CFC and Plate Chiller users - do you rack off the cold break?

After reading the latest BYO, the cover feature was BYO's Brewing University, and had a lot of interesting info for newer and intermediate brewers. And one bit of info hit close to home for me, that I wanted to get some HBT feedback on:

One particular section of the article discussed users of CFC and Plate Chillers, and the "need" for them to run off their chilled wort into one vessel, then wait an hour or two for the cold break to settle out, and then rack the clear wort off of the break material and into their fermenter. This is not a process I've ever done, and I don't think any of my beers has ever suffered for it. But I'm curious if it's something that anyone here does with any regularity, or if anyone's attempted any side-by-side comparisons to see if there's any real benefit.

If not, I am planning a double batch of cream ale in the not distant future here (half of which will likely be making an appearance at the NHC club night) that just might be a good candidate for such an experiment.

 

I currently use a CFC in "Gravity Mode" I place the dip tube in a stainless scrubby pad so that a large portion of the hops and hot break get filtered out. Keeps the gunk form clogging the tubing. However, all of the cold break goes into the fermenter.

I've had a pump for a while now, and recently got it wired up and plan to use it soon. When I do, I'll recirculate back into the boil kettle and form a whirlpool. That way I can also avoid some of the cold break.

Frankly, I think that a bit of break material is not a problem if your fermentation proceeds well and you get good clarity.

 

I've been wondering about this for a while- when I first started brewing everyone seemed to say that it was critically important to get your wort cooled down as quick as possible in the pot to get your cold break and to limit exposure at mid-range temperatures that bacteria love.

These days I whirpool with a mashpaddle and let the wort sit for.....maybe 10-15 minutes? Then I pump it out through my HERMS and then through a plate chiller so it is going into the fermentor at 62 or whatever I want.

So...the cold break is happening as the wort passes through the heat exchanger and definitely makes it to the fermenter. Finished beer tastes great to me. Hopefully someone else has your side-by-side experiment.

In the future I plan to install a tangential input in my keggle so that I can pump wort through my cooling heat exchangers and BACK into the keggle- thus cooling it, settling the hop cone, and perhaps keeping the "cold break" in the kettle rather than in the fermentor.

 

Up untill now, I thought the cold break was good for the yeast. Why shouldn't the break be in the carboy?

 

What I've heard is that some break material is good for yeast, but I wonder how much break material is enough. Very likely it's a very miniscule amount.

 

I have done it both ways and have not noticed any difference. I don't actually rack of but I am able to whirl pool through my plate chiller and back into my boil kettle. The reason I continue to do this is because I don't have to worry about getting the flow rate correct to hit my pitching temps and not because I am worried about trub.

 

I whirlpool with a pump, and chill with a plate chiller. I get some cold break in the carboy, but it has never impacted my beer that I can tell. If anything, having near-instantaneous chilling following hops steeping in a hot whirlpool has positively improved my beers ignoring break material in the carboy.

Usually when kegging from a carboy, I see the tiny trub layer, the thicker yeast layer (depending on flocculation), and the dry hops layer at the bottom (obviously secondary is avoided now). Soon I will be upgrading to a conical, but it has almost nothing to do with cold break. I just want the ease of sanitary yeast harvesting to reduce the frequency of building starters from slants.