## butisitart (9/3/16)

MHB said:


> Cant see any problems with it, would wonder if its worth the stuffing around and extra cost (ice is never free) and by that time of the day its getting very close to beer o'clock and I am not looking for things that take longer.
> We are talking (in most cases) less than $2 of wort - meh, but no problems with the process
> Mark


by ice, i meant cold, or icy relevant to the 90C or whatever the wort temp still is. so icy bath is pure cold tap water. and it ain't the $$2. it's the 3 beers more in cupboard, or 3 less that i have to make at some future point, multiplied by the number of times i do it. the icy bath is well worth the effort from that perspective. :kooi:


----------



## Benn (9/3/16)

I've been following this thread with interest but some of it has gone over my novice head. However, yesterday I listened to Beersmith podcast #121 in which Charlie Bamforth discusses the boiling process and all the shit that goes on there in. Well worth a listen if your interested in this topic but don't quite understand the intricacies.


----------



## MHB (9/3/16)

schtev said:


> Well said I think. For me, I will try leaving the hot break behind for a combination of those reasons.





MHB said:


> Asking questions is something I to would encourage. The counter being that people reach conclusions like the above in direst response to what/how Barge (mostly) has expressed his comments.
> As someone who brews, studies and teaches brewing I suspect you have little idea how intensely frustrating it is trying to help people make better beer in the face of the type of thinking being demonstrated here.
> M


I owe schtev an apology, I misread the intent of his post (got it completely arse about) and overreacted.
schtev my apologies and I appreciate your understanding.
Mark


----------



## Blind Dog (9/3/16)

I will admit that I've not visited every brewery in the world, nor even a significant proportion of them, but I'm not aware of any commercial brewery that doesn't strive to remove as much hot break as possible, even if it means leaving wort behind. That seems to be at odds with their commercial imperative.

The adverse effects of hot break on beer stability, various off flavours and a successful ferment seem to be taken as pretty much a given in the brewing literature I've read. That said, my reading does tend to be confined to the simpler end of the spectrum given my chemistry education ended at high school many moons ago. 

I haven't read anything to suggest fermenting on hot break is a good thing. The only advantage appears to be a fairly small amount of additional beer, the loss of which I've already factored in. The potential downsides are numerous and, to my mind, far more serious.

I don't think adhering to advice given from a myriad of reliable sources is mindless dogma, it's just sensible. It can be questioned, and perhaps should be, but if the questioning doesn't throw up any good reason to reject or modify the advice, why do so? I want to brew the best beer that I can and until I can find a good reason not to follow advice given by Fix, Bamforth, the IBD and a host of others (at least to the extent that I understand it), following that advice would appear to give the best chance of doing just that.

Just my 2c

Edited for clarity


----------



## Jack of all biers (9/3/16)

Barge said:


> There's nothing like critical, independent thought to get in the way of mindless dogma.


Too true, but be careful that "independant thought" does not become the dogma. (Political opposition parties are masters of the negative argument and where does that get us) One must come to a conclusion at some point and often, good enough is good enough. That goes for hypotheses/scientific theories too. 

I'm not trying to personally attack here, but am going to call you on the below three comments you've made as being inconsistent.


Barge said:


> It's not a case of *proving *that keeping hot break out of wort is best practice. Scientists aren't in the business of proving. For me, it's the difference between doing something because that's the way it's always been done and doing it because there's evidence and an explanation as to why it should be done that way.


 I say that evidence and explanation has been provided on both points of protein denaturation and renaturation and on yeast attack on hot break and lipid release.



Barge said:


> As a scientist I don't operate with the concept of "proof" in mind.
> 
> From here
> 
> ...


You intimate that proof is not important. You quote that absolute proof is not particularly scientific. You quote that all science can do is reject or falsify hypotheses. You state that if there is so much evidence as to why it is best practice (removal of hot break) then why is it so difficult to produce, yet when evidence and explanation is produced you reject it as not being specific enough.



Barge said:


> It is hypothesised that enzymes break down protein-polyphenol coagulates and that denatured proteins might redissolve with a change in pH and could maybe possibly re-nature, but there's no evidence for this.


You then confirm that enzymes breaking down protein coagulates and redissolving of denatured proteins are hypotheses, but state that there is no evidence for this? Again I beg to differ that there is no evidence. Infact if you accept that they are hypotheses then given your above beliefs, there must be evidence. MHB and myself have provided evidence and explanation (as you required above) for the hypotheses. Surely given your beliefs and scientific background, it is down to you to come up with some evidence that these hypotheses are misguided or incorrect. Or at least do some research and quote to us some inaccuracies.

