Hot Break. Stir it in or scrape it off?

[Sadfield]

I've wondered about this "mis-information" myself, and there seems to be an Atlantic divide. Most American references seem to call the foam at the start of the boil the hot break whereas in the UK the hot break is the clumps of protein you see towards the end of the boil.

I think part of the confusion is that the mechanism behind these two occurrences is essentially the same, ie denaturing and coagulation of proteins and tannins due to the heat and agitation.

So I think it's more accurate to say that the foaming at the start of the boil is the beginning of the hot break but it's not complete until the clumps are large and stable enough to easily precipitate, which is when the wort has the so called "egg drop soup" look. I suppose it doesn't really matter what you call it as long as we know what's meant.

Regarding the op, I usually don't skim the foam unless I'm brewing something light and delicate like a pils or kolsch. I'm not sure it makes any difference, but Gordon Strong reckons it can affect clarity.

Agreed. I think any misinformation comes from people reading Palmers How To Brew, then forgetting one of the points on either side of this debate. The hot break starts to happen at the beginning of the boil, and foaming is an indication of the hot break forming. However, the foam isn't the hot break, it is the stuff that becomes more visible at flame out when the wort isn't moving in the boil. Everyone is correct to some degree, but not entirely.





Sent from my KFAUWI using Tapatalk

 

[Gunge]

However, the foam isn't the hot break, it is the stuff that becomes more visible at flame out when the wort isn't moving in the boil.

That's always been my take on it, most likely read from a book before half the posters on here were born lol! Dunno how it stuck in my mind but went something along the lines of... if you can't observe lumps of stuff coming together and 'growing' in the wort before your very eyes when the heat source is removed, the hot break has not occurred and more boiling is required.

 

[Bigcol49]

I paid good money for whatever is in there.

Hi!
A man after my own heart.

 

[Bigcol49]

Hi!
Should there be a distinction between the hot break, a distinctive point in the boiling process, and hot break material that forms in the wort post-boil?

 

[Sadfield]

Hi!
Should there be a distinction between the hot break, a distinctive point in the boiling process, and hot break material that forms in the wort post-boil?

I would say Hot Break should refer to material itself, not the time when it starts to form. A big factor in its formation is boil vigour, the more vigorous the boil, the better the hot break formation. Irish moss helps also.

 

[Ajhutch]

Some interesting stuff here. I had been taken in by the myth that the foam itself was the hot break, but had always stirred it in so no harm done!

In the same vein then, what is the cold break? Is it the same material as hot break, the coagulation of that material or something entirely separate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gunge]

Some interesting stuff here. I had been taken in by the myth that the foam itself was the hot break, but had always stirred it in so no harm done!

In the same vein then, what is the cold break? Is it the same material as hot break, the coagulation of that material or something entirely separate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just found this...

http://www.love2brew.com/Articles.asp?ID=526

... which confirms what I've always thought!

 

[Fil]

having sat and wathched a measure of dme solution simmer for 40 minutes before the clear solution turned cloudy with hot break while the process may start chemically at the onset of the boil period there are no indicators to a brewer that its under way, I would contend that the initial foam up of the brew is explained by the final release of gasses dissolved in the liquor being released as the boils reached but is still constrained by the nominally higher surface tension of the sweet liquor, hence the foam that encapsulates it. and is a distinct and unrelated event of the brewday.

 

[trueblue]

To get back to the original question the gunk at the start of the boil is not the hot break as this is only achieved after at least an hour of boiling. This rubbish will not effect the clarity or be detrimental to the final beer. I wonder if it will just break down during the boil.

 

[ExpatBrewer]

This rubbish will not effect the clarity or be detrimental to the final beer.

According to the Brulosophy ExBeeriment mentioned above - it actually improves clarity. :)

 

[Robin54]

Ive read this thread with interest, since it has reared its "ugly head" on a regular basis. The upshot seems to be that there is a wide difference of opinion of what is what. The proof would, for you, the individual, be, is my beer clear. Do what you do, and enjoy your beer. All I know, without any scientific research, but my results are TOTALLY replicable, that hot break makes no difference to the clarity of bottled beer, after cold crashing, even if using only ONE grain, and more grain/hop additions make no difference. I've mini-kegged a few beers and the results are the same. My results don't really have any scientific validity, because of the way i brew, but i do have a paper published in the BJA so know a little about variance and replicable results etc.

