Fermenting on Hot Break?

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nick JD said:
FFS, Mantickle - listen to the ******* podcast.

If you post one more time in this thread before listeing to it.

I'm going to strangle a lion cub. It's THAT serious. No frickin kittens here!

The concensus was better clarity when fermented on trub. You book-learnin' folk done gone stopped looking at the real world.

I have full intentions of listening to the broadcast when I get around to it- people were asking for some of the scientific references. Apart from that, I was disagreeing with your assertion that cold and hot break are the same.

You quote one reference - one. That somehow negates every single other one that exists. Science doesn't work that way.

I'm not holding onto the 'book learned' opinion if you read what I have written throughout the thread. If you paid attention to my posting history, you'd also know that my brewing practices are far from being purely informed by book learning and are at least as informed by experiential brewing.

It's a discussion, something that I'm interested in and enjoying re-reading why brewers on many scales consider hot break so bad and analysing, with an open and critical mind as to why that is so and where the idea came from. Your magical podcast is one part of that - ONE. It doesn't make or break brewing truth any more than a single paragraph by Bamforth or Fix will.

No need to be a rude prick or nasty to furry predators. I'll listen to the podcast at some point AND continue to post topically relevant material as I see fit. You can continue to ferment on hot break. Won't faze me one iota.

Cheers.
 
Nick JD said:
February 23, 2012 - Trub Experiment Results
James and Chris Colby, editor of Brew Your Own magazine
You mean homebrewers with connections to advertisers?

I jest(ish). I'm sure those guys are better brewers than me but it doesn't make a really small (and unqualified for all I know) set of assessments entirely convincing. There isn't even any sort of consensus. Looks very much like people are hearing what they want to hear to me.

Nick JD said:
It's not going to be awarded doctorates of philosophy any time soon, but to devalue it like that is a bit trite.
Yeah, fair enough but to present it as proof that hot break has no ill effects is equally flawed.

Nick JD said:
They've recently done a lot on no-chilling. Something we all know works, but the Americans are still skeptical about.
To be honest, all of my AG brews have been no-chilled and, despite my best efforts, I have never properly nailed a US-style hoppy brew with the method. I've made some really nice malty beers but awesome New World styles elude me somewhat. I recently bought a plate chiller to see if it is me or process but I'm playing my hand a little early here as I have not used it. It is certainly a valid process but I'm not sure it is a one-size-fits-all thing and some healthy skepticism might be a good thing.

Nick JD said:
Progress is fueled by the open-minded. Give it a go sometime.
Meh. I've BIABed and no-chilled and done all sorts of other "wrong" things. Some things work for some people and not for others. I see no reason at all to shit on leaving hot break in the kettle. Oh nos! I lost 4 bottles worth of beer. **** me drunk. We aren't accountants. Well, some of us probably are but we shouldn't be in the shed.

{EDIT: Horrific punctuation error]
 
This could be the new HSA home brew debate, now that people are sick of arguing about No chill hop utilisation rates. I'll warm up some popcorn.
 
Process will never get that contentious here again. The people with the knowledge to actually support their positions have buggered off. The fact that it is only Nick and me arguing if something should or should not be done should be proof enough of that.
 
bum said:
Yeah, fair enough but to present it as proof that hot break has no ill effects is equally flawed.
It's not presented that way, and I have not presented it that way.

They clearly point out that in some cases it may result in worse beer. They're genuinely surprised by the results - and the guest guy is finding it very difficult to stomach if you pardon the pun.

My horse in this race has always been my annoyance that there used to be a mindset that AG brewing was something that requires a vast knowledge base and extensive expensive equipment, so I get off on this sort of shit ... but I'm not going to drop due scientific process and say fermenting on hotbreak has no ill effects. I'm gonna say its ill effects are vastly overplayed and in some cases moot.
 
I agree that in some cases the point is moot (as I alluded to above). If a brewer makes and drinks a batch, say, every week or two weeks (i.e. a cycle where they finish drinking the most recent batch while the current batch is being force carbed/bottle conditioned/whatevs) then probably none of the ill effects will be noted (unless the head retention thing comes into it). Sit on the same batches for a few months and I think the story will be very different.

