Hot Break. Stir it in or scrape it off?

[Sadfield]

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.

I suppose the danger with that is, if a brewer assumes having hit the hot break they have done enough to form break material that can be removed from the wort, and cut a boil short.

 

[AdeDunn]

Ahh, but the truly scientific thinker knows that without experimentation there is no innovation. Without trying new things we never would have reached the sky, let alone the moon, and would still be running around hitting things with clubs.

Or as I prefer to think of it, suck it and see for yourself. As in try it once, see what happens, if you like the result try it a few more times. If it still works for you and you like the result, make it a part of your process. This is the joy of home brewing, you can brew beer that you actually like yourself. Don't let faceless people on the internet brow beat you into thinking there's only one true way.

 

[Covrich]

FWIW I did a brew where there was a fair bit of scum which would appear during the boil I spent the whole boil skimming anything that formed just to see what difference it made, There was no noticable difference to my trub levels.. But that was just one brew using a recipe which IIRC I have not done before or since so I cannot be fully sure..

Either way this made me come to that conclusion that it wasn't worth worrying about.

Being patient enough to let things settle in the kettle before transferring will have a better result I am sure.

 

[Bigcol49]

I suppose the danger with that is, if a brewer assumes having hit the hot break they have done enough to form break material that can be removed from the wort, and cut a boil short.

Hi!
I time the boil from the hot break, and I assume most do, so cutting short the boil at that point would be incredibly foolish.

 

[dad_of_jon]

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



. . . 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.

I only do a 15 min partial extract boil and get no break material at all. To utter those 'contentious' words....

This works for me :grin:

 

[Sadfield]

Hi!
I time the boil from the hot break, and I assume most do, so cutting short the boil at that point would be incredibly foolish.

Agreed. I didn't specify at that point, however.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

[BarnBrian]

Hi!
I time the boil from the hot break, and I assume most do, so cutting short the boil at that point would be incredibly foolish.

Hi Col
I time my boil from the start of boil, I assumed that's what everyone did. Interesting to hear what others do.

 

[AdeDunn]

Hi Col
I time my boil from the start of boil, I assumed that's what everyone did. Interesting to hear what others do.

Similarly, I time the boil from when it reaches a rolling boil. The fact that the foam occurs at the start of this point is coincidence. :lol: Bring to a rolling boil, get past the foam (I checked the 4th Edition of John Palmer's How To Brew by the way, and he doesn't state that the foam is the hot break, but rather that the hot break stage occurs just after the foam dies down, as in that the hot break stage occurs after the foam dies down. So any confusion is on the part of the reader there.), add bittering hops, start timer. Works for me (duck and cover!). :lol:

 

[Bigcol49]

I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

Hi!
No point at all - I was agreeing with you that it would not be conducive to making good beer to cut short the boil at the hot break.

 

[AdeDunn]

It'd probably save a lot of friction if when folks read "I do this, and it works for me", they take it as somebody just saying that it's just how they do things and try it at your own risk, rather than reading it and thinking that it implies that the poster is suggesting that it's the only correct way to do things.

My wife cringes when watching me chop an onion for example, because I use a very large knife (an old carving knife in fact) and cut the onion in half after peeling it, then chop each half. Where she was trained as a chef so uses a small knife and leaves the root on whilst she chops up to the root. Thing is, both methods leave you with a nicely chopped onion....

 

[dad_of_jon]

It'd probably save a lot of friction if when folks read "I do this, and it works for me", they take it as somebody just saying that it's just how they do things and try it at your own risk, rather than reading it and thinking that it implies that the poster is suggesting that it's the only correct way to do things.

My wife cringes when watching me chop an onion for example, because I use a very large knife (an old carving knife in fact) and cut the onion in half after peeling it, then chop each half. Where she was trained as a chef so uses a small knife and leaves the root on whilst she chops up to the root. Thing is, both methods leave you with a nicely chopped onion....

or perhaps YMMV. :thumb: As we have so many differences say between our setups, sanitizing routines etc.. any of these differences could alter the outcome of a brew. I would hope those that read something works for a forumite considers first if that fits in with their situation rather than taking it as gospel?

If I had hot break, id filter it out but that would be my preference.

