Missed Whirlfloc In Boil

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.

BOG

Well-Known Member
Joined
23/2/07
Messages
546
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I did an English bitter AG on the weekend and realised after the boil had started that I had run out of whilrfloc tablets.

I boiled for about 80 minutes , slightly longer than the usual 60 minutes.

What is the impact to the beer?

I have it in a cube (no chill) so can do a secondary boil if required but prefer not to. Would rather pitch and see what happens.


Suggestions? Possble impacts?



BOG
 
You will end up with more losses to trub in the kettle, that's about it.
 
If you no-chill whirlfloc is probably not required

K
 
Doesn't whirlfoc help coagulate the hot break proteins? Where does no chill come into that?

Genuine question - I'm confused
 
Whirfloc does have an effect on hot break and how it forms and it can effect whirlpool performance... But it has a much more profound effect on cold break and how it forms.

Depending on how long between when you brew and when you pitch, you might notice that your NC cube has less stuff at the bottom and that the wort is a little hazier than usual. This will be because the cold break has formed "naturally" rather than in a finings enhanced way. It will be in much smaller particles that take a hell of a long time to settle out.

If you normally leave your cold break behind in the cube, you might struggle to do so this time. Don't stress, just tip it in. If you normally tip it in... Well, tip it in. Because the particles will be a lot finer than they normally would, it might take a bit longer in cold conditioning before things drop nice and clear for you. Say another week or two? You will also perhaps need to be a little more careful with transfers as the break that settles might be a bit more powdery and tend to stir up.

So, the effect on your beer will be basically nil - if you are willing to be a little more patient. And as a reward for your patience, there is a fair chance that the sediment on the bottom of your fermenter will be a bit more compact than usual and wih care you might yield a litre or two of extra beer.

Kettle fining do (almost) nothing that you can't achieve with a liberal dose of patience, cold and gravity. Add those in place of the finings you missed and your beer will be no different.

TB
 
Come no Mantickle, what's the point in people posting a nice little article on clarifying beer with the answer to that question on the first page, if you aren't going to read it like you said you would.
This is one of the good Doctors favourite traps for new players; you're not the first to blunder right in. Kettle finings act on cold break, but as they have to be dissolved and heated to above 65oC, the kettle is the easiest place to deploy them.

Oh I think Briby asked about the paper and where it came from, it's a commercial prcis of a paper delivered by Ian Ward at an MBAA tech conference around 2003-4, remains one of the best summaries of the subject I have found.

MHB
 
Whirfloc does have an effect on hot break and how it forms and it can effect whirlpool performance... But it has a much more profound effect on cold break and how it forms.


Possibly but I do notice a heck of a lot of proteinaceous trub (as oppsed to hop debris) at the bottom of my kettle after a boil with whirlfoc and whirlpool, which I assume is hot break. I cube that, leaving behind as much break and hop trub as is possible without being anally stupid. Next day/whenever I pour and pitch I get a lot of new, proteinaceous material which I assume is cold break.

If I don't add the whirlfloc will I notice a reasonably similar amount of hot break settle out in the kettle regardless?

MHB - I did read both articles you posted the next night. I'll have to go back and read them again. There is a fair bit of info in both to digest and I am trying to write a 12000 word thesis on something other than beer so there may be room in my brain for facts to slip through.

Additionally I got caught up in reading all the other articles from that distiller's and brewer's website.

OK - went back to the article you are referring to and found this

It is a commonly held misconception that kettle finings
improve trub formation. Kettle finings are added in the
kettle only to allow the carrageenan to dissolve. Wort
proteins react with the carrageenan as the wort cools and
settle as a cold break during fermentation to be removed
along with the excess yeast
.

Trub to me in the kettle is both hot break and hops and any other impurities which have settled. I have never really believed that hop debris was specifically affected by whirlfoc/irish moss (part of the reason I whirlpool as well as add WF) but my understanding was that WF worked on protein coagulation, both hot and cold. Is this incorrect?
 
K
If you no-chill whirlfloc is probably not required
Manticle
Doesn't whirlfoc help coagulate the hot break proteins? Where does no chill come into that?

Genuine question - I'm confused
TB
Whirfloc does have an effect on hot break and how it forms and it can effect whirlpool performance... But it has a much more profound effect on cold break and how it forms
JP...http://www.howtobrew.com/section1/chapter7-4.html..
Rapid cooling also forms the Cold Break. This is composed of another group of proteins that need to be thermally shocked into precipitating out of the wort. Slow cooling will not affect them. Cold break, or rather the lack of it, is the cause of Chill Haze. When a beer is chilled for drinking, these proteins partially precipitate forming a haze. As the beer warms up, the proteins re-dissolve. Only by rapid chilling from near-boiling to room temperature will the Cold Break proteins permanently precipitate and not cause Chill Haze. Chill haze is usually regarded as a cosmetic problem. You cannot taste it. However, chill haze indicates that there is an appreciable level of cold-break-type protein in the beer, which has been linked to long-term stability problems. Hazy beer tends to become stale sooner than non-hazy beer.

K
 
I'm still confused.

Palmer has insisted that quick chilling is necessary for effective cold break formation but the experience of no chillers has suggested that effective cold break formation will occur - maybe slower but it will occur. My own experience suggests similar. Palmer has not explored no-chill at all as far as I'm aware.

Furthermore if whirlfloc precipitates predominantly cold break proteins then why would it be unnecessary to add to the no chill cube when you are supposedly fighting against the rapid chill gods to get as much of it to precipitate and fall out as possible?

