I just recently started using whirlfloc as a clarifier instead of irish moss. With this change I'm finding that whirlfloc precipitates a lot more of the proteins out of suspension during the cold break when I'm chilling down my wort.
I'd say this is generally a good thing, except for the fact that when I'm draining my kettle I have a crapload of break in the bottom. It's well over the level of my ball valve even after a 30 min whirlpool.
So my question is, is it critical to leave this in the kettle or is transferring the break material to the carboy a problem? I bag my hops now so pretty much all the trub is break. I'm more worried about flavor profile than volume loss.
Can I get some opinions?
Whirlfloc
Whirlfloc
Cedar Rapids Beer Nuts Secretary
"Milk does a body good my ass. Beer is the healthier choice and hops are a wonderful medicine."
MattF
"Milk does a body good my ass. Beer is the healthier choice and hops are a wonderful medicine."
MattF
Whirlfloc
I don't think anyone really knows the answer to this question.
I've seen three schools of thought on the topic. One says that you have to keep as much cold break out of the fermenter as possible to ensure a "clean" fermentation. Another says that the cold break proteins provide extra FANs and promote yeast health. The last group says that it doesn't matter at all. I've heard Jamil Zainasheff promote the first school of thought over a handful of his shows and in his discussion of the advantages of using a "whirlpool chiller" (http://www.mrmalty.com/chiller.php). In the third school of thought, I've heard Charles Bamforth say that he doesn't know of any scientific studies confirming the importance of keeping cold break out of the fermentor and he can't possibly imagine why it would influence the flavor profile. I forget where I heard the second school of thought (John Blichmann, maybe?).
When making lagers, I've had good success in achieving a clean flavor profile after either filtering out or racking off the cold break before pitching. That being said, I've never done a side-by-side comparison or any type of controlled experiment to see if this is just a coincidence. Plus, I've never tried to do this in anything but light colored lagers (Munich Helles and Classic American Pilsner).
Also, note that most breweries do not do a cold-side whirlpool and use some type of plate chiller after a hot-side whirlpool. This means they're dumping their cold break directly into the fermentor. Some drop the cold break after it settles into the cone, but I doubt it's a common occurence. Quinton could offer better commentary on this point than I can.
My gut says that achieving a good protein break is important to minimize chill haze and keeping harsh-tasting tannins & polyphenols from becoming permanently soluble. That being said, once the proteins are either broken down (hot break) or precipitated (cold break), I'm not sure it makes too much of a difference to just let it sit in the bottom of your fermentor. I'm planning to continue to experiment with this, though, and fully expect to change my mind several times over the next year.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Steven P <brew-tech@crbeernuts.org (brew-tech@crbeernuts.org)> wrote:
I've seen three schools of thought on the topic. One says that you have to keep as much cold break out of the fermenter as possible to ensure a "clean" fermentation. Another says that the cold break proteins provide extra FANs and promote yeast health. The last group says that it doesn't matter at all. I've heard Jamil Zainasheff promote the first school of thought over a handful of his shows and in his discussion of the advantages of using a "whirlpool chiller" (http://www.mrmalty.com/chiller.php). In the third school of thought, I've heard Charles Bamforth say that he doesn't know of any scientific studies confirming the importance of keeping cold break out of the fermentor and he can't possibly imagine why it would influence the flavor profile. I forget where I heard the second school of thought (John Blichmann, maybe?).
When making lagers, I've had good success in achieving a clean flavor profile after either filtering out or racking off the cold break before pitching. That being said, I've never done a side-by-side comparison or any type of controlled experiment to see if this is just a coincidence. Plus, I've never tried to do this in anything but light colored lagers (Munich Helles and Classic American Pilsner).
Also, note that most breweries do not do a cold-side whirlpool and use some type of plate chiller after a hot-side whirlpool. This means they're dumping their cold break directly into the fermentor. Some drop the cold break after it settles into the cone, but I doubt it's a common occurence. Quinton could offer better commentary on this point than I can.
My gut says that achieving a good protein break is important to minimize chill haze and keeping harsh-tasting tannins & polyphenols from becoming permanently soluble. That being said, once the proteins are either broken down (hot break) or precipitated (cold break), I'm not sure it makes too much of a difference to just let it sit in the bottom of your fermentor. I'm planning to continue to experiment with this, though, and fully expect to change my mind several times over the next year.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Steven P <brew-tech@crbeernuts.org (brew-tech@crbeernuts.org)> wrote:
Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)I just recently started using whirlfloc as a clarifier instead of irish moss. With this change I'm finding that whirlfloc precipitates a lot more of the proteins out of suspension during the cold break when I'm chilling down my wort.
I'd say this is generally a good thing, except for the fact that when I'm draining my kettle I have a crapload of break in the bottom. It's well over the level of my ball valve even after a 30 min whirlpool.
So my question is, is it critical to leave this in the kettle or is transferring the break material to the carboy a problem? I bag my hops now so pretty much all the trub is break. I'm more worried about flavor profile than volume loss.
Can I get some opinions?
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts, and beer."
-Abraham Lincoln
http://endofthewoad.blogspot.com/
And that's why we have the good Dr. Paulsen! I appreciate the feedback. I'll make notes on both approaches over the next few brews and post my thoughts.
The last beer I did was a Tripel on Sunday and I had a crap ton of cold break which seemed worrisome. I used Briess Pilsner. It seems to be higher in protein than the Belgian pils I've used in the past for different things.
The last beer I did was a Tripel on Sunday and I had a crap ton of cold break which seemed worrisome. I used Briess Pilsner. It seems to be higher in protein than the Belgian pils I've used in the past for different things.
Cedar Rapids Beer Nuts Secretary
"Milk does a body good my ass. Beer is the healthier choice and hops are a wonderful medicine."
MattF
"Milk does a body good my ass. Beer is the healthier choice and hops are a wonderful medicine."
MattF
There's a test you can do with whirlfloc to determine the proper amount you need for each beer (this is assuming you might be doing the same recipe multiple times). We had the rep do it for us at the brewery so I can't speak for all the details, but I have seen a description of the method out there on the internets.
Basically, it involves taking various samples of wort and putting different amounts of whirlfloc in each.
I know that if you use too much, it is counter productive, and too little doesn't do the job. Gotta have it just right.
Basically, it involves taking various samples of wort and putting different amounts of whirlfloc in each.
I know that if you use too much, it is counter productive, and too little doesn't do the job. Gotta have it just right.