Fermenting on trub and break

brewing-forum.net
Promoting brewing discussion.

Main

Date: 12 Jul 2006 06:37:34
From: John M
Subject: Fermenting on trub and break

I didn't want to hijack the "what if" thread, so I moved my question to
this post. In the "what if" thread, and in some previous threads I've
read, some posters make the claim that not removing the trub and break
from the wort before primary fermentation is a bad thing. However, I
haven't seen anyone give a good, scientific reason for it. The claim
is usually something like, "well commerical brewers do it for a
reason". I have never bothered to remove the trub or break, as it
settles out and is removed when I rack to the secondary. My beers have
turned out great. Can anyone give a scientific reason for removal.
Has anyone ever compared the exact same recipe with and without the
removal? I am curious if the extra work of racking to the primary is
worth it, considering the extra work and the fact that at that point in
time the wort is most susceptible to infection.

Thanks,
John

Date: 12 Jul 2006 09:54:23
From: CarlJF
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

> IMO, there are probably more important things for beginners to worry about
> though. It's probably more important to intermediate or advanced brewers
> because they tend to be more interested in spending effort on smaller gains
> in consistency and/or quality. IOW, I see it as something that will help
> tweak your quality up a little bit, rather than something that will make
> a huge difference.

I agree with John. It's not the thing that will turn a good beer bad,
or a bad one turn good. It's more like something that may push an
already excellent brew to an outstanding one. Thus, it may not be that
important if your goal is just to get a pleasant beer to drink with
friends, but it may be the small plus you need for a competition beer,
or the difference between a first prize and a mention.

It's also not a question with a black and white answer, since there's a
lot of other variables that are in the equation. For example, some
style of beer may be more affected than others (it may be more easy to
detect very slight off flavor in a light, clean, lager than in an
imperial stout). The strain of yeast used, the hops, etc., can all play
some role here.

Date: 12 Jul 2006 09:53:31
From: CarlJF
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

Date: 12 Jul 2006 08:10:31
From: Ryan Case
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

Date: 12 Jul 2006 14:58:36
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On 12 Jul 2006 06:37:34 -0700, <statepenn99@gmail.com > wrote:
> I didn't want to hijack the "what if" thread, so I moved my question to
> this post. In the "what if" thread, and in some previous threads I've
> read, some posters make the claim that not removing the trub and break
> from the wort before primary fermentation is a bad thing. However, I
> haven't seen anyone give a good, scientific reason for it.

Material in the break can lead to off flavors by the yeast. It's more of
a problem if you don't aerate well, since if the yeast are starved
for oxygen they will attack the material and break it down in order to
steal the oxygen that is bound up with it. In doing so, they release some
things into the wort that can lead to off flavors.

Personally, I've never felt that it makes a huge difference. IMO, if you
have an easy way to keep the material out of your fermenter, then do so.
Even if you don't go out of your way to strain/filter the wort somehow,
you'll still likely leave much of it behind if you siphon from the kettle
to the fermenter after whirlpooling or letting the break drop out to
the bottom. On the other hand, fermenting in the kettle while leaving *all*
of the break in there isn't something I would want to do. I'm sure some
people get good results that way, but IMO, taking minimal steps to seperate
some of it out won't hurt anything and can only help make your beer better.

IMO, there are probably more important things for beginners to worry about
though. It's probably more important to intermediate or advanced brewers
because they tend to be more interested in spending effort on smaller gains
in consistency and/or quality. IOW, I see it as something that will help
tweak your quality up a little bit, rather than something that will make
a huge difference.

If bregent is still around, he had some good links to some more scientific
information on the topic. He and I were actually arguing about it for
awhile. He seemed to feel it was a bigger deal than I do, but I'll let
him chime in on the topic if he wants rather than speak for him.

John.

Date: 13 Jul 2006 07:21:46
From: Steve/Aus
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrneba3kv.ed6.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On 12 Jul 2006 06:37:34 -0700, <statepenn99@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO, there are probably more important things for beginners to worry about
> though. It's probably more important to intermediate or advanced brewers
> because they tend to be more interested in spending effort on smaller
> gains
> in consistency and/or quality. IOW, I see it as something that will help
> tweak your quality up a little bit, rather than something that will make
> a huge difference.
>
> John.