Not trying to be an upstart - I've got shiteloads to learn about brewing both from others and my own experience. I learn best when I understand what's happening though.
 
Manticle
If your and others experience of no-chill, cold-break or lack of it make no difference to the finished beer, then don't change. In the end it is your observations, your tastes and finally your choice that counts..
Others may feel differently, perhaps they have never explored no-chill, I certainly to my discredit have not; nor have I attempted high altitude climbing with only 70% nitrogen in my pack.

K
 
It's my opinion, from my reading of the science, practical experience and more formal experimentation.... That Palmer is simply wrong about the need for a "rapid" chill.

Cold break forms at a given temperature, the speed with which the liquid gets from hot to that temperature, has very little do do with it. It does seem to make a minor difference to the nature of the flocs formed, and thus how well they settle, but not particulary to the amount of actual break that comes out of solution. Nothing even remotely approaching the sort ofmeffect you get from an addition of kettle finings though. It's on my agenda to do some decent quantitative experiments on this topic.

Most of the literature on finings states that it has no impact on hot break, hot wort clarity or whirpool performance.. But the most rudimentary of tests shows that it clearly does, and the industry standard kettle finings optimization routine always includes observations about how the effect on hot wort changes with finings dose. The tests I've personally witnessed or taken part in were strictly "qualitative" and most certainly open to bias... But some of the differences were stark enough so you'd need a Hitler vs the Jews level of bias to be making them up... Still - possible I don't doubt.

TB
 
Brewing is wonderful; it's the only subject where it's possible to have so many conflicting opinions based on good research and experience.

When I first came across the comments in the brewing literature regarding kettle finings I was a little taken aback. So using what was to hand I designed an experiment, involving a 5 L class A volumetric flask, Buckner funnel, quantitative paper and a 3 decimal place scale.
The following are my thoughts after some well measured experimental results and years of observation: -
When it comes to hot break carrageen changes the shape (clump size) but not the total amount of break material. That certainly changes the rate that flock settles, but if you left it out no big really you just need to be a bit more patient and give the wort time to clear.
The effect on cold break was quite different, significant changes are observable in the amount (mass) of break and the particle size (without carrageen it's nearly unfilterable). The difference between fast and slow cooling were qualitative (bigger flock) but pretty much the same mass with carrageen and significantly less mass collected without it.

It's probably time to revisit this one, my records got eaten (you know that noise a hard drive makes as the head ploughs into the platen) so I'm going from memory 7-8 years old. Anyway it's always fun winding up Mantickle.

MHB
 
I no chill and find that if I forget the whirlfloc the beer seems noticeably more hazy when I start drinking it. I have a hopscreen that stops most of the hot break getting into the cube, but what does get through (and any cold break) is poured into the fermenter.

Whether or not the haze goes away with time I couldn't really say. Might have to check and see if I have any older beer left that didn't get the whirlfloc treatment.
 
Consider me wound up. I just kicked the cat.

DrK - While I don't necessarily feel the need to change, I do enjoy learning about the process and trying new things. I started making basic single infusion mash beers (and chilling those). They make good beer.

Why change? Curiosity, learning, to see what different methods do. Sometimes I step mash, sometimes I decoct, sometimes I caramelise runnings and sometimes I still do SI beers. I wouldn't say one is better but I do notice discernible differences and some of those discernible differences suit the styles of beer I'm making.

I've chilled (cold water bath only though) and I've no chilled. One day I'll try a plate chiller if I can borrow one and maybe another day an immersion chiller. I was going to make one (IC) but the amount of water needed freaks me out a little.

I'm merely trying to understand the processes. Beer and brewing science is interesting to me and there's a lot going on in my pint glass that I don't yet know about.
 
Almost exactly what I've found to be the case MHB - hot side performance and cold side performance were of the same basic nature.. ie it was primarily about the size and nature of particles formed... but the level of influence was magnitudes different. Minor influence to hot break and huge difference to cold.

interesting you measured mass of cold break and found a significant increase in mass with carageenan, I would have guessed it would be there, but be relatively minor - That type of mass measuring is exactly what I was planning on doing to test the whole fast vs slow cooling thing (which it seems you've done too) ... Could you PM a little more detail on what you did please? Might save me a couple of experimental design headaches.

cheers

TB

. . . One day I'll try a plate chiller if I can borrow one and maybe another day an immersion chiller. . .

drop me a line one of these days - I have one of each type of chiller you are welcome to borrow anytime... I'm not really using them.
 
drop me a line one of these days - I have one of each type of chiller you are welcome to borrow anytime... I'm not really using them.

Cheers mate. Would be good just to see the difference for myself. NC is so convenient and easy I'll probably stick with it in the long run but I like to try the different options and see how they work just for my own understanding.

I'll send a PM some time (maybe in time for my next hopburst).
 
Well thanks to everyone who responded.

In short it won't matter and any impact may be a bit of chill Haze in the glass. I don't care about that so thats fine.

To recycle back what was said, now in my own (simple) words, and correct me please if I've got this wrong.

Whirlfloc as the name suggests is a flocing agent causing break material in the kettle to clump together.
The added weight of these clumps causes them to settle in the kettle faster than it would have without it.

When the hot wort is chilled it flocs out additional material (Cold Break). The use of Whirlfloc in the kettle provides additional Nucli centers for the break to clump.
You get more cold break if you use Whirlfloc.

If you don't use Whirlfoc hot break material still forms but dosent have something clump to, is therefore smaller and less chuncky and dosent settle as well in the whirlpool.

If you wait long enough when the beer is chilled it will still clear but will take longer.



Got it.


Thanks Again to all.


BOG
 
Back
Top