I am happy to say that I am wrong about the hypothesis if stronger evidence is found that debunks it. I am interested though as to why you seem to struggle against reasonable production of evidence again and again, when you seem to whole heartedly embrace the idea that Hot break should be kept out of the fermenter. It may well be the duality of man perhaps? 

Can you not see why MHB may have gotten frustrated?

Rage, rage against the dying of the light brother.


----------



## nosco (10/3/16)

Benn said:


> I've been following this thread with interest but some of it has gone over my novice head. However, yesterday I listened to Beersmith podcast #121 in which Charlie Bamforth discusses the boiling process and all the shit that goes on there in. Well worth a listen if your interested in this topic but don't quite understand the intricacies.


Just listening to it now. Good to hear he is going to put his lectures online. Have to wait awhile though. It did get me thinking about how much research info we get from big brewery's and universities. Do they keep it close to their chest (big breweries) or do they publish it? I remeber a vid on youtube that spoke with the researcher who developed BrewBright for a brewery. I use it every brew now.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (10/3/16)

Theory points to issues with staling, head retention, and off flavours. What's wrong with someone trying it and deciding for themselves if the effect is strong or negative enough not to do it? We're by and large brewing for ourselves & our friends, not putting beers on the shelf for sale where a 16 month old stale bottle is going to cause negative feedback & impact our business.
There's no point getting hot under the collar at the suggestion for someone to _try it for themselves_. I'll wager that medals have been won with beers fermented on hot break, ie the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## manticle (10/3/16)

No.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating (or tasting).


----------



## Liam_snorkel (10/3/16)

^ longer version of the same idiom. Yes.


----------



## manticle (10/3/16)

You'll make Bribie grumpy.


----------



## technobabble66 (10/3/16)

manticle said:


> No.
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating (or tasting).


Where's the evidence for this?
Or is this merely more of this commonly accepted hearsay rubbish?

I was reading on the Brulosophy site the other day that 85% of the 3 guys sampled couldn't taste the pudding, indicating this traditional practice isn't really necessary...

[emoji185]


----------



## butisitart (10/3/16)

if you lost your tongue through an industrial accident or as an in lieu payment for a credit card debt, you wouldn't be able to taste it anyway. does the brulosophy trial indicate if any of its subjects fit into that category??
there were a clinical trial (Eisnausen & Trubschnor, 1992) what indicated that eating pudding is proof, but they couldn't ascertain just exactly what class of proof was presenting.in their subjects.
so it's all still subject to scientific debate until somebody replicates something.
my own current scientific research is to prove an experiment that i undertook some months ago, namely that you get a bit stupid after 31x500ml bottles of homebrew in the same seession. i'm up to 29 today and i still feel fine.


----------



## nosco (11/3/16)

hotmelt said:


> Make yourself a trub ring like this. It's just a cheap bowl minus the bowl bit.Just as the trub breaks the surface place the ring with a pair of tongs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What element are you using there hotmelt and where'd ya get it?


----------



## Barge (11/3/16)

Jack of all biers said:


> Too true, but be careful that "independant thought" does not become the dogma. (Political opposition parties are masters of the negative argument and where does that get us) One must come to a conclusion at some point and often, good enough is good enough. That goes for hypotheses/scientific theories too.
> 
> I'm not trying to personally attack here, but am going to call you on the below three comments you've made as being inconsistent.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheWiggman (11/3/16)

At the end of the day I wouldn't get too hung up on it because if hot break can affect taste, that's a hard thing to chase scientifically. As far as I'm concerned it literally falls into the category of "we know it's not good, therefore we shouldn't do it". Just like we know MSG makes stuff taste better, sugar makes things sweet. We can go bezerk breaking down chemical makeups but the eventual outcome will be that adding chemical X makes it tastes better.
Then there are those that don't like sweet stuff. Someone could then argue that sugar makes things taste worse but the chemicals remain the same - the only thing that has changed is the individual's perception. Too unscientific is you ask me and pushes into the realm of art/philosophy. Which I believe beer making fits into. We need to be scientific to understand how things work in the process, but at the end of the day the right recipe and process (whether it be cold steeping roasts or whirlpooling in an anticlockwise direction on a full moon) that makes the beer that the most people like will be the best outcome.


----------



## hotmelt (11/3/16)

nosco said:


> What element are you using there hotmelt and where'd ya get it?


It's a birko element and came with the urn, it's just not as shiny as it used to be.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (11/3/16)

I felt inspired today Hotmelt. Managed to find a dog bowl that's only 10mm shy of the internal diameter of my urn. I plan to leave it in there for entire mash & boil. Will do a quick 'recirc' using a jug at the start of glycoprotein rest.


