Reducing trub into fermenter

[pottsworth]

Has anyone got any good ways of reducing the kettle trub going into the fermenter?

I normally brew with a guten all in one (hopcat/ace/klarstein), or sometimes do stove top BIAB for smaller batches. In both cases I ferment in a fast ferment (30l for the guten, 11l for the BIAB), and I almost always end up with at least a litre of trub settling straight to the bottom of the fermenter.

I use a hop bazooka on the output, and fine with protofloc in the boil, but is there anything else I could be doing?

I’m interested in having a go at reusing yeast, but wouldn’t know where to start when it’s mixed in with a litre of trub.

 

[foxy]

Has anyone got any good ways of reducing the kettle trub going into the fermenter?

I normally brew with a guten all in one (hopcat/ace/klarstein), or sometimes do stove top BIAB for smaller batches. In both cases I ferment in a fast ferment (30l for the guten, 11l for the BIAB), and I almost always end up with at least a litre of trub settling straight to the bottom of the fermenter.

I use a hop bazooka on the output, and fine with protofloc in the boil, but is there anything else I could be doing?

I’m interested in having a go at reusing yeast, but wouldn’t know where to start when it’s mixed in with a litre of trub.

Let the wort sit after you have reached cooling temperature, 40 mins an hour and gently pour out of the kettle stop as soon as you see any trub appearing.

And stick the bazooka on top of your overflow pipe.

 

[Grealish]

I've heard that trub is actually beneficial to have at the bottom of your fermenter. Brulosophy did an experiment on it too.

 

[pottsworth]

Do you poor from a tap at the bottom, or literally poor (ie from the top?)

Also what do you mean by overflow pipe?

 

[pottsworth]

I've heard that trub is actually beneficial to have at the bottom of your fermenter. Brulosophy did an experiment on it too.

Yeah saw that.

I don’t mind a bit of trub, but I have a tap around the 1 litre mark for legging / bottling, and it’s often covered by trub.

 

[foxy]

Do you poor from a tap at the bottom, or literally poor (ie from the top?)

Also what do you mean by overflow pipe?

Pour from the tap, the overflow pipe is the one running up the centre.

I've heard that trub is actually beneficial to have at the bottom of your fermenter. Brulosophy did an experiment on it too.

Trub isn't good for the finished beer, some fatty acids contribute to the yeasts viability, and those would be barely visible until around 14 C. Better off reading Womans Day than what is churned out
on Brulosophy.
Read more of what those who have made a lifetimes work of making beer, C Bamforth etc etc.

 

[matt76]

Oh lordy, look what you've done now, you've only gone and set him off again with your talk of Brulosophy.....

Up until a few brews ago I used to tip the entire contents of the kettle in to the FV and ended up with loads of trub.

More recently I've changed my process and now do basically do the same as foxy - once I've finished chilling I leave the brew kettle alone for all the crud to settle out - an hour is probably sufficient though I have left it several hours. In the meantime I clean up!

When I'm ready I syphon the crystal clear wort to the FV (usually about 8L in my case), leaving the crud behind.

Additional step - I also collect the crud (~4L) in plastic bottles - this settles out in the fridge over the next couple of days and I pour off another 2-3L clear wort to the FV. I make ~10L batches so can't afford to waste this much!

It's still a little early to tell but I think the beer is clearer and chill haze now seems to be banished. I also get a lot less sediment in the bottles = more beer in my glass!

Regarding trub in the FV, I believe the results speak for themselves :

Old way - loads of trub! (see FV on the left )

New way - no trub, that's just pure yeast cake!

 

[SteveH]

One problem I find with using the tap on my robobrew is it's under the false bottom, e.g right where all the trub is settling.

When I did biab I normally syphoned into the fv and it was easier to take the clear wort off the top and stop when it started picking up debris. Considering doing the same on the robobrew but likely to loose a bit more wort this way.

 

[foxy]

One problem I find with using the tap on my robobrew is it's under the false bottom, e.g right where all the trub is settling.