 

[AdeDunn]

Exactly D-O-J. A forum is just differing opinions, it's up to the reader what advice they use and what they discard. It may even be that they later take advice they discarded after finding the previous attempt wasn't to their liking. Heck, even with books you have to cherry pick. Otherwise I'd be using either liquid yeast or yeast begged from a local brewery... lol

I'd prefer to leave the trub from the boiler behind myself too be honest, as it makes racking to my bottling bucket much easier. I've yet to manage it though, thanks to problems with it blocking my bazooka (worst when using un-bagged hop pellets), heck the last brew I had an insane amount of flour in my wort (I suspect bottom of the bag syndrome, as I was finishing off open bags). Beer has come out fine though, for me. Somebody else might try the same and be able to taste something that my taste buds are blind to though.

Vive le difference.

 

[Robin54]

or perhaps YMMV. :thumb: As we have so many differences say between our setups, sanitizing routines etc.. any of these differences could alter the outcome of a brew. I would hope those that read something works for a forumite considers first if that fits in with their situation rather than taking it as gospel?

If I had hot break, id filter it out but that would be my preference.

I blame the full moon:lol:

 

[Beersort]

Stir it in, especially if the mash contained high proteins malts like wheat in it or adjuncts like porridge oats

 

[ExpatBrewer]

I suppose the danger with that is, if a brewer assumes having hit the hot break they have done enough to form break material that can be removed from the wort, and cut a boil short.

I time the boil from the hot break, and I assume most do, so cutting short the boil at that point would be incredibly foolish... ...it would not be conducive to making good beer to cut short the boil at the hot break.

I only do a 15 min partial extract boil and get no break material at all. To utter those 'contentious' words....

This works for me :grin:

I guess this opens up the debate about boils times! With my partial mash brews where I mash 2kg of grain (12litres of wort) I've more recently been boiling for only 30 minutes. Consistent with the brewing 'mythbusters' findings where his tasters actually preferred the short boil beer I too certainly haven't noticed any detrimental effects from a shorter boil. As it happens the clearest brightest looking beer I've ever produced was boiled for just a 1/2 hour. "This works for me" :grin:

It's known that the hot-break/protein coagulation thing only takes around 10 minutes. DMS is another concern of course, but how long does it actually take to drive that off sufficiently? If you don't have a 60 min hop addition is a 60 min boil really necessary? :hmm:

As an aside, I've also read the "short and shoddy" Brulosophy trials too with interest... shorter mash time and only 15 minute boils!

 

[Gunge]

I'm gonna try this ultra-short boil next time. Any minute more than is necessary is a shocking waste of time and money. It'll either work for me or it won't... if not, one bad brew out of thousands ain't the end of the world, and stuff what 'convention' says if it's good.

 

[IainM]

My understanding is that a long boil will add to the trub stuff that would otherwise be adverse for shelf life if it stayed in the beer. I've done a couple of 20 or 30 min boils but they didn't hang around long enough to test that idea. Didn't seem to do any harm in the short term.

 

[ExpatBrewer]

My understanding is that a long boil will add to the trub stuff that would otherwise be adverse for shelf life if it stayed in the beer. I've done a couple of 20 or 30 min boils but they didn't hang around long enough to test that idea. Didn't seem to do any harm in the short term.

Yes I've read about the shelf-life concerns. I don't know if that's ever been tested in any way or whether it's just another one of those 'theoretical' problems that doesn't actually exist in reality. Dunno, but like you my finished beer doesn't usually doesn't hang around long enough for it to ever be of concern.

 

[trueblue]

Several years back I did the tour at the York brewery. After the tour I had a couple of pints with the head brewer in the brewery tap. One topic we spoke about was boil length as I had cut from 90 mins to 60 mins a year or so previously and found no change in my beer. He told me they had tried the same, think how much it would cut a brewery electric bill, but had so many complaints from their customers they soon changed back. Cask beers were going off quicker and some of the bottle beers not keeping as well. His conclusion, after talking to other professional brewers, was the hot break had not been completed in 60 mins. I still boil for 60 mins but I will drink the beer in 2-3 weeks. If I am brewing a stronger beer for bottling and keeping for any length of time I will boil for 90 mins.