trub and fermentation accidental experiment

I have read a lot on here on the effects of trub into the fermenter, whether it matters or not. I try to get clean wort into the fermenter but unless I want to leave several gallons in the pot (I don't!) trub and break material always gets in there. I do avoid hops by whirlpooling it into the middle and leaving some wort.

I just did a 10 gallon batch where for no apparent reason I filled the first fermenter half way, then switched to the other. This second fermenter got only clear wort as a result. When it hit 5 gallons I switched back to the first, so it got all the trub and gunk. I pitched the same amount of slurry into both from a previous batch. After a day or so I saw the trub version was fermenting much more vigorously, both bubbling quicker and the wort was at a higher temp than the other. Then it finished sooner. The clean bucket is still going days later, bubbling slowly. This made me curious because the common wisdom is "it doesn't matter one way or the other". I found a post by user malticulous that linked to a research paper showing that trub was indeed beneficial (english starts on pg 76).

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/what-effects-getting-some-trub-primary-207235/#post2420349

tried to embed that link but I kept getting errors. It's a good read, here is kind of a summary:

According to this investigation very bright worts that are free of any particulate material which is often aimed in practical operations, may lead to complications in terms of fermentation performance. This could eventually cause a deterioration in the quality of the resulting beer. Therefore, the question rises whether a very bright wort quality is still to be recommended nowadays. Moreover, it might be concluded, that connected with an optimum yeast management a moderate rather than a minimum wort turbidity is desirable not only from a technological point of view, but also in terms of a simplified and and accelerated brewhouse procedure (i.e. the steps of mash separation and whirlpooling) as well as a shortening of main fermentation. Additionally, these measures may also include economic advantages in practical operations.

Click to expand...

Bottom line, this report says eliminating trub altogether is actually detrimental and my little experiment seems to back that up pretty convincingly for me at least.

article link:
http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/619244/619244.pdf

Ive seen people taking great steps to eliminate trub. Ive always dumped the whole thing in the primary. Ive never seen a adverse affect by doing so.

There is no question that there is lots of goodness in the trub that aids in yeast health.

It will be interesting to hear about flavor. What style were you making?

BxBrewer said:

Ive seen people taking great steps to eliminate trub. Ive always dumped the whole thing in the primary. Ive never seen a adverse affect by doing so.

Click to expand...

You and me both. The only thing I leave behind is the super solid sludge at the bottom of the kettle.

I don't see the benefit of going to great lengths to eliminate trub, never seen any facts showing that it is necessary. Would love to hear the if they exist.

choosybeggar said:

It will be interesting to hear about flavor. What style were you making?

Click to expand...

Just a pale ale with simcoe/cascade, wyeast 2112. I will try to report back any differences.

Upon further reading, starting page 96 they say that hot break trub is the most beneficial, but cold is also good. A vigorous boil helps, as does a longer boil. The takeaway here is not "trub doesn't hurt". Trub is good, leads to shorter, more vigorous fermentation.