I have to totally agree with you here. From experience, ales and such like
seem not be so bothered about such practices. It was not until I moved into
the light pils stuff that these not so important things seem to take on a
larger role. As you stated, it is more important to intermediate-advanced
(or stupid) brewers, especially those who muck about with pils and light
lagers, something which begginers are not likely to want to play with.
Steve W (in Aus)

Date: 12 Jul 2006 10:00:42
From: Jim Stansell
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On 12 Jul 2006 06:37:34 -0700, "John M" <statepenn99@gmail.com > wrote:

>I didn't want to hijack the "what if" thread, so I moved my question to
>this post. In the "what if" thread, and in some previous threads I've
>read, some posters make the claim that not removing the trub and break
>from the wort before primary fermentation is a bad thing. However, I
>haven't seen anyone give a good, scientific reason for it. The claim
>is usually something like, "well commerical brewers do it for a
>reason". I have never bothered to remove the trub or break, as it
>settles out and is removed when I rack to the secondary. My beers have
>turned out great. Can anyone give a scientific reason for removal.
>Has anyone ever compared the exact same recipe with and without the
>removal? I am curious if the extra work of racking to the primary is
>worth it, considering the extra work and the fact that at that point in
>time the wort is most susceptible to infection.
>
>Thanks,
>John

I typically rack off the trub before pitching the yeast. I don't know
if it makes any difference in the taste of the finished beer, but it
makes harvesting the yeast from the primary much easier.

Date: 12 Jul 2006 06:45:43
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

John M wrote:
> I didn't want to hijack the "what if" thread, so I moved my question to
> this post. In the "what if" thread, and in some previous threads I've
> read, some posters make the claim that not removing the trub and break
> from the wort before primary fermentation is a bad thing. However, I
> haven't seen anyone give a good, scientific reason for it. The claim
> is usually something like, "well commerical brewers do it for a
> reason". I have never bothered to remove the trub or break, as it
> settles out and is removed when I rack to the secondary. My beers have
> turned out great. Can anyone give a scientific reason for removal.
> Has anyone ever compared the exact same recipe with and without the
> removal? I am curious if the extra work of racking to the primary is
> worth it, considering the extra work and the fact that at that point in
> time the wort is most susceptible to infection.
>
> Thanks,
> John

I also leave all that stuff in when I ferment. I actualyl move to a
glass primary and transfer everything thats not chunky. In order to
get the most wort into the fermenter, I transfer it all. After a week
the fermentation is just about done and I transfer to secondary to get
rid of the trub that is now well settled into the bottom. The
remaining yeast settles out in the secondary and then I am usually left
with a nice clean beer. I haven't noticed any off flavors yet, but
then again I haven't tried doing a comparison of with and without trub.
Maybe next batch I'll put into 2 fermenters. One will get the clear
wort from the top half and the other will get the cloudy stuff from the
bottom of the pot. Ferment in same conditions and see what happens.

Date: 14 Jul 2006 00:43:17
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

"brian@yahoo.com" <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1152711943.515328.290600@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> John M wrote:
>> I didn't want to hijack the "what if" thread, so I moved my question to
>> this post. In the "what if" thread, and in some previous threads I've
>> read, some posters make the claim that not removing the trub and break
>> from the wort before primary fermentation is a bad thing. However, I
>> haven't seen anyone give a good, scientific reason for it. The claim
>> is usually something like, "well commerical brewers do it for a
>> reason". I have never bothered to remove the trub or break, as it
>> settles out and is removed when I rack to the secondary. My beers have
>> turned out great. Can anyone give a scientific reason for removal.
>> Has anyone ever compared the exact same recipe with and without the
>> removal? I am curious if the extra work of racking to the primary is
>> worth it, considering the extra work and the fact that at that point in
>> time the wort is most susceptible to infection.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>
> I also leave all that stuff in when I ferment. I actualyl move to a
> glass primary and transfer everything thats not chunky. In order to
> get the most wort into the fermenter, I transfer it all. After a week
> the fermentation is just about done and I transfer to secondary to get
> rid of the trub that is now well settled into the bottom. The
> remaining yeast settles out in the secondary and then I am usually left
> with a nice clean beer. I haven't noticed any off flavors yet, but
> then again I haven't tried doing a comparison of with and without trub.
> Maybe next batch I'll put into 2 fermenters. One will get the clear
> wort from the top half and the other will get the cloudy stuff from the
> bottom of the pot. Ferment in same conditions and see what happens.

