Reducing trub into fermenter

[Sadfield]

I wasn't trying impress. Just proving that it is possible to compete with commercials, instead of accepting second best. If anything, homebrewers should be better as they aren't constricted by commercial constraints and all the science is readily available to those that find it a benefit.

 

[Brew_DD2]

I think there is always a danger these things can become willy-waving contests. I think most are on here to improve their brewing, I guess we all have different visions on how to get there.

 

[foxy]

I think the error you make is conflating commercial brewing practices with getting the best out of your endeavours. Unless your equipment is the same, and your goals are the same, then there are many aspects of their practice that just isn't important or applicable. I do not doubt that carrying trub into the fermenter will increase fatty acids in the finished beer. The science is there. What I question is the impact that this actually has on the taste of the finished beer.

Keep in mind is that taste is entirely subjective. If you think that eradicating trub from your fermenter has made a perceptible difference and increased your enjoyment of your beer, then more power to your elbow. But until those fatty acids have a noticeably detrimental effect on my beer, I will not return to being anally retentive about separating trub. For the record, my beer is as clear now as it has ever been.

As for Brulosophy, I have no problem with anybody who wishes to challenge dogmatism. I think the people who seem to have a problem with it are the sort of people who take the line that there is a prescriptive way to brew. My answer to that would be that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and many will lead to the same result.

That's why I mentioned earlier if you are happy with what you are brewing then that's fine, if some people will want to create better beers through more attention to detail that's even better.
A lot of what professional brewers do can be carried over into home brewing, keeping trub out of the fermenter is just one, keeping oxygen out through the whole process is the holy grail, something that may never be achieved, but keeping the DO level low as possible is something else home brewers and Pro brewers have in common. I don't have a musical ear, I can't pick out some background instruments but when it comes to tasting beer that is a different matter.
I haven't gone as far as some of the LODO brewers go but they do turn out some positive information.
http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/brewing-methods/trub-seperation-why-and-how/

 

[Brew_DD2]

That's why I mentioned earlier if you are happy with what you are brewing then that's fine, if some people will want to create better beers through more attention to detail that's even better.
A lot of what professional brewers do can be carried over into home brewing, keeping trub out of the fermenter is just one, keeping oxygen out through the whole process is the holy grail, something that may never be achieved, but keeping the DO level low as possible is something else home brewers and Pro brewers have in common. I don't have a musical ear, I can't pick out some background instruments but when it comes to tasting beer that is a different matter.
I haven't gone as far as some of the LODO brewers go but they do turn out some positive information.
http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/brewing-methods/trub-seperation-why-and-how/

It's not about being happy with what I am brewing and not wanting to make "better" beer. It's about questioning the real-world benefits of no trub into the fermenter. I understand the science well, that there real difference on a molecular level, and some impact on long-term stability; I just don't buy that it results in a better beer.

Now, reducing oxygen to an absolute minimum is something I do believe is important, as the science is borne out in perceptible reality. My beers improved dramatically (taste, aroma, appearance, body) when I changed my practices to minimise oxygen exposure.

 

[Dexter101]

As a hobby better always has to be balanced with "worth the effort".

I had a belgian wheat beer recently where they mash for 4 hours.
Was it good? Yes.

Would I want to drink lots of it. No.

Was it more to style than my version? Yes.

Which would I rather drink all the time? Mine.

Am i going to start mashing for 4 hours, no.

 

[foxy]

It's not about being happy with what I am brewing and not wanting to make "better" beer. It's about questioning the real-world benefits of no trub into the fermenter. I understand the science well, that there real difference on a molecular level, and some impact on long-term stability; I just don't buy that it results in a better beer.

Now, reducing oxygen to an absolute minimum is something I do believe is important, as the science is borne out in perceptible reality. My beers improved dramatically (taste, aroma, appearance, body) when I changed my practices to minimise oxygen exposure.

Leaving the trub out of the fermenter is good brewing practice, it isn't just about yeast viability after harvesting, it is also about off flavours in the finished beers.Two notable home brewers who come to mind are George Fix and Gordon Strong who endorse the fact of leaving the trub out of the fermenter there are professional brewers who write articles to help home brewers Dave Miller, Mitch Steele Greg Noonan just for starters. They all emphasise the importance of leaving the trub in the kettle, saying that it makes no difference without any good reason apart from saying, 'My beers taste no different either way' carry about as much credibility as Brulosophy saying, Skip the mash, boil the grains for twenty minutes in a pressure cooker, ferment at 15 PSI and 30 C and drink the following week. Far better to read more articles from the more learned folk I mentioned.

 

[Brew_DD2]

For me, beer is all about tasre, rather than some abstract "better brewing practice" or appealing to authority for the sake of it. If keeping trub out the fermenter leads to a substantial qualitative improvement to beer flavour, then where is all the data for this? On this particular issue I would far rather take my personal experience that clear wort made zero improvement to the flavour of my finished beer, than saying "it's better because Gordon Strong and Charlie Bamforth" say so.

It also just so happens that pretty much all of the brewing authorities that you have mentioned above, have plenty of time for Brulosophy and have indeed been contributors. They do not appear to have this intellectual snobbery about their articles and podcasts.

Brulosophy is about addressing brewing dogma in order to ascertain how important they are on the finished beer (why we all do this, right?). The whole point is that it is to challenge what we believe to be the best brewing practice. Do they claim to be be peer-reviewed academics? No. Do they present their findings as objective fact? No. Do their findings have any relevance to home brewing practice? Yes, if one places any value on sharing experiences and findings with fellow homebrewers. If not, then I do not understand why one would spend any time on homebrewing forums.

