Braumeister V Biab Actual Results?

[bigfridge]

http://www.scientificsocieties.org/jib/pap...06-1016-468.pdf

​

​

Thank you - I couldn't say it better myself

But the article does point out how complex the situation is, with often conflicting results obtained for turbid worts.

From the conclusion:

"
During the 1970s and through the early 1990s, many
authors described the components of increased lauter turbidity,
mainly lipids and fatty acids, and to what extent
they originate from different lauter techniques. In this context
most of the authors pointed out the positive influence
of cloudy wort in terms of yeast metabolism and fermentation
performance. At the same time, however, the adverse
consequences of high lauter turbidity for the final beer
quality, particularly for flavour and foam stability, were
thoroughly discussed. Since the negative consequences
seemed to outweigh, this led to the preference of high
wort clarity, and this has been generally accepted among
brewers until today.

On the other hand, some authors
described fermentation problems and even an adverse
final beer quality when worts were very bright.

...

Since a proper fermentation is a
premise for a high beer quality, it has to be questioned
whether the todays lauter turbidity may be too low to
provide a proper yeast nutrition. Therefore, it seems to be
worthwhile to discuss a new statement of preferring a
moderate lauter turbidity, within the range of lauter turbidities
currently observed, instead of the minimum turbidity
that is technically realizable today in order to provide
proper yeast nutrition and to minimise adverse quality
effects at the same time"


This is in effect what I have been saying ie the trub in wort (which makes it cloudy) can be good for yeast, but is bad for beer.

I would prefer to address the yeast nutrition directly by adding nutrient, and by ensuring adequate protein breakdown during mashing. Using an all malt wort also ensures that there is sufficient amino acids etc available for the yeast. This is why you need to read any research results carefully as what applies in commercial practice (where adjuncts are common) does not apply to small scale brewing at home.

I really love how technical beer discussions force us to re-examine everything that we understood. After it was pointed out that it was the wort clarity prior to pitching that was important rather than the clarity into the boiler - I had another look at a few books.

What is 'clear' (ha ha) is that 90% of the trub removal occurs in mashing - the boil only influences 10% of the clarification process. To me this emphasises that it is better to reduce the nasties going into the boil, rather than trying to reduce them later.


But as MHB has pointed out the relative importance of all this is fairly minor compared with the other things that can go wrong.

HTH,
Dave

 

[Jonesy_sa]

What sort of benefits are obtainable over the BIAB method?
Will the circulation of liquid make much of a difference?
Will the temperature control make noticeable differences or at least the ability to step temperatures?

Hi,
Thanks for the information thus far but to keep things on topic; the reason i ask is i have decided to start brewing again and found the BIAB process which looks great and produces great beers. With that said i could knock up a Braumeister with a bit of effort and was only made aware of the system recently.
This isnt a thread to dismiss BIAB its more to highlight the advantages of the Braumeister if any? By advantages i am refering to taste not so much clarity as that's just a can of worms ill skip

Repeatable results, ability to easily adjust temperatures for future brews and testing, pretty good temperature control etc are some of the better points. I'm under the impression that as a whole the circulation of wort through the malt pipe etc doesn't actually produce superior results over the bag sitting in the wort, i thought it would or at least yield much greater efficiency but i haven't read anything in respects to clarify this? Im taking inconsideration that BIAB allows a finer mill which no doubt compensates a little.

Anyone agree/disagree?

 

[Thirsty Boy]

I disagree with (what i think is) bigfridge's reading of the science... (edit - although on second reading, maybe i dont really)

I find very very little in the literature to suggest that turbid wort from the lauter tun leads to quality issues, the quoted article being one of the things that convinces me. i also fail to find very much at all in the literature to support the opposing view that turbid wort into the kettle has negative effects on quality - effects yes, negative effects no. And the effects are all in all, small. I find lots of brewers who will tell you its true.... But not so many who can show you any proof.