When I did biab I normally syphoned into the fv and it was easier to take the clear wort off the top and stop when it started picking up debris. Considering doing the same on the robobrew but likely to loose a bit more wort this way.

Pursuing the holy grail of a good beer, and doing it consistently, sacrifices have to be made, no reason to waste the wort left in the trub, pour into a jug, put in the fridge pour off the trub after a few hours save and use it as a starter with harvested yeast.

 

[Grealish]

Pour from the tap, the overflow pipe is the one running up the centre.

Trub isn't good for the finished beer, some fatty acids contribute to the yeasts viability, and those would be barely visible until around 14 C. Better off reading Womans Day than what is churned out
on Brulosophy.
Read more of what those who have made a lifetimes work of making beer, C Bamforth etc etc.

It depends on your philosophy of brewing, is it a science or an art. I respect and follow the science but to me it's an art and the enjoyment of creating lots of styles that are generally better than I can buy in the shops is amore important than seeking perfection. Life is not a double blind taste test. I swear the bread I make and the veg I grow are better than you can buy in the shops, but then I'm massively invested in them, as I am in my beer.

The Brulosophy guys don't take themselves or their results at all seriously. It's a bit of fun that sometimes throws up something that makes you think. I'm sure it's the last thing you want to do, but listen to the podcast if you think they're anything but self deprecating.

 

[RichK]

I simply filter through a grain bag across a funnel then jug it into the fermenter. Certainly removes a lot of crud & works for me.

 

[chrisb8]

I set a sanitised colander over my fv and line it with a piece of sanitised fine net curtain. I drain the entire wort from the tap on my kettle through this filter and it produces crystal clear wort in the fermentation vessel

 

[JonBrew]

It depends on your philosophy of brewing, is it a science or an art. I respect and follow the science but to me it's an art and the enjoyment of creating lots of styles that are generally better than I can buy in the shops is amore important than seeking perfection. Life is not a double blind taste test. I swear the bread I make and the veg I grow are better than you can buy in the shops, but then I'm massively invested in them, as I am in my beer.

The Brulosophy guys don't take themselves or their results at all seriously. It's a bit of fun that sometimes throws up something that makes you think. I'm sure it's the last thing you want to do, but listen to the podcast if you think they're anything but self deprecating.

Great point very well put.

I can never understand why the Brulosophy guys take the bashing they do because if you actually take the time to read through their work it's littered with caveats that tell the reader that they don't intend any of their output to be taken as fact. It's food for thought. Same can be said for the podcast. But maybe that's the problem -the 'old hats' only read the article headline, perceive it as sensationalist and immediately discount it.

The fact of the matter is, there is no one perfect source of brewing knowledge or best practice; I'll bet even those considered to be at the height of their profession (such as Bamforth etc) contradict each other from time to time.

As an anecdotal example (sorry I cant link you directly to the source material) relating directly to the subject of this thread, I listened to an episode of the Master Brewers podcast a while back where they spoke to two guys from Stone Brewing about a study into the transfer of greater amounts of kettle trub to the fermenter. They found that, within the confides of their own trial, increased levels of trub actually generally resulted in a clearer product and shelf stability remained the same. The reason they didn't change their practice, however, was that they found the higher level of trub actually had a detrimental impact on yeast health post fermentation. As Stone re-use their yeast, this was a big negative for them.

Who's right? Who is to say?

I personally don't set out to transfer the whole shooting match to my FV. I let the wort settle for 30 mins after cooling, my dip tube position allows me to rack over almost my full kettle volume being mainly clear wort, some cold break, but leave the heavier/larger trub material in the kettle. The beers I've turned out using this method I'm happy with and they aren't any better or worse that the beers I made when I used to only rack the clear wort.

What's right is what works for you. Try both methods and see what results you prefer and work better for your brewing.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Great point very well put.

I can never understand why the Brulosophy guys take the bashing they do because if you actually take the time to read through their work it's littered with caveats that tell the reader that they don't intend any of their output to be taken as fact. It's food for thought. Same can be said for the podcast. But maybe that's the problem -the 'old hats' only read the article headline, perceive it as sensationalist and immediately discount it.