AG brewing does not require vast knowledge but, in all seriousness, look around at the quality of the threads lately and tell me that some knowledge wouldn't be a nice thing to have.
 
Just for Nick, I'm listening to the podcast.

About 30 mins in and if you are basing your 'just chuck it in' philosophy purely on this, I'm surprised.

Notwithstanding the incredibly small sample group and complete lack of controls in the 'experiment' (data collected by people writing in and measured by things like preference), the general conclusion is .....well....inconclusive. it certainly isn't solid enough to just completely discard anything previously written by Narziss, Briggs, Fix, Bamforth etc.

Some trubby pale ales were preferred despite possibly harsher bitterness. A non trubby Black IPA was preferred by the brewer while the announcer liked the trubby one. A Kolsch was considered cleaner without trub by the brewer, a hefe was similar although the brewer's club colleagues thought differently.

As mentioned in a previous post, I have previously thrown all trub in, back when I brewed on a weber barbecue with two small tapless pots and chilled in the bath*. Beer turned out fine which tells me what the podcast tells me and what I have always maintained - hot break won't immediately destroy your beer. That seems to be the main point of this podcast but why is that so interesting? The proper studies on hot break effects talk about things like long term stability, subtle differences etc. It's about improving and streamlining process to make the best product possible (at least as far as the market is concerned) not keeping poison out of your beer. The surprise that trub doesn't make beer automatically taste like arse and in some cases may have slight benefits is strange considering that this is already known. There is a literature review which I am trying to find (previously linked by MHB and bigfridge) for example which finds most of the ideas in the podcast pretty much covered - some protein carry over may have benefit to head retention, flavour etc, some studies found big negatives, some very little, some benefits. Some say yes, some say no which means not everything is known. The podcast says the same thing with more variables.

*Back before book learning turned me into a total academic bewer with my fancy Kmart esky and my elitist 'ferment directly in the NC cube in a water bath' bizzo.

I asked if the podcast contained anything about long term stability - your response was "listen to the ******* podcast angry face'. One sentence to say 'no but they mention it would be a good idea to leave a few bottles in a hot place for a while and see' could have been pretty easily written. If I can try and summarise my experiences or a chapter or paragraph in a book, you could courteously summarise an answer to a reasonable question. 60 mins to find out that one of the biggest negatives in regard to HB inclusion isn't covered but that it might be a good idea for another show?

A link here on lauter turbidity - keep in mind that lauter turbidity is turbidity of the wort pre-boil (so more to do with recirculation or lack thereof). Turbidity is still protein related and these proteins are still considered to have similar effects to hot break on stability. I'll see if I can hunt up the review because it mentions quite a few other studies (both pro and con turbid wort) which people can research for themselves.

http://www.endoc.net/PDF2/0424.pdf
 
This podcast, does it begin with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?
 
manticle said:
I asked if the podcast contained anything about long term stability - your response was "listen to the ******* podcast angry face'.
I asked you to listen to the podcast as you are involved in a discussion regarding its outcomes. Hence angryface.

I agree with your and Bum's stuff on long term stability (and I think this is where homebrewers often taking their knowledge from the commercial brewing field may not always be applicable) but would love to hear what compounds actually cause this instability and if they can easily be removed.
 
So, having a quick squiz at this abstract ... again: crystal clear wort pre-boil is another myth.

Different lauter turbidities (standard 43 EBC vs. turbid 82 EBC
on average) were obtained by variation of the lauter procedure,
particularly deep raking, in this study. The resulting worts were
used for repitching the respective
yeast into six subsequent fer-
mentation cycles. The resulting beers were investigated in terms
of flavour quality, flavour stabil
ity, non-biological stability and
foam stability. Worts gained from turbid lautering showed very
similar analytical data compared to the controls (except for a
slight but significant increase in linoleic acid). There was an im-
provement in fermentation performance in terms of a pH de-
crease and a decrease in extract. The resulting beers were quite
similar, and the staling indicators increased slightly, but not sig-
nificantly, due to turbid lautering. Both types of beer were evalu-
ated on tasting as being of a high flavour quality and neither a
professional panel nor a non-professional (customer) panel was
able to distinguish the difference, between standard and turbid
lautering, in terms of fresh and forced aged beers. Due to turbid
lautering the non-biological stability appeared to be slightly, but
not significantly, decreased while on the other hand the foam
stability was significantly improved due to turbid lautering. In
conclusion, fermentation perform
ance may be improved by more
turbid lautering, and the negative consequences often reported
for the resulting beers appear to be overestimated, since the
quality parameters of the final beers had not deteriorated signifi-
cantly.
 