Boys, I wonder the same thing. My personal gut feeling is that removal of
the hot break is unnecessary, and that most people who say "oh my god,
you've got to get that hot break out of there right away" are talking out of
their arse. I never remove the hot break and I've made some damn fine beers
in my day. Even if there is a fancy theoretical explanation, I'm probably
not all that interested to hear about it, unless there is a qualitative
answer, like if somebody (like you have proposed, Brian) could run a
specific comparison splitting a batch in two, one clear and one cloudy, and
find a perceptable difference in flavor in the final beer, I might be
interested to hear the results of that, and might then have to try it out
myself one of these days. Until then, I don't believe it makes any
difference. If it makes a difference, then I need substantiated proof.
Anyone?

--
Dave
"Just a drink, a little drink, and I'll be feeling GOOooOOooOOooD!" --
Genesis, 1973-ish

Date: 14 Jul 2006 16:27:03
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:43:17 -0500, <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com > wrote:
> Boys, I wonder the same thing. My personal gut feeling is that removal of
> the hot break is unnecessary, and that most people who say "oh my god,
> you've got to get that hot break out of there right away" are talking out of
> their arse.

Who said that? I haven't seen anybody say that you've got to get the break
out of there right away. From what I've been reading, everyone's conclusion
is that it either doesn't matter or else it makes a small difference. I
haven't seen anybody claim that it makes a huge difference, at least not here.
Are you talking about other sources?

> answer, like if somebody (like you have proposed, Brian) could run a
> specific comparison splitting a batch in two, one clear and one cloudy, and
> find a perceptable difference in flavor in the final beer, I might be
> interested to hear the results of that, and might then have to try it out
> myself one of these days.

Lots of people have done that on here in the past, try checking out
archives from the group. Like just about everything else with regards to
subjective taste tests, some people found a difference and others did not.

> Until then, I don't believe it makes any difference. If it makes a
> difference, then I need substantiated proof. Anyone?

Personally, I believe it does make a small difference. There are a lot more
important things to worry about though, especially for beginners.

John.

Date: 15 Jul 2006 00:01:39
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrnebfhiu.5b8.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:43:17 -0500, <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com>
> wrote:
>> Boys, I wonder the same thing. My personal gut feeling is that removal
>> of
>> the hot break is unnecessary, and that most people who say "oh my god,
>> you've got to get that hot break out of there right away" are talking out
>> of
>> their arse.
>
> Who said that? I haven't seen anybody say that you've got to get the
> break
> out of there right away. From what I've been reading, everyone's
> conclusion
> is that it either doesn't matter or else it makes a small difference. I
> haven't seen anybody claim that it makes a huge difference, at least not
> here.
> Are you talking about other sources?

Sorry, need to clarify... two pro brewers (separated geographically by 1000
miles, by the way) have told me in the recent past, that it is not optional
but *crucial* to get the hot break out right away. But, perhaps any small
difference that it might make does not apply to the homebrewer? It seems
not.

>> answer, like if somebody (like you have proposed, Brian) could run a
>> specific comparison splitting a batch in two, one clear and one cloudy,
>> and
>> find a perceptable difference in flavor in the final beer, I might be
>> interested to hear the results of that, and might then have to try it out
>> myself one of these days.
>
> Lots of people have done that on here in the past, try checking out
> archives from the group. Like just about everything else with regards to
> subjective taste tests, some people found a difference and others did not.

I'd say if you got at least 3 or 4 BJCP judges in a room together (more
would obviously be preferable), they should be able to come up with an
objective result rather than subjective. Certainly this is achievable.
BJCP judges are by no means perfect, but certainly a little more
knowledgeable than Joe Blow and his brother Daryl. Anybody got results of
such a taste test from certified judges? (I'm too lazy to search.)

>> Until then, I don't believe it makes any difference. If it makes a
>> difference, then I need substantiated proof. Anyone?
>
> Personally, I believe it does make a small difference. There are a lot
> more
> important things to worry about though, especially for beginners.

I'm still not convinced whether it makes even a small difference or not.
But I certainly agree, even if there is, there are other more important
things to worry about.

