BIAB: Tipping boil dreggs into the fermenter

[butisitart]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

Lipids in wort.pdf
Mark

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]

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]

willfully ignorant or stupid

very encouraging.

 

[Barge]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Liam_snorkel]

^ longer version of the same idiom. Yes.

 

[manticle]

You'll make Bribie grumpy.

 

[technobabble66]

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]

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]

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.

PC210049.JPG

PC210050.JPG

PC210051.JPG

PC210052.JPG

PC210053.JPG

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