ben 10 Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Whirlpooling is not needed for late hop additions though. All my hops bar a FWH go in at flameout, without the whirlpool. And regardless of the Brulosophy experiment proteins from the hot break are known to cause staling. The reason I add whirlfloc is to cause that stuff to clump together in order to lessen the amount that gets into my cube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captsensible23 Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I work in a brewery and there is a reason we use a whirlpool vessel. We don't want that crap in the FV, (it also blocks the HX and pump). The day after we have transferred to the fermenter, we also dump the left over kettle trub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylon Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Yeh Im hearing you guys... in all humbleness... I have an open mind as it makes sence not to add crap trub to beer ! Great take on that Kelsey... it was a pretty cool article! Its a good interesting chat discussion... Its good to get your opinions out in the open... Its all about becoming better and better batches! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Von Blotto Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I have an open mind too, but I also follow the evidence. If evidence says that putting hot break in the fermenter can lead to the beer staling prematurely, then I will take that on board and do my best to keep the crap out. It's not so much opinion, but researched and proven ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ruddager Posted April 13, 2016 Author Share Posted April 13, 2016 ... All my hops bar a FWH go in at flameout ... No dry hops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben 10 Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 ... All my hops bar a FWH go in at flameout ... No dry hops? Yes yes.... Sorry. All my kettle hops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerlust Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 The bulk of hot break material produced at the beginning of the boil is easily removed if you make the effort. My understanding of what constitutes "hot break", is the material (usually grain based) that is pushed out of solution at the point full boil is achieved. A few months ago I began physically removing this material as soon as hot break was reached, until only the wort itself remains for the rest of the boil. My reasoning for removing it is simple. If it is naturally being forced out of solution through the boiling process, doesn't that tell a person its properties are an unwanted presence in the final product? It does to me anyway. I've noticed a less astringent aspect to my beers since making the effort to remove it, rather than let it mix back into the wort. Just my 2 cents. Lusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben 10 Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 My reasoning for removing it is simple. Nope. More knowledgeable brewers than I (manticle from AHB) having given some forgotten reasons for not skimming the boil. My question would be... do you Lusty use a kettle fining, and do you still get crap at the bottom of the kettle/ pan like in my picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 This seems like an odd argument and I am fully in the court of Ben and Kelsey. Why would we bother with a Whirfloc (which to me indicates that undesirables are going to floc i.e. bond together) if you were just going to dump it all in the fermenter. I used to use a strainer to take off the hot break when doing small (14l) stove top boils, and did this the first Few times that I used my Crown Urn but after missing the opportunity a few times I noted that the beer was just as good. Therefore I concluded that using a whirfloc at 10 minutes and making a whirlpool at the end of the boil is sufficient in leaving behind all the undesirables. I will however consider letting the wort rest for 10 minutes next time - I rarely use flameout additions preferring at least a 1 minute boil. Cheers & Beers Scottie Valley Brew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Whirlfloc Tablets are an enhanced blend of Irish Moss and purified carrageenan that aids in the coagulation and settling of haze-producing proteins and beta glucans. Use one tablet per 10 gallon batch (For 5 gallon batches' date=' cut a tablet in half.[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Flocculation' date=' in the field of chemistry, is a process wherein colloids come out of suspension in the form of floc or flake; either spontaneously or due to the addition of a clarifying agent. The action differs from precipitation in that, prior to flocculation, colloids are merely suspended in a liquid and not actually dissolved in a solution. In the flocculated system, there is no formation of a cake, since all the flocs are in the suspension.[/quote'] Agglomeration (except in polymer science)Coagulation (except in polymer science) Flocculation (except in polymer science) Process of contact and adhesion whereby dispersed molecules or particles are held together by weak physical interactions ultimately leading to phase separation by the formation of precipitates of larger than colloidal size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Therefore it stands to reason that I add a whirfloc late in my boil so that all the haze-producing proteins and beta glucans floc together forming flakes that are bigger in size than the original particles. Because these flocs don't form a cake I need to make a whirlpool at the end of the boil where that centrifugal forces cause the flocs and other matter to pile in the centre of the kettle and get left behind. It follows, due to the act of flocculation, that the haze-producing proteins and beta glucans are not large enough to scoop off the top of the wort. Cheers & Beers Scottie Valley Brew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 PS I hate getting technical about brewing, and will try and refrain in future We should all RDWHAHB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Von Blotto Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Interesting reading there Scottie, I actually quite enjoy the technical side of things. Must get it from my father, he worked in labs for years. Anyway, I remember reading something on AHB regarding this, probably what Ben is referring to, in that the foamy crap that forms on top of the wort when it is reaching a boil isn't actually the hot break at all, and skimming it off does hardly anything to reduce trub levels by the end of it. I'll stand corrected on that as my memory may not be correct but I'm pretty sure that was the general gist of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerlust Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Hiya Ben. My reasoning for removing it is simple. Nope. More knowledgeable brewers than I (manticle from AHB) having given some forgotten reasons for not skimming the boil. My question would be... do you Lusty use a kettle fining' date=' and do you still get crap at the bottom of the kettle/ pan like in my picture?