--
Dave
"Just a drink, a little drink, and I'll be feeling GOOooOOooOOooD!" --
Genesis, 1973-ish

Date: 15 Jul 2006 18:50:44
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:01:39 -0500, <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com > wrote:
> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnebfhiu.5b8.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:43:17 -0500, <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Boys, I wonder the same thing. My personal gut feeling is that removal
>>> of
>>> the hot break is unnecessary, and that most people who say "oh my god,
>>> you've got to get that hot break out of there right away" are talking out
>>> of
>>> their arse.
>>
>> Who said that? I haven't seen anybody say that you've got to get the
>> break
>> out of there right away. From what I've been reading, everyone's
>> conclusion
>> is that it either doesn't matter or else it makes a small difference. I
>> haven't seen anybody claim that it makes a huge difference, at least not
>> here.
>> Are you talking about other sources?
>
> Sorry, need to clarify... two pro brewers (separated geographically by 1000
> miles, by the way) have told me in the recent past, that it is not optional
> but *crucial* to get the hot break out right away. But, perhaps any small
> difference that it might make does not apply to the homebrewer? It seems
> not.

Most commercial brewers will go through a lot of effort to remove all of
the break material. I don't know why it seems to be of such a high
concern to them whereas it's less so for homebrewers. Maybe just the
difference in scale? IE, we've got a tiny fraction of the amount of break
material that they do. There are lots of things like that which don't
translate well from commercial down to homebrew scale.

>>> answer, like if somebody (like you have proposed, Brian) could run a
>>> specific comparison splitting a batch in two, one clear and one cloudy,
>>> and
>>> find a perceptable difference in flavor in the final beer, I might be
>>> interested to hear the results of that, and might then have to try it out
>>> myself one of these days.
>>
>> Lots of people have done that on here in the past, try checking out
>> archives from the group. Like just about everything else with regards to
>> subjective taste tests, some people found a difference and others did not.
>
> I'd say if you got at least 3 or 4 BJCP judges in a room together (more
> would obviously be preferable), they should be able to come up with an
> objective result rather than subjective. Certainly this is achievable.
> BJCP judges are by no means perfect, but certainly a little more
> knowledgeable than Joe Blow and his brother Daryl. Anybody got results of
> such a taste test from certified judges? (I'm too lazy to search.)

Many of the people on here are BJCP judges. I don't know for sure if they
were the ones doing the taste tests in the past, but it wouldn't surprise
me.

John.

Date: 14 Jul 2006 09:25:20
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

David M. Taylor wrote:

> Boys, I wonder the same thing. My personal gut feeling is that removal of
> the hot break is unnecessary,
> [...]
> If it makes a difference, then I need substantiated proof.

Something that occurs to me during this discussion is that a lot of brewers
do not eliminate the *COLD* break, either. Yet that does not seem to cause
any problems that I know of. It simply falls to the bottom of the
fermenter and is discarded along with the rest of the trub.

Try this mind experiment...
Q: Why does the break... well, *BREAK*?
A: Because it is not soluble in wort.
Q: Does it become soluble again during fermentation?
A: I don't know.

Obviously, not very much (if any) of it returns to solution. I doubt that
it would be soluble in pure alcohol, much less a 5% solution of alcohol in
what is mostly water. If it does go into solution, then there might be a
problem with leaving it in. If not, then I fail to see how it could harm
anything.

--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com

Date: 14 Jul 2006 16:42:15
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:25:20 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> David M. Taylor wrote:
>
>> Boys, I wonder the same thing. My personal gut feeling is that removal of
>> the hot break is unnecessary,
>> [...]
>> If it makes a difference, then I need substantiated proof.
>
> Something that occurs to me during this discussion is that a lot of brewers
> do not eliminate the *COLD* break, either. Yet that does not seem to cause
> any problems that I know of. It simply falls to the bottom of the
> fermenter and is discarded along with the rest of the trub.

Cold break and hot break are different things. No, the cold break does not
make any difference to your beer. The hot break *may* make a small
difference though.

> Try this mind experiment...
> Q: Why does the break... well, *BREAK*?

Proteins coagulate, bond with other things (such as tannins), and become
heavy enough to fall out of solution.

> A: Because it is not soluble in wort.

It becomes "not soluble" when the break occurs.

> Q: Does it become soluble again during fermentation?

No. IIRC, neither cold break or hot break will become soluble again.
Physically, they'll just sit on the bottom of the fermenter. The problem
is that, at least with the hot break, it can still effect the flavor of
the beer to some degree. Usually due to interaction with the yeast.