The thread was not initially about the podcast and listening to it is not a pre-requisite to participating in the thread.

Again referring only to what I've read but the bamforth/Lewis text suggests the polyphenols and polypeptides (the reaction between which leads to haze and staling) can be removed post fermentation. I mentioned this in an earlier post that you dismissed because I hadn't listened to the podcast. Now that i have, you could re-read it.

The podcast doesn't actually tell me much more than homebrewers hear 'hot break is best left behind in the kettle' and neglect to ask why, as they do for so many other things, then are surprised they find out it is not Satan's excreta.. The science side of things that I've been exposed to has never suggested it is instant beer dismissal getting a touch of fluffy egg white in your fermenter and my experience is likewise. That some homebrewers accept things on face value rather than critically analyse how and why doesn't surprise me.

^That study I linked precisely because it is one of many that says one thing (there are others that say the opposite) that adds to a body of knowledge by questioning 'accepted' ideas. That's how knowledge is built up - it's not one big universal truth. You can't cite one single paper NOR one single podcast and say 'it is so because X says so'.

Again too - lauter turbidity is related to wort clarity post boil only insofar as they are similar compounds being carried over from one process to another. Those proteins, etc can still be left behind in the kettle.

Anyway I don't have access to the articles I would like to on HB (as opposed to lautered wort clarity) so hopefully someone else could find and link, purely for interest. I like reading 'n' shit.
 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2006.tb00716.x/pdf Review

Also (no online source)

Dickel, T., Krottenthaler, M., & Back, W. (2000). Studies into the influence of the cold break insertion on beer quality. Monatsschrift Fur Brauwissenschaft, 53(5-6), 95-100.

Abstract: In several research studies at the Faculty for Brewery Technology I, Technical University of Munich, Freising-Weihenstephan, the influence of the cold break insertion was studied on a practical scale to obtain information on the necessity of cold break separation. It was found that if the cold break separation is removed the taste of the beer changed, but the flavour stability and the reduction force, chemical and physical stability and the foam characteristics of the beer did not suffer as a result. A cold break separation therefore does not appear to be necessary if reliable a hot break separation and perfect yeast management are practised by the brewery and the created flavour profile is desirable and the beer's quality is sufficiently constant.




Just feeding the fire.
 
That's the review I was looking for - the online library link I had was defunct.

There are a number of cited studies within that article from both sides of the camp which would be of interest to some people here if they can find them. Again - lauter versus post boil clarity is a distinction worth making.

Thanks for the info on the cold break study too. I'll be hunting that up for my own interest.
 
So long-term stability is an issue with hotbreak in the ferment.

Why? Polyphenols?
 
Polyphenols reacting with polypeptides, (as previously stated), leading to oxidation reactions.

I could be cheeky and suggest you 'read the ******* books' but I'll resist and hunt up chapters and relevant chemical pathways even though my understanding of them is far from complete.

If I understand correctly, you have access to Briggs et al, brewing science and practice? I would assume there would be some discussion in thee - my copy is on an old hard drive getting repaired so I can't check myself now.
 
So if you polyclar then filter (or decant off settled material) you will suffer none of these hotbreak stability issues?

Do you use poloyclar for your long term stored beers? Or do you believe that polyphenols only make their way into beer via break material?
 
I don't polyclar or use any fining besides kettle fining(whirlfloc or sometimes carrageegan).