The fact of the matter is, there is no one perfect source of brewing knowledge or best practice; I'll bet even those considered to be at the height of their profession (such as Bamforth etc) contradict each other from time to time.

As an anecdotal example (sorry I cant link you directly to the source material) relating directly to the subject of this thread, I listened to an episode of the Master Brewers podcast a while back where they spoke to two guys from Stone Brewing about a study into the transfer of greater amounts of kettle trub to the fermenter. They found that, within the confides of their own trial, increased levels of trub actually generally resulted in a clearer product and shelf stability remained the same. The reason they didn't change their practice, however, was that they found the higher level of trub actually had a detrimental impact on yeast health post fermentation. As Stone re-use their yeast, this was a big negative for them.

Who's right? Who is to say?

I personally don't set out to transfer the whole shooting match to my FV. I let the wort settle for 30 mins after cooling, my dip tube position allows me to rack over almost my full kettle volume being mainly clear wort, some cold break, but leave the heavier/larger trub material in the kettle. The beers I've turned out using this method I'm happy with and they aren't any better or worse that the beers I made when I used to only rack the clear wort.

What's right is what works for you. Try both methods and see what results you prefer and work better for your brewing.

Great post. Sums up my feelings. There are practices that are necessary on the commercial level that are just simply not required processes for homebrewers. Be it because of scale, strict consistency, cost or indeed shelf stability. Unless I am needing my beer to last for 2 years in the bottle, or have a great desire to maximise the reusability of my yeast, I care very little for the amount of trub carried over. There are just certain things that we can be a lot more flexible with that make things easier, and in many cases improve the quality of the beer, that commercial breweries are just unable to get away with.

If I wanted to make consistent batches of Stella Artois as cheaply and efficiently as possible, then I would likely follow Bamforth et al by the letter.

But since there are extraneous factors such as crop variabilty, inconsistent tap water etc. that play a far bigger role in our finished beer than many of our brewing practices; I prefer not to get hung up over the minutiae of commercial brewing procedure.

 

[Cwrw666]

If the trub being referred to in the OP is mostly hot break gunge, then it's quite easy to get rid of. As the wort is coming up to the boil, the hot break stuff floats on the surface and you can simply spoon it off. I do this with brews that have low hop additions as I find the gunge blocks up the filter in my boiler. So I spoon it off and there's hardly any hot break sludge left to cause a problem.
With hoppy brews I find that the hops hold back the gunge and stop it clogging the filter so I don't bother removing the hot break.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

If the trub being referred to in the OP is mostly hot break gunge, then it's quite easy to get rid of. As the wort is coming up to the boil, the hot break stuff floats on the surface and you can simply spoon it off. I do this with brews that have low hop additions as I find the gunge blocks up the filter in my boiler. So I spoon it off and there's hardly any hot break sludge left to cause a problem.
With hoppy brews I find that the hops hold back the gunge and stop it clogging the filter so I don't bother removing the hot break.

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?

 

[Dexter101]

The beers I've turned out using this method I'm happy with

The most important thing in hkmebrewing

 

[foxy]

Great point very well put.

I can never understand why the Brulosophy guys take the bashing they do because if you actually take the time to read through their work it's littered with caveats that tell the reader that they don't intend any of their output to be taken as fact. It's food for thought. Same can be said for the podcast. But maybe that's the problem -the 'old hats' only read the article headline, perceive it as sensationalist and immediately discount it.

The fact of the matter is, there is no one perfect source of brewing knowledge or best practice; I'll bet even those considered to be at the height of their profession (such as Bamforth etc) contradict each other from time to time.

