No-chiller Moving To Immersion Chiller

[felten]

Just a quick question about false bottoms in boil kettles. Is it ok to join the elbow from the false bottom to the spigot using a short piece of silicone hose? How does this hold up when boiling the wort for a hour or more? What is the best way to connect if this is no good? Thanks for the advice.

Never mind just thought of the fact nothing would be holding the false bottom down.

Cheers

Yeah you need to put a rigid pipe in there to hold it in place, probably copper pipe with a couple of compression fittings is the best way to go about it.

 

[MaltyHops]

... I also got a bit miffed with pouring 3 or 4 litres of break/trub ladened wort down the sink. ...

Tight Arse Tip #5 - let the remnants settle a bit, then pour into another pot
leaving as much crud behind as possible, boil, pour into a flask, cap with foil
and when cooled, add to fermenter.

 

[iralosavic]

I switched to a kettle FB after nothing I tried yielded a successful whirlpool. I reckon if your vessel whirlpools well and your wort to fermenter is reasonably clean and your losses acceptable then no great need for a FB. I use a keggle and went with a flat FB; the pick up tube sits nicely I'm the central dimple, just as it was designed for. I also have a secondary FB that is designed to sit within the dimple under the full keg diameter FB and this catches pretty much anything that gets through the first layer. Most times I remove it for cleaning I'd be lucky to find more than 20ml on the bottom. Sometimes it's bone dry.

 

[jkeske]

I listened to that basic brewing podcast last week - where they got 20 people around the world to split their batch (taking clear wort into one vessel and clumpy hotbreak into the other) and then report back on how it went.

More than half (including a few triangle testers) found that the hotbreak left in tasted better, fermented better and cleared better.

That's right - fermenting on the hotbreak.

I took part in the Basic Brewing experiment, so just thought I would share my results


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)


After boiling the wort was whirlpooled and cooled with an immersion chiller for 45 minutes to let the trub settle. 3 gal of clear wort was syphoned 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 syphoned into the second fermenter. I estimate that 2/3 of the trub was carried over into the second fermenter. Both fermenters were agitated for 3 minutes to aerate the wort and pitched with 7g of dry US-05 yeast (for simplicity I just sprinkled it on top). The fermenters were then placed in a temperature controlled water bath and fermented at 18c.



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 didnt 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 flavour 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 willing volunteers complete a triangle test. 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 taste panel showed that there was no significant difference in the taste of the 2 beers. But based on these results I will definitely never worry about getting trub into my fermenter. The sample with the trub had a stronger fermentation, was clearer and, to me, tasted better.

 

[jc64]

Wow thanks for sharing jkeske, awesome read while I wait for the mayhem of Christmas morning to begin. Thanks.

 

[Nick JD]

Conclusion
The taste panel showed that there was no significant difference in the taste of the 2 beers. But based on these results I will definitely never worry about getting trub into my fermenter. The sample with the trub had a stronger fermentation, was clearer and, to me, tasted better.

Great stuff! I was wondering if it was an AHB member when they said Tassie.

I have a "all in" batch (not spilt) of a house regular fermenting atm.

Thanks for your science! I love the way most people where like, "WTF!? The hot break half is better?" in their report...

I reckon you should start a thread so this doesn't get buried and goes unseen ... it's a significant change to a well-established mind-set ... and will give everyone many, many more liters of (possibly better, no worse) beer each year that usually goes down the drain.

 

[bum]

it's a significant change to a well-established mind-set

No, it is entirely perception based. Not questioning jkeske's perceptions here - I am sure they are reported fairly and accurately. It is still simply a matter of perception.

I see no one talking about beer stability either - which, to my understanding, is the larger reason we exclude hot break, not flavour.

Haven't read the report on the discussion of its contents.

 

[Nick JD]

I see no one talking about beer stability

Drink faster.

 

[bum]

I can't fault that advice but it doesn't mean that it is automatically cool to ignore hot break.