> Obviously, not very much (if any) of it returns to solution. I doubt that
> it would be soluble in pure alcohol, much less a 5% solution of alcohol in
> what is mostly water. If it does go into solution, then there might be a
> problem with leaving it in. If not, then I fail to see how it could harm
> anything.

It's not a matter of it causing harm by going back into solution (which it
doesn't). It's more a matter of the yeast attacking the hot break
material if it's in the fermenter and using it to create by products that
otherwise would not be present during fermentation (fusels, etc).

Personally I don't think it makes a big difference. However, if you have
an easy way to keep the break out of the fermenter, then it's better to do
so. Keeping it out can potentially cause small improvements in the beer.
Whether or not it's enough to notice will probably depend on the beer as
well as the drinker.

John.

Date: 14 Jul 2006 12:09:35
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:

> It's not a matter of it causing harm by going back into solution (which it
> doesn't). It's more a matter of the yeast attacking the hot break
> material if it's in the fermenter and using it to create by products that
> otherwise would not be present during fermentation (fusels, etc).

I think that is probably the real key to the question, John. And it even
gives a clue why the answer may be that it seems more significant for
lagers than for ales!

> Personally I don't think it makes a big difference. However, if you have
> an easy way to keep the break out of the fermenter, then it's better to do
> so. Keeping it out can potentially cause small improvements in the beer.
> Whether or not it's enough to notice will probably depend on the beer as
> well as the drinker.

Personally, I have no plans to stop removing the hot break in *MY* beers
before fermentation. :-)

--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com

Date: 14 Jul 2006 17:49:35
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:09:35 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> It's not a matter of it causing harm by going back into solution (which it
>> doesn't). It's more a matter of the yeast attacking the hot break
>> material if it's in the fermenter and using it to create by products that
>> otherwise would not be present during fermentation (fusels, etc).
>
> I think that is probably the real key to the question, John. And it even
> gives a clue why the answer may be that it seems more significant for
> lagers than for ales!

Yeast health also plays a big role, IIRC. If the yeast are forced to
reproduce beyond the level supported by nutrients and free oxygen in the
wort, they will begin to scavange components from the hot break. I believe
that is what causes the flavor problems. So, yet another reason why
pitching rates and aeration is important.

So if you have a split batch, both with break material in the fermenter, but
one batch is underpitched and/or under aerated. That batch will show more
defects due to the presense of the break than the other batch.

A *lot* of things in brewing are related. Hot break in the fermenter, yeast
health, pitching rates, aeration, fermentation temperatures... etc can
all lead to similar defects and will also work together to either help
prevent problems from showing up that any one component would have caused,
or else multiply the problems. IE, lots of aeration will offset the
presence of hot break. That's one thing that makes subjective side by side
taste tests so unreliable for proving/disproving whether one piece of
the equation makes a difference. You have to look at the fermentation
puzzle as a whole in order to really understand what is going on. You
have to be really careful to control all of the other variables if you want
to try and isolate the contribution of one part. In a homebrew
environment, that level of control is extremely difficult.

John.

Date: 14 Jul 2006 08:13:37
From: CarlJF
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

> My personal gut feeling is that removal of
> the hot break is unnecessary, and that most people who say "oh my god,
> you've got to get that hot break out of there right away" are talking out of
> their arse. I never remove the hot break and I've made some damn fine beers
> in my day.

Nobody say that you cannot brew good beer without removing the trub. In
fact, you can. If you read all the post on this thread, you will see
that it can make a small improvement.

The best known effect is the formation of chill haze. Sure, not all
beer will show chill haze. It some styles, like wheat beer, it may not
even be important to have some. And, if you just drink at home, having
some chill haze in your pale ale or lager may not be a problem. But, if
you want to bring these beers in competition, where clarity may make a
difference in the end, you're better to remove the trub to prevent
clarity problem in the final product.

It's only one example, but you may easily found others. Head retention
has also be shown to be better without the trub. Again, it may not be
that important in some styles, and it may already be sufficient for
your taste, but in a contest, where your beer cannot have too much head
retention, it may be the small improvement your beer need to be a
winner.

Or, if you like, in a competition, all other things being equal, you're
not perfectly clear beer with average head retention will just fall
second to the one which is crystal clear with an excellent head.