As far as i can tell and am concerned, the preference of brewers for clear wort is almost entirely because they have been told that it is better, usually when they themselves were learning to brew, and they simply take it as "well established fact" Clear wort is prettier and just seems like it should make for higher quality beer, and clear wort certainly doesn't make for worse beer - so going with what seems like it should be true works, and after a while it becomes "fact"

I'm happy to be proved wrong on this, but i have looked pretty hard in the texts and papers for evidence of cloudy wort (pre-boil) being bad, and just haven't been able to find anything aside from the raw assertion that it is so.

 

[MHB]

TB is making some good points, but (and isnt there always a but in brewing) to put this into perspective the snip from the conclusion to the JIB article sited above (see Post 20 by Trooper1) is talking about worts with an EBC of 10, thats roughly 40 NTU so less turbid than the 50 NTU sample in the picture.

Some BIAB worts are opaque; we are talking vastly different amounts of trub. Whether or not this taken into account by the authors I have my doubts. Even older wort separation systems only produced worts with maybe 40 EBC (~160 NTU); Im just concerned that taking a bald statement from an article without putting it in perspective can be very misleading.

I dont think we need to be complete Nazis about wort clarity, or for that matter about many other aspects of brewing, just remember that each step in the process will affect your beer. I try in my brewing to do each step to the best of my ability, in this instance Im looking for clear wort not soup, if its a bit hazy going into the boil I can live with that.
MHB

Using
1 NTU/FTU = 0.245 EBC
1 EBC = 4.081 1 NTU/FTU
NTU and FTU are really the same and the conversion factor to EBC is approximate but should hold up fairly well across the range of values we are discussing.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Absolamutely - the article in question is "somewhat" relevant, but certainly not anything like a definative treatise on BIAB wort quality. I simply like it as a referrence becuase it challenges the stock standard assumption of many brewers, both home and pro that clearer wort is by definition higher quality wort. It isn't necessarily so, and therefore the very turbid worts that BIAb produces are not necessarily bad by definition. The only way to tell.... is to judge it by the beers. And the beers produced by BIAB while unfirmly coming from turbid wort are not uniformly faulty.

The turbid worts from BIAB behave in a very similar way to that described by the article... They start loaded with solids and protiens etc - the boil very much levels the differences out, but the levels of kettle trub are significantly increased and therefore efficiency suffers if you make the effort (that the article definitely suggests you should) to transfer clean and hot trub free wort out of the kettle.

Something else that article talks about is the presence of unconverted starch (high iodine numbers) in very turbid kettle up wort - and that is exactly why i generally suggest that people take care with mashing their BIAB brews, give it a 90min mash and a stirred ramp to a mashout type temperature. BIAB brews gelatinise and start converting faster than brews at lower L:G ratios & in combination with a careful and thorough mashing regime, that can more than make up for the more dilute substrate for the enzymes to work on and the lack of beta amylase buffering due to mash thickness. And actually end up with a considerably better "conversion efficiency" than you get in a regular mash. This is one of the reasons why BIAB brews can be more efficient than equivalent mash tun brews - and a reason why they dont get starch haze all the time.

That article talks about flavour stability issues. Even though cast wort from turbid brews is not very different than that from clearer wort - it is different, and that difference can manifest in earlier/more severe onset of aging. But we also need to remember that the article is almost certainly primarily addressing the production and flavour stability of light lagers, filtered, pasteurised and with the expectation of a 6month plus non refrigerated shelf life. And to be honest - the holes in the process of the average homebrewer as far as oxygen exclusion, HSA prevention etc etc are so vast, that i think the effects of a turbid wort are likely to be well and truly lost in the mix. I grant - in fact i am pretty sure - that if you are producing filtered, kegged and CP filled light lager, you are already an absolute oxygen exclusion freak and perhaps you even add a pinch of sulphites to your beer as antioxident... Then you would notice that your BIAB beers aged faster than your mash tun beers.

Aside from that - pretty much all BIAB beer has in common, that it's made from what would be considered very turbid wort and yet there is no common flavour issue with BIAB beers that i am aware of. If wort turbidity was much of a problem, there would be.

Me - i mainly brew on a RIMS and it pumps out startlingly clear kettle up wort, and thats one of the reasons I love it. I love the pretty clear wort going into the kettle. Its just that i am becoming convinced that me really liking it, is actually the only real advantage to that beautiful wort clarity.