 

[jkeske]

No, it is entirely perception based. Not questioning jkeske's perceptions here - I am sure they are reported fairly and accurately. It is still simply a matter of perception.

I see no one talking about beer stability either - which, to my understanding, is the larger reason we exclude hot break, not flavour.

Haven't read the report on the discussion of its contents.

I don't think perception is the right word here. There were certainly differences in these beers beyond personal interpretation (i.e. clarity). But I do understand that this one experiment does not mean it is always best to put all of the hot break in the fermenter. Clearly different beer styles/ brewing procedures may not end up with the same results. The best I can say is that you need to do this for yourself to determine what works best for the beer you are making

 

[bum]

Let me make it clear that I don't mean to suggest you were percieving things that weren't there. I am sure that the differences that were observed are valid and your post is most certainyl food for thought - thanks for sharing. I'm just not sure it (the broader report) closes the book on the issue as Nick seemed to have implied.

 

[Nick JD]

Let me make it clear that I don't mean to suggest you were percieving things that weren't there. I am sure that the differences that were observed are valid and your post is most certainyl food for thought - thanks for sharing. I'm just not sure it (the broader report) closes the book on the issue as Nick seemed to have implied.

Certainly doesn't leave it open.

 

[jkeske]

No worries mate. I think you are right that there are no simple answers. I'm sure what and how you are brewing determines how the hot break affects things, but I certainly learned a lot by doing this type of experiment.

 

[bum]

Haven't read the report on the discussion of its contents.

Should read "...only the discussion...".

Father Christmas obviously didn't grant me my wish of a useful edit function. And it was the only thing I wanted too!

 

[GuyQLD]

Certainly doesn't leave it open.

Actually it very much does leave it open, what about the reported higher levels of astringency and beer stability is definately a concern if you want to age a darker beer. Don't get me wrong, the podcast was a great listen and the clearest beer I've ever made was one where I threw a tanty and included a bunch of hot break because I couldn't get a decent cone to form that day, however to me it means we should definitely start looking at the other issues, in particular the astringency reported.


For me it raises questions like,



1. Should I include only parts of the trub, would this give better results or all of the trub.



2. Are the stringency levels linked to kettle hops perhaps? I'll need to find my hop sock again and see, maybe I'll set my trub losses to 0 and do a stlye that only contains a 60 min addition in the sock and see what I get.



I guess I'm going to start experimenting, but the problem is one brewer in the home environment is going to struggle to make any serious headway into an experiment like that, getting a decent enough sample size and getting it tested are just going to be hard. It'd be great to see the community here pick up the challenge, least of all because there are brewers out there with years more experience than I who can at least be trusted not to halls thing up on brew day like I do.

Edit: posting from phone so ignore the parts that sound like english is not my first English.

 

[Nick JD]

...the problem is one brewer in the home environment is going to struggle to make any serious headway into an experiment like that, getting a decent enough sample size and getting it tested are just going to be hard.

IMO, the experiment (20-odd people across the world) was designed not to prove that hotbreak was good in the fermenter, but that it wasn't necessarily bad.

Yes, in some styles it might not be a good idea to have hotbreak in there, but for a hell of a lot, it either made no difference, or improved the beer.

That's good enough for me. As someone who kettle chills 1.070+ wort and dilutes in the fermenter ... I lose a lot more to hotbreak than the whirlpooler. I'm planning on inclusing the majority of my hotbreak since listening to the results of this podcast, and waiting for it to show detrimental effects. This will give me around 10% more beer in my kegs - that's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept if a few styles are slightly less good because of it, and others are actually better.

I contain my hops in the boil.

 

[mje1980]

A bit o/t but if you find darker beers are atringent, add the dark malts later in the mash (15 mins). It smooths out, and takes the hard edge off darker malts. Easy to do and a good result, win win imho

 

[Markbeer]

Not worrying about trub and hot break making it into the fermenter can possibly make it harder to recover and re-use yeast if you are into doing that.