[/quote'] For my part in this discussion it probably needs to be said that I am only a partial grain brewer, & as such don't have to deal with as much grain based solids as a full AG'er does. The wort volumes I'm dealing with are far less from my grain sourced wort as a consequence. Given the smaller volumes I deal with, a false bottom isn't required. A tap line above the break level isn't required in my boiler either. For me, the use of a kettle fining is debatable at best. I find I can simply strain my mash wort away from the grain base through a fine weave strainer, & produce a reasonably clean wort for the boil. Given that fairly consistent eventuality brew after brew, adding a kettle fining toward the end of the boil is almost pointless for me & a waste of money. As far as Manticle's position on the removal of hot break material goes, he is entitled to his point of view on that one. I have read a number of his posts over on AHB & respect his brewing knowledge. If there is some reason he believes break material should be mixed back into the wort, I'd be happy to read & learn why. But for right now, I've only had positive results by removing it, from a position where I previously didn't. Cheers, Lusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylon Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Good stuff scottie, I think side by side brews doing a 78 degrees addition to a strait flame out addition comparison may be interesting... Personally im doing both its apparently well worth it but why bugger around for no reason! Juries out on this one for me... Im buying bulk hops and boiling 35-40 litres finished wort so 50g hops is also far from my heart! But I'm a mean bastard and like saving supplies... Waist not! want not! Ideally a top brew at a budget is apealling to me so doing affective additions and saving time is most important! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Von Blotto Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 A false bottom isn't used for trub management in BIAB, it's used to keep the bag off the element. I actually take mine out during the boil otherwise I can't get at the element with my wire brush to clean it off if needed. And also the one time I did leave it in there all the trub settled on it and ended up in the tap sooner than if it wasn't in there. Even if you have clear, clean wort for the boil, you'll still get hot break and other solids in it. Ask any 3Ver. However, your reduced volume probably negates the real need for a kettle fining as there is less crap to settle out to begin with. I think the reasoning behind Manticle's view is that the foamy sludge isn't actually hot break and skimming it does bugger all. I don't bother doing it with my brews either and have had nothing but positive results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylon Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Ive got false bottom purely for a grain bed in my mash tun in which no direct heat is applied, Sparge/ coil keggle doesn't need one and my boiler keggle I don't care if hop particals get in! If worried about hop particals after boil... secret tip! add a teaspoon of cement in your breakfast cereal tomorrow morning... sorry theres always gotta be some jester about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Von Blotto Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I don't really care about hop particles. In fact, cube hopping is a well known technique whereby hops are thrown into the cube and the wort drained in on top of them. I haven't tried it as yet, though. The problem in the kettle is that the hop particles settle on the bottom with the hot break and other undesirable stuff, so in order to keep that undesirable stuff out of the fermenter, the hop bits have to be kept out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerlust Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I think the reasoning behind Manticle's view is that the foamy sludge isn't actually hot break and skimming it does bugger all. I don't bother doing it with my brews either and have had nothing but positive results. In my situation' date=' there is likely some truth to that Kelsey. [img']innocent[/img] Right now I have my finger pointing in a number of directions claiming victory against the astringency issue I was suffering for a time. Currently I'm not sure if it was due to using some Campden tablets, altering my sparging temp & volume, or scooping the hot break off instead of mixing it in. Given all the variables in producing high quality home brewed beer, I accept I'm only human in trying to figure it all out. Cheers, Lusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Von Blotto Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Well the only way to figure that out is to brew three batches and on each one, revert one of those techniques back to your old method. If the astringency shows up, that's probably what caused it. I must admit leaving that sludgy crap to simply be absorbed back into the boil hasn't resulted in any astringency in my beers, so perhaps it is the sparging change or the Campden tablets that fixed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerlust Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I must admit leaving that sludgy crap to simply be absorbed back into the boil hasn't resulted in any astringency in my beers' date=' so perhaps it is the sparging change or the Campden tablets that fixed it.[/quote']Again you're probably right. I'm just happy the astringency has dropped to a barely noticeable level. For the record though, any matter being pushed out of solution as part of a naturally occurring act seems stupid to be forced back into solution to me, so I'll be sticking with removing the boil break (probably the correct term ). Well the only way to figure that out is to brew three batches and on each one' date=' revert one of those techniques back to your old method. If the astringency shows up, that's probably what caused it. [img']lol[/img] I'm a little like you & CBF'd! As long as the problem stays away, I'll stick with the current regime. Cheers & good brewing, Lusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben 10 Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 A false bottom isn't used for trub management in BIAB' date=' [/quote'] Although a fair bit of trub rests on mine thereby staying away from the tap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben 10 Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Found something... I put this question to a brewing consultant, (ex-head brewer for Tooheys and was teaching at Ballarat Uni, IBD Master Brewer) so someone I would not argue with. His opinion was that there is a finite amount of head building ingredients in a wort - so why would you remove any. A portion of what people call scum is in fact very good for head building and retention in the finished beer. The parts that aren't wind up in the trub. I suppose you can guess which way I swing on this one. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Skimming I have never skimmed the froth off before so I have no comparison. In the end, do whatever works for you. No big deal. Whirlpooling As mentioned by a few, whirlpooling has nothing to do with hopping. People use it as a reference to a time when they add the hops but the hops could be added at the same time without a whirlpool. I like to use whirlfloc and to whirlpool as it helps me to leave as much trub behind as possible. But I think the shape of your vessel has an influence on the effectiveness of it. I found whirlpooling in my 50 litre pot produced a much better cone than my Grainfather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.