Transfer trub from kettle to FV?

[The Baron]

You will still get some but it reduces it quite a lot.
The only way to get it clear is to leave it to settle for a while and syphon off the top but you will lose a couple of litres+ of wort..
In my FV I can virtually syphon of all the wort bar for maybe a pint at most so minimal losses there so I find it more economical.

 

[matt76]

When I started brewing I used to dump the lot into the FV because I knew no better.

Fairly early on I switched to letting the crud settle out before syphoning only the clear wort to the FV (I think the original reason I made this switch was because I got into harvesting yeast).

This got easier when I switched from a stock pot on the hob to an electric all in one with a tap - the crud magically settles just below the level of the tap!

One other thing I did/still do is collect the crud in a sanitised bottle and leave it to settle out in the fridge. 1.5-2.0L crud would typically net me about 0.5L extra wort that would be added to the FV within about 12-24hrs of pitching (you might say not worth it but when you're making smaller batches I'd say every drop counts!).

More recently I've started experimenting again with adding all the crud to the FV. Why? Because an accident involving a lack of kettle finings forced me to do this and resulted somehow (wish I knew how!) in a deliciously hoppy beer.

I haven't noticed any difference in clarity as a result of adding/not-adding the crud, though I've always struggled with chill haze no matter what I do so have to resort to gelatin or kieselsol.

One measurable difference is I'm consistently seeing slightly lower FG (by 2-3 points) and lower final pH (e.g. 4.2 vs. 4.4). The resulting beers are a little drier and more crisp which may or may not be a good thing depending on what you want.

There's pros and cons to trub. In my view a very small amount for yeast nutrient is a good idea. Ditch the rest, why spend however long boiling and cooling, to create hot and cold break that precipitates to trub, just to throw it back into your wort?

In a feat of temporal engineering you actually answered your own question ~6months ago when you posted this link:
https://www.mbaa.com/publications/tq/tqPastIssues/1986/Abstracts/tq86ab10.htm

I think we've discussed this elsewhere before but I suspect the reason I'm seeing greater attenuation when I add the trub is it makes it easier for the CO2 to bubble off and hence the yeast are happier.

 

[The Baron]

Hi Matt do you think the extra attenuation is due to the nutrients in the trub giving the yeast a helping hand or do you add nutrient when not adding the trub?

 

[Sadfield]

@matt76 More than temporal engineering, it extended to physical engineering and the making of an open FV that facilitates off gassing of CO2. The happier yeast without the trub, and the lipids it carries.

Partly why I've started a thread on Open FV's, I'm becoming more convinced that conicals are purely about brewery space, not beer quality.

 

[matt76]

Hi Matt do you think the extra attenuation is due to the nutrients in the trub giving the yeast a helping hand or do you add nutrient when not adding the trub?

I don't use nutrient as a rule - occasionally a pinch of bread yeast when I'm boiling DME to make a starter and only very rarely then.

I can't categorically say it's not to do with nutrients but do take a look at that link - Siebert et al suggest it's something to do with nucleation sites making it easier for CO2 to leave and hence the yeast are happier.

 

[An Ankoù]

I might go back to hop bags in the boil in my quest against trub!

I find it doesn't make a great deal of difference, even with whole-cone hops. The trub is largely coagulated protein and, if you use pellets, some dust always gets through.

 

[An Ankoù]

I used to be quite fastidious about trub, but when I started making small, stove-top batches, the whole lot went in without any obvious ill effects. My old bones tell me it should make a difference, but I haven't noticed any. I always use nutrient as well. My beers are always 4-5 points below the recipe FG and that suites me fine. No, I haven't got a diastaticus infection.
It;s high time I went back too the jug method, above, just to satisfy myself that there;s no improvement by omitting the trub.
I like the idea, above, that the trub nucleates CO2 bubbles and so the yeast ferments better. Whether it;s more than just wishful thinking, though, remains to be seen. I think pressure fermenters have even more CO2 in solution, but it doesn't seem to cause problems.

 

[matt76]

When I started brewing I used to dump the lot into the FV because I knew no better.

Fairly early on I switched to letting the crud settle out before syphoning only the clear wort to the FV (I think the original reason I made this switch was because I got into harvesting yeast).

This got easier when I switched from a stock pot on the hob to an electric all in one with a tap - the crud magically settles just below the level of the tap!

One other thing I did/still do is collect the crud in a sanitised bottle and leave it to settle out in the fridge. 1.5-2.0L crud would typically net me about 0.5L extra wort that would be added to the FV within about 12-24hrs of pitching (you might say not worth it but when you're making smaller batches I'd say every drop counts!).

More recently I've started experimenting again with adding all the crud to the FV. Why? Because an accident involving a lack of kettle finings forced me to do this and resulted somehow (wish I knew how!) in a deliciously hoppy beer.

I haven't noticed any difference in clarity as a result of adding/not-adding the crud, though I've always struggled with chill haze no matter what I do so have to resort to gelatin or kieselsol.

One measurable difference is I'm consistently seeing slightly lower FG (by 2-3 points) and lower final pH (e.g. 4.2 vs. 4.4). The resulting beers are a little drier and more crisp which may or may not be a good thing depending on what you want.


In a feat of temporal engineering you actually answered your own question ~6months ago when you posted this link:
https://www.mbaa.com/publications/tq/tqPastIssues/1986/Abstracts/tq86ab10.htm

I think we've discussed this elsewhere before but I suspect the reason I'm seeing greater attenuation when I add the trub is it makes it easier for the CO2 to bubble off and hence the yeast are happier.

Ooh, I just remembered something I forgot to add to my previous post:

Regardless of whether I:

Leave behind the crud in the kettle, collect it, let it settle in a bottle and top up the FV with the remaining clear wort.....

OR

Just transfer everything to the FV.....

I'm seeing zero difference in the amount of finished beer it yields. Either way I'm still getting 11.5L beer in the glass from my small batch brews (not all at once though, that would be an absurdly large glass!)

 

[MashBag]

used to be quite fastidious about trub, but when I started making small, stove-top batches, the whole lot went in without any obvious ill effects. My old bones tell me it should make a difference, but I haven't noticed any. I

I could have written that.
I now leave it in. But not for long..and I do think that's key.

 

[foxy]

In my brew club, we have a couple of certified BJCP-approved judges, plus, taking beer along to the meetings gives good feedback. Taste acclimatise after a couple of weeks. Having peers taste the beer, plus judges makes a big difference in our process. I got used to astringency and enjoyed my astringent beers, I still don't mind it, but now I can tell the difference.
What we think only matters if we don't share our beers. It is when we share them with other homebrewers that faults emerge.
https://www.themodernbrewhouse.com/trub-seperation-why-and-how/