----------



## butisitart (11/3/16)

yep... irrefutable fact. you get a bit stupid on the 31st 500ml homebrew in the same session. i replicated it. now to find a cure for polio.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (12/3/16)

Worked a treat. Reduced my trub loss by 2litres.


----------



## Curly79 (12/3/16)

Hey Liam, does that just sit flush on the bottom of your Urn?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (12/3/16)

Yep. I drilled some small holes around the bottom to help drain. It'll work better once I've installed a 90deg elbow similar to Hotmelt's


----------



## Bribie G (12/3/16)

manticle said:


> You'll make Bribie grumpy.


----------



## Jack of all biers (14/3/16)

Barge said:


> *There is no inconsistency here. What we have is a misunderstanding on what constitutes evidence.*


Not at all, I know there are multiple meanings and definitions of what constitutes evidence (dictionary, law, scientific, mathematical etc). Not all of them are what some scientific philosophies and accepted scientific approach are comfortable with (dictionary meaning includes; proof). Luckily home brewing is not a scientific endeavour and to apply the burden of proof that 'scientific evidence' places on it (with as much room for error as other concepts of evidence) would be problematic, because of the massive variables (from batch to brewery). Evidence; observation can be evidence, points of reference can be evidence, the scientific articles and research articles are also points of evidence. Some evidence carries stronger weight and some less so and on the balance of the sum of all evidence, conclusions can be made. 

Studies into coagulated proteins show that some, including the proteins in egg whites (albumin) can have the coagulation reversed. Glycoprotein is a prominent protein group found in egg whites and in barley (Hordein, gliaden and other soluble glycoproteins that make up gluten). When the albumin (egg drop) forms in the hot break of the wort boil, these proteins are of the same basic make up as the albumin of egg whites. I'd say there is a high probability that a reversal of coagulation will happen in some of the proteins in barley, which share the same basic make up of the albumins and glycoproteins in egg whites. This fits with science philosopher, Rudolf Carnap's concepts of probability (logical positive inference). Especially given the massively complex nature of variables in different wort make ups (kinetic energy, pH levels, amounts and types of proteins/poyphenols etc) logically the evidence gives at least some weight to the hypothesis. Therefore the hypothesis of coagulated protein break down in wort (how can there be nil evidence for it if it is agreed that it is infact a hypothesis) fits with the science (or philosophy?) of Rudolf Carnap. I can't forward you to scientific research other than on the links I've already provided (as to view most papers costs hundreds of dollars of membership sign up), but a careful read and placing of all the facts together should provide the discerning reader with a view that break down of proteins in pH 4 beer can and will eventually happen in time. Could I be wrong, absolutely, but as has been quite rightly said, no hypothesis can be proven out right. A simple test however could be to take some hot break and place it in various acidic solutions to see if there is a reduction of visible mass. It would be pseudo science though.

Scientific evidence may be what some feel they need to accept something (and I'm cool with that), but lets face it, science quite often only quantifies, what practitioners have been observing, modifying and basing their practices on over years/centuries.

But I'm getting a little off topic now.


----------



## klangers (14/3/16)

Damn. I'm sold on that trub ring. Simple and effective - the pure essence of good design.


----------



## schtev (15/3/16)

In regards to the trub ring: you could try using the sides from a cheapo cake tin. The kind that has the spring-loaded sides that come away from the base. Should be able to pick one up for a couple of dollars from somewhere. They are usually non-stick Teflon though, not sure if that helps or hinders.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/16)

yep that should work.
I noticed at Coles yesterday they had 32cm diameter SS mixing bowls which should also be a good fit for crown urns.


----------



## TheWiggman (15/3/16)

That trub ring concept really should be in its own thread


----------



## sponge (15/3/16)

I prefer trawling through the banter to discover the hidden gem.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (15/3/16)

So this would be a bad time to show off my mad panel beating skills? [emoji51]


----------



## tavas (15/3/16)

schtev said:


> In regards to the trub ring: you could try using the sides from a cheapo cake tin. The kind that has the spring-loaded sides that come away from the base. Should be able to pick one up for a couple of dollars from somewhere. They are usually non-stick Teflon though, not sure if that helps or hinders.


Pretty sure I read that percarbonate will eat Teflon. Happy to proved wrong though.


----------



## Rocker1986 (15/3/16)

tavas said:


> Pretty sure I read that percarbonate will eat Teflon. Happy to proved wrong though.


I've soaked Teflon coated stir bars in sodium perc numerous times without problems. Either I'm extremely lucky or it's a crock of shit.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (15/3/16)

These are pretty cheap. Adjust the size to suit and you're good to go.


----------