 

[argon]

(I don’t care what anyone says – an isothermal Pilsner never quite cuts it)

Whilst not getting into the debate re turbity in the wort (leaving that to the more technically versed) and doing a big snip focusing in on one isolated phrase... i don't agree with this statement. As an example the champion beer at last year's AABC was a Bohemian Pilsner done as single infusion. So it can produce a great Pilsner (and or other style), greater than any other beer put up against in, in any other style.

 

[bigfridge]

I disagree with (what i think is) bigfridge's reading of the science... (edit - although on second reading, maybe i dont really)

I find very very little in the literature to suggest that turbid wort from the lauter tun leads to quality issues, the quoted article being one of the things that convinces me. i also fail to find very much at all in the literature to support the opposing view that turbid wort into the kettle has negative effects on quality - effects yes, negative effects no. And the effects are all in all, small. I find lots of brewers who will tell you its true.... But not so many who can show you any proof.

As far as i can tell and am concerned, the preference of brewers for clear wort is almost entirely because they have been told that it is better, usually when they themselves were learning to brew, and they simply take it as "well established fact" Clear wort is prettier and just seems like it should make for higher quality beer, and clear wort certainly doesn't make for worse beer - so going with what seems like it should be true works, and after a while it becomes "fact"

I'm happy to be proved wrong on this, but i have looked pretty hard in the texts and papers for evidence of cloudy wort (pre-boil) being bad, and just haven't been able to find anything aside from the raw assertion that it is so.

Hi TB,

It is great to see a calm, polite and friendly post - thanks.

Firstly I must say that I think that far too many words have been written on this as we all agree that this is a minor factor in overall beer quality - as TB says there is far greater perils that await the brewer.

The process from 'grain to brain' is one of compromise - many processes can both enhance and detract from the finished beer quality. As MHB often says 'everything you do affects the beer'.

My views on the avoidance of turbid wort being run-off into the kettle come from 30 years of reading and hence it is difficult to point to a single definative reference to 'prove' my opinion. But it is also been informed from discussions with Dr Simon Brook-Taylor, a Institute of Brewing Master Brewer and trainer, and co-founder of NNL Brewery Services. Simon has always emphasised the need for a course crush with minimal dough-in to give a oxygen-free floating mash and a long slow runoff in order to give the greatest wort clarity (and also to imporve the extract) into the kettle. This minimises the extraction and oxygenation of lipids which can reduce beer quality.

I can find some support for this in 'Essays in Brewing Science' by Lewis & Bamforth in section 4 "Foam".

"Although lipids are mostly eliminated from wort, and beer by deposition in spent grain, with trub, on yeast and by reaction with lipid-binding protein, foam-negative lipids might be extracted from malt and adjunct if they are excessively milled, mashed very hot with agitation and if the wort is agressively separated, especially if cloudy worts should result. Malt proteins are precipitated not only in mashing but also in boiling, and this is, therefore, potentially foam negative. However boiling makes the formation of new foam-stabilising complexes in wort relating to the denaturation of proteins, and reactions among groups such as polypeptides, polyphenols, hop acids and inorganic ions and even lipids in the highly reducing conditions of the wort boil."

The text then goes on to remark that the process of foam stability in the finished beer is a complex subject with many dimensions.

Lipids and especially fatty acids react with oxygen to form long-chain unsaturated aledehydes which are the origin of the stale flavour in beer. Fix (Principles of brewing science, p41) claims that long-chain unsaturated fatty acids "are typically found in wort trub, which can consist of as much as 50% lipids. Cloudy wort can contain anywhere from 5 to 40 times the fatty content of clear wort. This i simportant because unsatuated fatty acids can have a significant effect even at low concentrations." I must admit that it is 'unclear' ( ha, ha) if the above is referring to wort clarity into or out of the kettle.

