No-chiller Moving To Immersion Chiller

[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