Date: 14 Jul 2006 07:57:10
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

Larry Bristol wrote:
> David M. Taylor wrote:
>
> > Boys, I wonder the same thing. My personal gut feeling is that removal of
> > the hot break is unnecessary,
> > [...]
> > If it makes a difference, then I need substantiated proof.
>
> Something that occurs to me during this discussion is that a lot of brewers
> do not eliminate the *COLD* break, either. Yet that does not seem to cause
> any problems that I know of. It simply falls to the bottom of the
> fermenter and is discarded along with the rest of the trub.
>
> Try this mind experiment...
> Q: Why does the break... well, *BREAK*?
> A: Because it is not soluble in wort.
> Q: Does it become soluble again during fermentation?
> A: I don't know.
>
> Obviously, not very much (if any) of it returns to solution. I doubt that
> it would be soluble in pure alcohol, much less a 5% solution of alcohol in
> what is mostly water. If it does go into solution, then there might be a
> problem with leaving it in. If not, then I fail to see how it could harm
> anything.
>
> --
> Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
> http://www.doubleluck.com

So, how do you prevent the break and trub from moving to the fermenter?
It seems to me that it stays in suspension for a little while. How
long does it take for most to settle out and what is the value versus
getting it into the fermenter and yeast piched and working sooner?

Date: 14 Jul 2006 16:47:54
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On 14 Jul 2006 07:57:10 -0700, <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote:
> So, how do you prevent the break and trub from moving to the fermenter?
> It seems to me that it stays in suspension for a little while. How
> long does it take for most to settle out and what is the value versus
> getting it into the fermenter and yeast piched and working sooner?

It shouldn't stay in suspension for very long. If you get good hot and cold
breaks, then they should settle out by the time you would normally rack to the
fermenter. IMO, I don't think you'd run into a situation where you'd need to
let the chilled wort sit in the kettle for any significant length of time
specifically waiting for the break to settle out.

Also, some people use some sort of strain/filter material rather than
wait on gravity to cause it to settle out. IE, things like a false bottom
in the kettle that feeds to a drain, or racking the wort through a cheese
cloth or something on the way to the fermenter. If you do that, then worrying
about any settling becomes even less important.

John.

Date: 14 Jul 2006 17:54:41
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2006 07:57:10 -0700, <brian.sico@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, how do you prevent the break and trub from moving to the fermenter?
>> It seems to me that it stays in suspension for a little while. How
>> long does it take for most to settle out and what is the value versus
>> getting it into the fermenter and yeast piched and working sooner?
>
> It shouldn't stay in suspension for very long. If you get good hot and cold
> breaks, then they should settle out by the time you would normally rack to the
> fermenter. IMO, I don't think you'd run into a situation where you'd need to
> let the chilled wort sit in the kettle for any significant length of time
> specifically waiting for the break to settle out.
>
> Also, some people use some sort of strain/filter material rather than
> wait on gravity to cause it to settle out. IE, things like a false bottom
> in the kettle that feeds to a drain, or racking the wort through a cheese
> cloth or something on the way to the fermenter. If you do that, then worrying
> about any settling becomes even less important.
>
>
> John.

I strain my cooled wort (as part of the aeration process before the
mix-stir paddle) through a few fine strainers before I pass it into
the primary. I've been thinking of passing it through cheescloth on
the way to the primary but thought this might be "too fine" of a
strainer.

Is there any realistic limit on straining? It doesnt seem like it
should be possible to "strain out" any yeast or stuff useful to the
yeast. Right?

-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!

Date: 14 Jul 2006 18:47:40
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:54:41 GMT, <syborg@earthlink.net > wrote:
> I strain my cooled wort (as part of the aeration process before the
> mix-stir paddle) through a few fine strainers before I pass it into
> the primary. I've been thinking of passing it through cheescloth on
> the way to the primary but thought this might be "too fine" of a
> strainer.
>
> Is there any realistic limit on straining? It doesnt seem like it
> should be possible to "strain out" any yeast or stuff useful to the
> yeast. Right?

It shouldn't be a problem with the yeast, since usually you add the yeast
once the wort is in the primary (at least I assume most people do it that
way). I wouldn't add the yeast to the kettle and then transfer over.

In general though, I try to use the word "strain" instead of the word "filter"
or at last use them together. If you start to get into actual filtration
using micron filters, then yeah, you can actually start to strip out
color and flavor components. If I remember correctly, yeast are pretty small.
You'd need to be filtering down to that level before you'd strip out
all of the yeast.