 

[foxy]

For me, beer is all about tasre, rather than some abstract "better brewing practice" or appealing to authority for the sake of it. If keeping trub out the fermenter leads to a substantial qualitative improvement to beer flavour, then where is all the data for this? On this particular issue I would far rather take my personal experience that clear wort made zero improvement to the flavour of my finished beer, than saying "it's better because Gordon Strong and Charlie Bamforth" say so.

It also just so happens that pretty much all of the brewing authorities that you have mentioned above, have plenty of time for Brulosophy and have indeed been contributors. They do not appear to have this intellectual snobbery about their articles and podcasts.

Brulosophy is about addressing brewing dogma in order to ascertain how important they are on the finished beer (why we all do this, right?). The whole point is that it is to challenge what we believe to be the best brewing practice. Do they claim to be be peer-reviewed academics? No. Do they present their findings as objective fact? No. Do their findings have any relevance to home brewing practice? Yes, if one places any value on sharing experiences and findings with fellow homebrewers. If not, then I do not understand why one would spend any time on homebrewing forums.

No one is forcing you to change your methods to get a better beer, if you are happy with what you are drinking stick with that, I for one and many others find that the beer without the trub in the fermenter turns out superior, nothing to do intellectual snobbery. I don't know how many links you would like me to put up regarding the benefits of leaving the trub in the kettle whether from home brewers or professional brewers giving their advice.
It clearly shows the disadvantage of taking seriously what is printed in Brulsolophy, clarity is another point, I don't have to use any clarifying agent, clear wort in clear beer out. Instead of just keep going on about you feel it makes no difference, just leave it at that, let anyone who is willing to try not having trub go into the fermenter try it, I am only trying to help the inexperienced brewers to experience a better beer.

 

[Brew_DD2]

I am as entitled to give my opinion as you are. I think it makes no tangible difference, you think it does.

 

[foxy]

I am as entitled to give my opinion as you are. I think it makes no tangible difference, you think it does.

You have given it, many times, as I said, let the more inexperienced brewers try both methods and leave it at that.

 

[Brew_DD2]

You have given it, many times, as I said, let the more inexperienced brewers try both methods and leave it at that.

As have you. Maybe practice what you preach?

 

[Cwrw666]

Ah, I’m not really up on the technical terms but you mean that foamy stuff that is on the top as it’s heating up and all but disappears as soon as the boil gets going?

That's the stuff. Basically after the boil there's 2 things that constitute trub - hop debris and hot break. Hot break is coagulated proteins and is that slimy sludge stuff. It forms as the wort approaches boiling point and rises to the surface. When the brew starts to boil it gets folded into the wort and at the end of the boil settles to the bottom of the boiler along with the hop debris.
You get the same thing happening during jam and marmalade making and in those cases you skim it off before bottling.

BTW - it's not hard to skim off with a spoon without getting much actual wort as well. Skimming it off doesn't appear to affect the flavour of the finished brew.

 

[foxy]

As have you. Maybe practice what you preach?

Once more, I am giving new brewers a chance to decide for themselves, no one is twisting arms up backs. What you have decided is well documented as are my views, just leave it at that and move on.

 

[strange-steve]

I also eat, breath and have sex

Show off.

 

[Dexter101]

Show off.

But never all at the same time

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

That's the stuff. Basically after the boil there's 2 things that constitute trub - hop debris and hot break. Hot break is coagulated proteins and is that slimy sludge stuff. It forms as the wort approaches boiling point and rises to the surface. When the brew starts to boil it gets folded into the wort and at the end of the boil settles to the bottom of the boiler along with the hop debris.
You get the same thing happening during jam and marmalade making and in those cases you skim it off before bottling.

BTW - it's not hard to skim off with a spoon without getting much actual wort as well. Skimming it off doesn't appear to affect the flavour of the finished brew.

Ok, I use the Lidl nylon bags for the hops so should be able to reduce most of the trub in my kettle by skimming off the hot break. Will defo give that a go next time.

 

[Grealish]

Well, here’s an interesting thing. The value of reducing trub, according to the experts, is to improve flavour, clarity and yeast viability. For several years I’ve not been too fussed about trub and I’ve produced beer that tastes great and is very clear and propagated a lot of different yeasts with no problem at all. So why change my practice? Well, I was brewing when I ventured these opinions and a forum member I’ve never met but sounded pretty sensible talked about how it’s just a pain having a load of **** in your fermenter, plus you get a really nice yeast cake. So, I followed his moderate suggestions for reducing trub and I’ve got a really nice yeast without struggling not to get trub into it. So, it looks like there’s a point to listening to people on this site who don’t tug their forelock at perceived wisdom but have gained knowledge through experience. If it turns out to taste better too, I’ll put on my hair shirt and apologise to the great gods of brewing, but as no one has entered the fray to say ‘cutting trub made a noticeable taste difference to my beer’, don’t hold your breath. Just because you can see it on a microscope slide doesn’t mean you can taste it.

 

[savagefan]

I pump the cooling wort through a hop spider, gives circulation to assist the chiller coil and filters out the ****.

 

[chthon]

I have, since the first half of 2019, made a couple of different brews where I just added my yeast immediately to my brew kettle after cooling. Mostly rather heavy Belgian styles, strong blond and strong darks. Also, I fermented these (except for a cheese cloth) open.

These were experiments, to see what happens long term. Well, for me the result was actually positive, in that none of these beers after a year tasted bad. And the blond beers dropped visibly clear (I suppose the dark beers dropped invisibly clear).

All trub is mostly covered, after fermenting, with a layer of yeast. More flocculating yeasts will work better here.

It is also better to use pellet hops. Flower hops start containing CO2 and begin to float.

The main thing for me is that I can keep my brewing to half a day's work, and that after chilling I can add my yeast and start to clean up.