As an anecdotal example (sorry I cant link you directly to the source material) relating directly to the subject of this thread, I listened to an episode of the Master Brewers podcast a while back where they spoke to two guys from Stone Brewing about a study into the transfer of greater amounts of kettle trub to the fermenter. They found that, within the confides of their own trial, increased levels of trub actually generally resulted in a clearer product and shelf stability remained the same. The reason they didn't change their practice, however, was that they found the higher level of trub actually had a detrimental impact on yeast health post fermentation. As Stone re-use their yeast, this was a big negative for them.

Who's right? Who is to say?


I personally don't set out to transfer the whole shooting match to my FV. I let the wort settle for 30 mins after cooling, my dip tube position allows me to rack over almost my full kettle volume being mainly clear wort, some cold break, but leave the heavier/larger trub material in the kettle. The beers I've turned out using this method I'm happy with and they aren't any better or worse that the beers I made when I used to only rack the clear wort.

What's right is what works for you. Try both methods and see what results you prefer and work better for your brewing.

I do think it may be a bit of fun on the Brulosophy part, as I have mentioned before they only go against good sound brewing knowledge for the controversy. The more hits on their site the more money they make, not a great deal but they do build up a following of gullible folk who regard what they do as good brewing practice.
There are no brewers, microbiologists or any others involved in the brewing industry who would be endorsing trub going into the fermenter. Those small breweries who do not have a centrifuge to remove the trub, then it does get transferred into the fermenter and dropped from the cone when it has settled, usually as the yeast is pitched.
As for Mitch Steele he is just as anal about the removal of trub as any other brewer. I would say that most home brewers have tipped the trub into the fermenter, myself included, why? It is easier, as you read more and understand more about what is involved in making beer then you refine your process as matt76 has done. Someone said (could have been Gordon Strong) Everyone can make beer, some can make good beer, but only a few will make a great beer. Anyone who is happy with what they are doing if fine, I just like to try to keep improving what I brew, there is still a long way to go and a lot of reading and learning, and it most definitely which will not involve Brusolphy.
https://www.stonebrewing.com/blog/miscellany/2011/chill-hazethe-more-you-know
https://www.stonebrewing.com/blog/miscellany/2010/brewing-stone-101010-vertical-epic-ale-home

 

[Dexter101]

I do think it may be a bit of fun on the Brulosophy part, as I have mentioned before they only go against good sound brewing knowledge for the controversy. The more hits on their site the more money they make, not a great deal but they do build up a following of gullible folk who regard what they do as good brewing practice.
There are no brewers, microbiologists or any others involved in the brewing industry who would be endorsing trub going into the fermenter. Those small breweries who do not have a centrifuge to remove the trub, then it does get transferred into the fermenter and dropped from the cone when it has settled, usually as the yeast is pitched.
As for Mitch Steele he is just as anal about the removal of trub as any other brewer. I would say that most home brewers have tipped the trub into the fermenter, myself included, why? It is easier, as you read more and understand more about what is involved in making beer then you refine your process as matt76 has done. Someone said (could have been Gordon Strong) Everyone can make beer, some can make good beer, but only a few will make a great beer. Anyone who is happy with what they are doing if fine, I just like to try to keep improving what I brew, there is still a long way to go and a lot of reading and learning, and it most definitely which will not involve Brusolphy.
https://www.stonebrewing.com/blog/miscellany/2011/chill-hazethe-more-you-know
https://www.stonebrewing.com/blog/miscellany/2010/brewing-stone-101010-vertical-epic-ale-home

I think the flip side to this is:

Science is right, until it is proven wrong

Something being scientifically correct is not the same as it being noticable in practice.

I couldn't tell you the best beer i have ever drunk, but i can tell you the beers i drink regularly.

The quest for perfection is admirable. Producing good beer quickly and efficiently as part of a busy life is more realistic for some.

Everyone has their own goals

 

[Sadfield]

It depends on your philosophy of brewing, is it a science or an art.

Like most creative endeavours, it's both, with science leading to refinement in techniques, be it painting, pottery, architecture, etc.

If you view it as art, why defend brulosophy and their experiments? Or is bad science somehow more acceptable?

Anyhow. In my view, trub reduction in the Fv, begins with obtaining clear wort from mashing.