I doubt cheese cloth, hop filter beds, or those sorts of things will strip
out anything useful.

John.

Date: 14 Jul 2006 19:18:25
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:54:41 GMT, <syborg@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I strain my cooled wort (as part of the aeration process before the
>> mix-stir paddle) through a few fine strainers before I pass it into
>> the primary. I've been thinking of passing it through cheescloth on
>> the way to the primary but thought this might be "too fine" of a
>> strainer.
>>
>> Is there any realistic limit on straining? It doesnt seem like it
>> should be possible to "strain out" any yeast or stuff useful to the
>> yeast. Right?
>
> It shouldn't be a problem with the yeast, since usually you add the yeast
> once the wort is in the primary (at least I assume most people do it that
> way). I wouldn't add the yeast to the kettle and then transfer over.
>

Yes, that was my bad. I pitch into the wort when it's in the
primary. Mix-stir paddle the hell out of it, then pitch, then
oh-so-gently-and-briefly mix-stir once more.

> In general though, I try to use the word "strain" instead of the word "filter"
> or at last use them together. If you start to get into actual filtration
> using micron filters, then yeah, you can actually start to strip out
> color and flavor components. If I remember correctly, yeast are pretty small.
> You'd need to be filtering down to that level before you'd strip out
> all of the yeast.
>
> I doubt cheese cloth, hop filter beds, or those sorts of things will strip
> out anything useful.
>

Agreed. I'm going to try it on my next batch. I think to "strain" is
to "squeeze something out of something else" so for me, it's
filtering. Kinda early on Friday to start splitting hairs w/o a
homebrew in my hand :-)

-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!

Date: 14 Jul 2006 14:50:44
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

John Bleichert wrote:

> [...]
> Kinda early on Friday to start splitting hairs w/o a
> homebrew in my hand :-)

It's about 2:45 here, and I'm working from home today. But I started work
at 6:30am, so it's about quitting time! Everyone has to believe in
something, and I believe I'll go get a beer!

--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com

Date: 14 Jul 2006 19:56:41
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> John Bleichert wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Kinda early on Friday to start splitting hairs w/o a
>> homebrew in my hand :-)
>
> It's about 2:45 here, and I'm working from home today. But I started work
> at 6:30am, so it's about quitting time! Everyone has to believe in
> something, and I believe I'll go get a beer!
>

1 hour and counting (3:55 here), though I could leave anytime. Have
some English pale ale and some Orcish black ale queued up in the
fridge for my leisurely consumption!

Mmmmmm, parched...

-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!

Date: 14 Jul 2006 13:09:31
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

John Bleichert wrote:

> Is there any realistic limit on straining? It doesnt seem like it
> should be possible to "strain out" any yeast or stuff useful to the
> yeast. Right?

Right. If you can see it, it's big enough to get rid of it, *especially* if
it is moving under its own power! Note that "straining" and "filtering"
are two completely different things, all together!

"Straining" and "filtering" are two completely different things!
[DANG! I did it AGAIN! <sigh >]

--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com

Date: 14 Jul 2006 18:15:25
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

Larry Bristol <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> John Bleichert wrote:
>
>> Is there any realistic limit on straining? It doesnt seem like it
>> should be possible to "strain out" any yeast or stuff useful to the
>> yeast. Right?
>
> Right. If you can see it, it's big enough to get rid of it, *especially* if
> it is moving under its own power! Note that "straining" and "filtering"
> are two completely different things, all together!
>
> "Straining" and "filtering" are two completely different things!
> [DANG! I did it AGAIN! <sigh>]
>

Yes, I meant "filtering". By the way, I love the "brewery out on the
back 40" idea...

-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!

Date: 14 Jul 2006 13:39:08
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

John Bleichert wrote:

> Yes, I meant "filtering".

A seriously fine filter *could* remove things you want to keep, but I
suspect you would clog up such a filter PDQ if you tried!

> By the way, I love the "brewery out on the back 40" idea...

What a stroke of luck! What do you do when you buy some property in the
country, find a 15'x50' cement slab on it, and then learn that it is 12"
thick? The conversation went something like this.

