BIAB: Tipping boil dreggs into the fermenter

[Droopy Brew]

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]

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

 

[Black Devil Dog]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

Holtmelt

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

 

[Jack of all biers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.