And yes MJE1980 I have tasted your beers and they are very smooth with the late additions of dark grains. An alternative to cold steeping if you use that technique and forget.

 

[jc64]

I reuse my yeast a few times, hadn't thought of the effect of more trub getting into the fermenter. I do wash the yeast with some cooled boiled water though so that should be fine I would imagine.

 

[Nick JD]

If you're pitching on the whole cake (probably shouldn't be) then it'd be an issue. If you're taking 200ml of roused yeast off the bottom of the FV via gentle agitation and gettng it out the tap, your trub is of little consequence.

 

[manticle]

IMO, the experiment (20-odd people across the world) was designed not to prove that hotbreak was good in the fermenter, but that it wasn't necessarily bad.

Yes, in some styles it might not be a good idea to have hotbreak in there, but for a hell of a lot, it either made no difference, or improved the beer.

That's good enough for me. As someone who kettle chills 1.070+ wort and dilutes in the fermenter ... I lose a lot more to hotbreak than the whirlpooler. I'm planning on inclusing the majority of my hotbreak since listening to the results of this podcast, and waiting for it to show detrimental effects. This will give me around 10% more beer in my kegs - that's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept if a few styles are slightly less good because of it, and others are actually better.

I contain my hops in the boil.

Split a batch - cube the non hot break and then the rest with all the hot break.

Ferment under the same conditions. Make it a medium hopped, medium colour, medium gravity beer.

Ambient age 1/2 of each in bulk with low/no oxygen ingress and bottle the other half. Taste the botles at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Bottle or keg the bulk aged at 18 months.

I'd be interesting in doubling up on something like this if we can agree on a recipe. My understanding of eliminating hot break is predominantly to do with aging characteristics which the podcast exp seems less concerned with. Commercial breweries extending shelf life - be good to get an HB perspective.

To do it properly we would need to add controls and all sorts of things that may make it unrealistic but to my mind getting the experience of both aged and non aged with and without HB helps, even if it is by nature, inconclusive.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Quality implications aside - I have no intentions of entering or creating an argument further argument about a subject that people can research perfectly well for themselves - the volume argument has been touched upon and needs to be emphasised.

You wont "get more beer" except in specific circumstances - what you gain in the kettle, you will lose in the fermenter, maybe a little less and actually maybe a little more. Lots of break in your fermenter makes the cake at the bottom fluffy and less stable - it will eat up a roughly equivalent amount of your saved volume (dependent on a few things of course) and can also make it considerably more important for you to have good technique during your transfers to avoid stirring things up.

Its also last chance hotel - if you stuff up solids separation from kettle to fermenter, you have another chance - fermenter to package and you need to get it right.

In Nick's circumstance, where he is comparing a loss of X litres of beer to an amount of high gravity wort that would make considerably more than X litres of beer - the volume argument makes perfect sense. For other people its far less cut and dried.

So you could well be trading potential quality implications for no gain at all - and thats a bad bargain. Make sure your numbers add up over a few brews before you decide that the value outweighs any cost.

 

[Nick JD]

So you could well be trading potential quality implications for no gain at all - and thats a bad bargain.

After listening to that podcast, chances are greater than not that your beer will improve in quality (more than half found it improved their beer) if you add the hotbreak.

Personally, I don't think I ever drink beer that's older than 8 weeks (in a consumable state). That's also due to my batch sizes and buff liver.

 

[jc64]

I thought I would resurrect this thread rather than start a new one as my question is in regard to my experiences since moving to chilling my batches.


Since chilling I have noticed in all my beers the first, say, four schooners have noticeable flake like debris. I've been using gelatin as per the methods described here and my beer is crystal clear, taste is as I expect. Someone with more experience than me could hopefully confirm that what I'm seeing is cold break material that has made it's way to the keg?.

I only crash chill the fermentor for about three days, do you think this could be part of the reason I'm getting this in my final product. Any tips would be appreciated.

Cheers