Me: What are we going to do with it?
Wife: Beats me!
Me: We could put a roof over it, like a pavillion! That would be great for
having BBQ parties like we had when we lived in the city!
Wife: True. You know, if you want to have BBQ parties out there, maybe we
could enclose part of it and install a restroom. That way, people wouldn't
have to walk all the way to the house.
Me: That sounds like a good idea.
Wife: And, you know, you'll need more than a BBQ pit out there. Wouldn't
it be great if we enclosed a little bit more so there could be a stove and
maybe even a refrigerator? That way, I wouldn't have to walk all the way
over to the kitchen in the house for the rest of the food.
Me: Good thinking. DUH! I could keep my brewing stuff in it! Maybe I
should even buy one of those fancy brewing systems and a conical fermenter!
Wouldn't that be great?!?
Wife: Well...
Me: Thanks, honey!

--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com

Date: 14 Jul 2006 18:49:45
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:39:08 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> John Bleichert wrote:
>
>> Yes, I meant "filtering".
>
> A seriously fine filter *could* remove things you want to keep, but I
> suspect you would clog up such a filter PDQ if you tried!

Yeah, actual filtration on a home level isn't very practical. Still, there
are some people that try it.

John.

Date: 14 Jul 2006 19:14:57
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:39:08 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com> wrote:
>> John Bleichert wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I meant "filtering".
>>
>> A seriously fine filter *could* remove things you want to keep, but I
>> suspect you would clog up such a filter PDQ if you tried!
>
> Yeah, actual filtration on a home level isn't very practical. Still, there
> are some people that try it.
>
>
> John.

Since I started all-grain and using a wort chiller I've been passing
the cooled wort through a succession of fine strainers (found at the
local restaurant supply house) and I've thought about passing it
through cheesecloth clipped to a China cap (like we used to do to some
sauces when I cooked for a living), I may try it just for yucks.

My main problem with all that crap in the primary is that it costs me
wort when I rack to secondary. Otherwise it's never seemed to cause a
problem.

-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!

Date: 14 Jul 2006 11:03:30
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Fermenting on trub and break

brian@yahoo.com wrote:

> So, how do you prevent the break and trub from moving to the fermenter?
> It seems to me that it stays in suspension for a little while. How
> long does it take for most to settle out and what is the value versus
> getting it into the fermenter and yeast piched and working sooner?

Not at all! The residue from hop pellets will not settle as quickly, but
the break material falls out of suspension almost immediately. There are
several ways to get most of it out that will not slow you down (in terms of
getting that fermentation started). For the most part, the "ideal" way
will depend on your actual brewing procedure and equipment.

In my case, after the boil, I make a whirlpool in the kettle to cause most
of the sediment (hot break, spent hops, and whatever else is in there), to
settle in the center, away from the drain valve. I drain the wort through
my CF chiller, with very little of this material coming along. From the
chiller, it goes directly into the fermenter. Note that I am *NOT*
removing the cold break immediately, but it does settle to the bottom
fairly quickly. I have a butterfly valve on the bottom of my fermenter, so
in a few days, after primary fermentation completes, I dump it all out,
along with yeast and other sediments.

Back in the old days, prior to having all this "fancy" equipment, I
separated both the hot and the cold break prior to fermentation. At that
time, I was using an emersion chiller. After the wort was cool, I
literally dumped the entire contents of the kettle (aeration!) back into my
(samitized) mash tun, and let it settle for a while. After recirculating a
bit, just like you might do with the mash before sparging, the hop petals
(I always used whole hops) formed a natural filter bed. Then I simply
drained the *VERY* clear wort into my fermenter, leaving the hot break,
cold break, spent hops, and everything else like that behind.
[Incidentally, since this procedure was so much like "sparging", I
nicknamed it "spooging", which always seems to bring out a chuckle for some
reason. <VBG >] OK, I guess it's time I plugged my personal web-site:
http://www.doubleluck.com/things/brewery/process/spooging.php

Now, as I explained, I'm not sure there is any advantage to removing the
break material at all. I would love to see some objective material. It
would seem to be common practice for the hot break to be removed prior to
fermentation. But in practice, the cold break may to go into the fermenter
more often than some might think. I seriously doubt that this has any
impact of the finished product!

I will clarify that leaving the break during the primary fermentation *MAY*
not be a problem. But this does *NOT* carry forward to leaving it for a
longer period of time, such as the secondary fermentation phase and beyond.
This *IS* evidence that this is a bad thing to do! I doubt this is due to
the "break" material, per se, but you don't want to leave the beer on all
that trub for an extended period.

--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com