 

[trueblue]

According to the Brulosophy ExBeeriment mentioned above - it actually improves clarity. :)

Brulosophy experiments are such a small sample I personally take them with a pinch of salt. Your choice of yeast is one important factor in how well a beer will clear.

 

[Robin54]

Brulosophy experiments are such a small sample I personally take them with a pinch of salt. Your choice of yeast is one important factor in how well a beer will clear.

I agree, there are so many variables. Personally i don't read all the 'losophy stuff, cos I don't need to. As I said, at the end of the day its all to do with variance and replicable results.

 

[strange-steve]

I'm not sure there is a wide difference of opinion, nobody has told the OP that he should skim off the foam. There is obviously some confusion over whether the foam is called the hot break but I think we're all agreed that is really just a nomenclature issue.

 

[Robin54]

I'm not sure there is a wide difference of opinion, nobody has told the OP that he should skim off the foam. There is obviously some confusion over whether the foam is called the hot break but I think we're all agreed that is really just a nomenclature issue.

Here we go again. indeed nobody has (me). my point is that there are just too many variables for the home brewer. could be your water/ grain/technique/temp/ even the very year your grain was grown. (Full moon/super moon) Then what sort of soil was your grain grown on, how many hours of sun light did it have. I'm sorry space man but its almost impossible to draw a conclusion without throwing some spanner in the works which is not provable/unprovable... and then some one on the forum says" I always chuck in a shredded wheat", and off we go again. At the end of the day i feel, passionately, that this forum, in fact any forum, should give good honest advice to any member, based on replicable results, based on the equipment you have to hand.

 

[strange-steve]

I'm not actually sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there; the "space man" comment (:lol:) makes me think the latter, although I don't honestly know what about.

 

[ExpatBrewer]

Your choice of yeast is one important factor in how well a beer will clear.

That's certainly true as I discovered when I switched to using Nottingham earlier last year. A very noticeable improvement in beer clarity. I'm not sure of the reasons why though? As chill haze is caused by the clumping of proteins and tannins I can only assume that as the yeast settles some strains tend to drag more of these compounds down... :hmm:

 

[Bigcol49]

. . . its almost impossible to draw a conclusion without throwing some spanner in the works which is not provable/unprovable...

Hi!
It's not about proof, or lack of it. It's about results, about beer.

. . . and then some one on the forum says" I always chuck in a shredded wheat"

. . . but is not saying, "You must . . . ", merely, "This works for me."
I've improved my brewing technique by reading a "this works for me" posting and trying it myself.

 

[Bigcol49]

I would say Hot Break should refer to material itself, not the time when it starts to form.

Hi!
The reason that I posed the question is that I have read on several websites about the boil reaching the hot break, suggesting that it was a distinctive phase of boiling wort, the point at which proteins began to coagulate.
Many homebrewing websites also refer to the material that is formed during this process as hot break, I assume by association, originally.

 

[Sadfield]

Here we go again. indeed nobody has (me). my point is that there are just too many variables for the home brewer. could be your water/ grain/technique/temp/ even the very year your grain was grown. (Full moon/super moon) Then what sort of soil was your grain grown on, how many hours of sun light did it have. I'm sorry space man but its almost impossible to draw a conclusion without throwing some spanner in the works which is not provable/unprovable... and then some one on the forum says" I always chuck in a shredded wheat", and off we go again. At the end of the day i feel, passionately, that this forum, in fact any forum, should give good honest advice to any member, based on replicable results, based on the equipment you have to hand.

"I do this and it works for me"..

..can be the very same as..

"I get away with doing this".

Sending man into space as an application of the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, and as a result, with the right resources, achievable to everyone capable of understanding them. As brewing isn't rocket science, knowing some fundamental brewing science should help all brewers brew better beer, regardless of their equipment and other variables.

As for your point about variables, equipment is a pretty big one. Unless we all brew on the same equipment, using the exact fuel source at the same altitude, we are not even going to boil at the same temperature and with the same vigour. Therefore an understanding of what needs to happen in the boil is pretty useful when adjusting our own process.