The chapter I mentioned earlier in Bamforth and Lewis mentions a number of post fermentation clearing agents, including PVVP which have various levels of efficacy at removing polyphenols, polypeptides or both. Which polypetpides are targetted is also important as some of those contribute to head retention so are best not completely removed. I don't know if you can say 'do this and you get none' as nothing is totally black and white. There are observed chemical reactions and pathways, then theories formed around how those pathways come about which are challenged by some studies and 'confirmed' by others. It's an evolution, not a single, infallible truth or dogma. From what I can gather, the text I'm referring to suggests that post fermentation removal of haze forming compounds is an effective stabiliser, with some limitations and comprimises (as there are in most things).

As for belief - I don't believe anything. I read, I get ideas, I brew, I see what works for me. Brewing science is a big mysterious world in which i have an interest but I know 3/5 of **** all about most of it. It's an evergrowing body of hypothesis, theory and experience and on a much smaller scale, so is my brewing.

I'm equally interested in brewing culture and history.
 
I took part in the Basic Brewing experiment

I've posted this before, but it seems appropriate to add it to this thread

Style of Beer: Cream Ale
Type: All Grain on Direct Fire RIMS Brew Date: 7/01/2012
Boil Time: 90 min Brewhouse Efficiency: 85.00%
Ingredients
Amt Name Type %/IBU
2100.00 g Bohemian Pilsner (Floor Malted) (2.0 EBC) Grain 1 40.4 %
2100.00 g Perle Pale Malt (2 Row) UK (6.3 EBC) Grain 2 40.4 %
800.00 g Rice, Flaked (2.0 EBC) Grain 3 15.4 %
200.00 g Wheat, Flaked (3.2 EBC) Grain 4 3.8 %
30.00 g Hallertau [7.50 %] - Boil 60.0 min 21.2 IBUs
20.00 g Hallertau [7.50 %] - Boil 1.0 min 0.6 IBUs
1.0 pkg Safale American (DCL/Fermentis #US-05)

Separation & Fermentation
After boiling, the wort was whirlpooled then cooled with an immersion chiller for 45 minutes to let the trub settle. 3 gal of clear wort was siphoned into the first fermenter. The remaining wort was then stirred to rouse the trub off the bottom of the boil kettle and 3 gal were siphoned into the second fermenter. I estimate that 2/3 of the trub was carried over into the second fermenter. Both fermenters were aerated and pitched with 7g of dry US-05 yeast . The fermenters were then placed in a temperature controlled water bath and fermented at 18c. The OG of both samples was 1.048. Overall the "Trub" sample showed a stronger fermentation. It showed fermentation activity sooner, finished fermenting sooner and had a slightly lower FG than the "Clear" sample



Pic1 The picture on the left shows samples taken directly after the wort was put in the fermenters. The Trub sample is noticeably more turbid. The picture on the right was taken 2 hours later. The trub has begun to settle out forming a layer on the bottom of the Trub sample

Differences in the beer visually
There was no difference in the head retention/volume, but there was a clear difference in the clarity. The "Clear" sample was cloudy whereas the "Trub" sample was clear



Pic2. The "Trub" sample is much clearer than the "Clear" sample

Tasting results
My results: I completed 2 separate triangle tests 1 week apart. Because of the obvious visual difference I used white plastic cups which didn't allow me to identity differences in the clarity of the beers. In both tests I was able to correctly identify the odd beer and correctly identify which beer was the Clear sample and which was the Trub. The taste was very similar, and it is hard to pinpoint the exact flavor difference. The only way I can describe it is that the Clear sample had a bit of an aftertaste (astringent might be the best description) and the Trub sample tasted cleaner. I think watching the side by side fermentation gave me some preconceptions on potential differences in the beers which is what allowed me to identify the slight difference in taste.

Additional results: I had 9 other people complete triangle tests. The participants ranged from other home brewers to people who rarely drink beer, and none of them had any knowledge of the difference in the beers before the test. Of the 9 participants 4 of them correctly identified the odd beer in the test. This is slightly higher than random (you would expect 1/3 to get it correct by just guessing), but I think the only conclusion I can make from this is that there are no strong differences in the taste of the 2 beers.

Conclusion
The sample with the trub had a stronger fermentation, was clearer and, to me, tasted better, but the taste panel found no significant difference in the taste of the 2 beers.
 
Back
Top