For a final word, I can do no better than Malting & Brewing Science (Briggs, Hough, Stevens & Young. p273):

"A minor proportion of the malt lipids, usually less than 2% of th e total originally present in the grist, is dispersed into the wort. The remainder stays with the draff. Although some of the dispersed lipid is lost during further processing, being carried down with the trub for example, a little reaches the final beer. The actual quantities extracted vary with the means used to filter and sparge the goods. Rapid lautering techniques yield worts with enhanced lipid contents. Filtering reduces the level of fats. ... The beer brewed from 'defatted' wort had improved head characteristics. ... Unsaturated fatty acids and products of their oxidation catalysed by lipoxygenase may decompose in staling beer, giving rise to numerous aledehydes such as trans-2-nonenal, hexenal and hexanal, which contribute to the development of 'off flavours'."

Anyway, I have probably made it even more confusing, but all that I can say is that the above quotes confirm that turbid worts have increased fatty acid contents which can lead to poor head stability and stale flavours - particularly when finely milled grains and high oxygen ingress are present in mashing.

May your worts run clear ...

;-)

 

[Nick JD]

Anyway, I have probably made it even more confusing, but all that I can say is that the above quotes confirm that turbid worts have increased fatty acid contents which can lead to poor head stability and stale flavours - particularly when finely milled grains and high oxygen ingress are present in mashing.

So, probably more of an issue for commercial breweries than homebrewers? The success of BIAB in competitions either illustrates the lack of importance of clear runnings or judging incompetence.

A question I'd like to raise: where is the fat in my no-chilled wort? In the hotbreak? All the literature shows the real difference between hot and cold break is the fat content.

Should BIAB and no-chill be paired by necessity? Is it that the cold break of a BIAB brew has a higher fat content? I can eliminate cold break from my fermenter ... can commercial breweries?

Might one slack-arse method be fixing another?

This quote below leads me to believe that 10% of a little bit more, is very little.

Ninety per cent of the lipids in the copper are deposited with the trub and spent hops
(Anness and Reed, 1985).

 

[Thirsty Boy]

I think you have it there nick, its degrees of degrees... And also what you find important. For instance, i am dead against the notion of no-chilling in the kettle, due to extended contact with the hot break - which i suspect will increase the lipid content of the wort and lead to off flavours. But i know that you do exactly that and aren't having any issues, and I'm also happy to use cloudy wort which some people are sure will do it too, some are sure that not separating your cold break will do it, while others are happy to tip all the goo from the kettle into the fermenter and go with that.

I think that as long as you are doing more right than wrong (screw you fermenting on all the trub guys... you're just wrong - so there) unless you are chasing mega brew levels of flavour stability, then its going to make maybe "10% of a little bit" of difference at most.

But the little stuff does add up - and threads like this are good for hamming out just exactly what the little stuff is, what it can mean and whether or not a particular "nit pick" is perhaps a bridge too far in any given brewer's process. I know I've learned things by reading this thread, hopefuly other people have too... So even though its strayed a way away from the OT, and maybe gotten a bit too technical and wordy - its a pretty useful sort of disussion to have IMO.

As for the actual OT - for some reasons of ticking off as many "little things" as possible and maybe a couple of other reason talked about in this thread - I would take the Braumeister in preference to BIAB any old day - but only if the difference between a few thousand dollars and a few hundred dollars isn't part of the consideration.

 

[Bribie G]

Not generally broadcast on the forum as it's a subject of purely local interest, but our Florian with his mighty Braumeister took out one of the 4 spots in the Archive AIPA contest last week, the others being 3V. Interestingly another winner, Argon, has gone from BIAB to 3V, mainly so he can do bigger batches - interestingly his last BIAB brew later last year he entered at BABBs in the Belgians mini comp for feedback only, as he was not yet a member. If he had been a member he would have won the night, I think the score was around 43 IIRC.

In the context of home brewing, it's just another example of how the alternative methods, 3V, BM, HERMS, BIAB etc are just pushing and pushing the envelope all the time and the argy bargy we get in threads like this are very constructive and not at all negative in their effects.
:icon_cheers:

 

[seamad]

I BIAB , use whirfloc, whirlpool and wait for trub to settle, cube for 15minutes then chuck in pool.
Don't pour crap from cube into fermenter.
Chill to 0C, polyclar, filter to keg.

Keg might last 4-6 weeks (3 on tap).

I can't see that there would be a lot of difference in my beer and a braumeister. Need to have a taste off :lol: