How to use a CFC

[Jtvann]

Hey all, I’m about to be a proud new owner of the brutus pro exchillerator. I think I know how I plan to use it, but figured I’d ask here for best practice.

I brew a lot of IPAs and whirlpool. My plan is to whirlpool in line back into the pot chilling to about 160 and maintaining the whirlpool.

I’d like to leave as much trub, proteins etc in the kettle ... maybe.

After whirlpool, should I continue to chill to pitch temp in the kettle and let things settle out nicely in a cone, then slowly transfer to fermenter for max clean wort

Or

Should I go direct to fermenter in one pass from 160 to pitch temp, transferring break material and other kettle junk.

Water usage is not a concern for me.
I think I’ve heard that one pass is faster chilling than recirculating. I’ve got a unitank and can dump. Should I care about leaving break material in the fermenter or just chill it as fast as possible and dump from the unitank?

 

[skidmark]

I think that this would get more responses in one of the brewing areas of the forum.

 

[IslandLizard]

I think that this would get more responses in one of the brewing areas of the forum.

Moved to General HB.

 

[Dog House Brew]

I chill with tap water to whirlpool temp. I have a small kiddie pool that I put ice water in. I pump the ice water to the CFC. This allows me to chill to whatever temp I want in a single pass. I can pump aggressively to aerate the wort. I’ve stopped using O2 prior to pitch. I’m not seeing any difference in my beers. I don’t let it settle all the way out in the kettle. You are going to still get some break while pumping to the fermenter anyway. I’ve always thought that some doesn’t matter much. I leave behind a lot of break/trub in the kettle doing this. My batches are usually min 12.5-max of 20 gallons. Smaller batches would be easier for me to chill.

 

[FswBG]

Everyone has their preference, but I fall into the camp of leaving as much break material in the BK as possible. I whirlpool/chill all of my brews before transferring. I have seen a lot of chatter about no chill brewing come up lately, but I'm not in that much of a rush and, like you, I don't mind the water usage for my 5g batches.

My process is similar to what you laid out. On IPAs with WP additions I will chill to 190, turn off the water, but leave the pump going and let the hops spin for 15-20 minutes. I'll then chill the rest of the way down or as close as I can get to pitching temp and then kill the pump to let everything settle for a few minutes. Then slowly transfer to the conical and start my cleanup.

I'll still dump sediment/yeast soon after crashing the beer and filter when transferring to a keg. Sediment in the keg is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Vale71]

If you run your wort pre-whirlpooling through the CFC you will get trub in it.

All types of counterflow chillers are to be used in a single pass or at most in a two-stage configuration if reaching pitching temp in one pass is not possible. If you circulate through a CFC back to the kettle you get the same (poor) chilling performance as an immersion chiller and lose all the advantages of a counterflow system which IMHO is a bit pointless.

 

[Dog House Brew]

Your running wort through your CFC anyway for sanitation. Every has their SOP, I hated using an IM chiller. Made my CFC and have liked it.
I do chill in the kettle and let it settle sometimes. Sometimes it is just straight to the fermenter. My brew days are long enough already. I really haven’t seen any difference in my beers. I don’t use a conical, so dumping yeast isn’t an option. I’m ordering some floating diptubes for my kegs!

 

[Dog House Brew]

Hey all, I’m about to be a proud new owner of the brutus pro exchillerator. I think I know how I plan to use it, but figured I’d ask here for best practice.

I brew a lot of IPAs and whirlpool. My plan is to whirlpool in line back into the pot chilling to about 160 and maintaining the whirlpool.

I’d like to leave as much trub, proteins etc in the kettle ... maybe.

After whirlpool, should I continue to chill to pitch temp in the kettle and let things settle out nicely in a cone, then slowly transfer to fermenter for max clean wort

Or

Should I go direct to fermenter in one pass from 160 to pitch temp, transferring break material and other kettle junk.

Water usage is not a concern for me.
I think I’ve heard that one pass is faster chilling than recirculating. I’ve got a unitank and can dump. Should I care about leaving break material in the fermenter or just chill it as fast as possible and dump from the unitank?

I missed that you had the Unitank. If it were me, once I finished my whirlpool, I’d run it straight to the tank. Then dump once it settled out. I’ve never use a conical. Couldn’t you let it settle out while cleaning up? Dump the break before you pitch? I’d think that would be good for saving and repitching cleaner yeast.

 

[eric19312]

If you run your wort pre-whirlpooling through the CFC you will get trub in it.

All types of counterflow chillers are to be used in a single pass or at most in a two-stage configuration if reaching pitching temp in one pass is not possible. If you circulate through a CFC back to the kettle you get the same (poor) chilling performance as an immersion chiller and lose all the advantages of a counterflow system which IMHO is a bit pointless.

I'm not following you. My perspectives is that of a long time immersion chiller user who recently switched to CFC and 95% of beers I brew hoppy IPAs with large whirlpool hop additions.

Both what we call here CFC (tube in tube CFC) and plate chillers are counterflow chillers and possibly this is what you mean by how "all counterflow chillers are designed to be used". But there is an advantage of a tube in tube CFC over a plate chiller in that the tube in tube CFC is able to handle lots of trub.

So not sure I see reason to be concerned about trub getting into the CFC if that is being recirculated back to the kettle.

Possible advantages I see in recirculating through the chiller back into the kettle are:
- ability to drop kettle temperature to desired target for whirlpool hop additions - I've gotten used to cooling wort to 185 before adding my whirlpool hop addition. I have heard that above this temperature I will lose far more volatile oils.
- ability to drop kettle temperature below 140F to prevent DMS forming in the kettle. I don't know if this is real issue or not. I've not noticed DMS in the beers I brew and frankly that 30 minute whirlpool at 180 would seem to be a concern if I was really being challenged by DMS.

So in my recent first try with CFC I started recirculating to kettle during last 10 min of boil to sanitize the chiller. Turned on water at flameout and ran the water until temp of the wort going into the chiller reached 190. Stopped the water and added my whirlpool hops to the kettle. Let that go under continuous recirculation 20 min and then started the chilling water again. Once kettle temperature reached about 100F I redirected into my fermentor at pitching temperature.

For me I did see some advantages vs my IC. Overall chilling was faster. Getting from 100 to 65 with my IC took a long time, single pass through the CFC I transferred the 17.5 gallon batch in 15 minutes. My kettle was closed during chilling. Batch that lead me to invest in CFC I found two hornets swimming on top of my chilled wort when I went to transfer. I traded for SS CFC vs my copper IC.

Only downside was a less aggressive whirlpool. I was able to get the wort to slowly spin but not like before. I have a center inlet chugger pump connected to the kettle with 1/2" silicon hoses. Pumping through the CFC added a lot of resistance and the kettle whirlpool was modest. I did get a nice trub cone and what went to the fermentor seemed pretty clean based on what I saw when I dumped yeast but I may go ahead and acquire a bigger pump in the future.

 

[Dog House Brew]

I'm not following you. My perspectives is that of a long time immersion chiller user who recently switched to CFC and 95% of beers I brew hoppy IPAs with large whirlpool hop additions.

Both what we call here CFC (tube in tube CFC) and plate chillers are counterflow chillers and possibly this is what you mean by how "all counterflow chillers are designed to be used". But there is an advantage of a tube in tube CFC over a plate chiller in that the tube in tube CFC is able to handle lots of trub.

So not sure I see reason to be concerned about trub getting into the CFC if that is being recirculated back to the kettle.

Possible advantages I see in recirculating through the chiller back into the kettle are:
- ability to drop kettle temperature to desired target for whirlpool hop additions - I've gotten used to cooling wort to 185 before adding my whirlpool hop addition. I have heard that above this temperature I will lose far more volatile oils.
- ability to drop kettle temperature below 140F to prevent DMS forming in the kettle. I don't know if this is real issue or not. I've not noticed DMS in the beers I brew and frankly that 30 minute whirlpool at 180 would seem to be a concern if I was really being challenged by DMS.

So in my recent first try with CFC I started recirculating to kettle during last 10 min of boil to sanitize the chiller. Turned on water at flameout and ran the water until temp of the wort going into the chiller reached 190. Stopped the water and added my whirlpool hops to the kettle. Let that go under continuous recirculation 20 min and then started the chilling water again. Once kettle temperature reached about 100F I redirected into my fermentor at pitching temperature.

For me I did see some advantages vs my IC. Overall chilling was faster. Getting from 100 to 65 with my IC took a long time, single pass through the CFC I transferred the 17.5 gallon batch in 15 minutes. My kettle was closed during chilling. Batch that lead me to invest in CFC I found two hornets swimming on top of my chilled wort when I went to transfer. I traded for SS CFC vs my copper IC.

Only downside was a less aggressive whirlpool. I was able to get the wort to slowly spin but not like before. I have a center inlet chugger pump connected to the kettle with 1/2" silicon hoses. Pumping through the CFC added a lot of resistance and the kettle whirlpool was modest. I did get a nice trub cone and what went to the fermentor seemed pretty clean based on what I saw when I dumped yeast but I may go ahead and acquire a bigger pump in the future.

Virtually identical to my process.

 

[Vale71]

Sorry, didn't see that the CFC in question is tube-in-tube so trub possibly clogging it up is not really a concern.

As for recirculating you lose the advantage of near-instantaneous chilling and subsequent cold break formation that you have in a single-pass mode of operation. Cold break unfortunately unlike hot break will dissolve again if reheated as the chilled wort is pumped back into the kettle and mixed with the still hot wort. The end result will be an inferior degree of cold break material separation. DMS could also be a concern as wort will spend some time in the temperature range where DMS formation is still ongoing but evaporation is insufficient due to decreasing temperature.

And then of course there is the loss of efficiency and the marked increase in water usage.

 

[eric19312]

Sorry, didn't see that the CFC in question is tube-in-tube so trub possibly clogging it up is not really a concern.

As for recirculating you lose the advantage of near-instantaneous chilling and subsequent cold break formation that you have in a single-pass mode of operation. Cold break unfortunately unlike hot break will dissolve again if reheated as the chilled wort is pumped back into the kettle and mixed with the still hot wort. The end result will be an inferior degree of cold break material separation. DMS could also be a concern as wort will spend some time in the temperature range where DMS formation is still ongoing but evaporation is insufficient due to decreasing temperature.

And then of course there is the loss of efficiency and the marked increase in water usage.

Got it. I'm seeing majority of styles could benefit from single pass by getting better cold break and quicker, more efficient chilling process.

But I am still trying to wrap my head around that big hop stand I'm doing in my IPAs -- in these beers I am agnostic about haze [if I got haze from cold break...so what...it is an IPA and they are mostly all hazy these days]. Maybe recirc to kettle with chilling to get to the hop stand temperature, add the whirlpool hops, wait just long enough for pellets to dissolve and combine with the wort, and then divert to fermentor? Some of the hopped wort might be at isomerization temperatures a pretty long time but some will get chilled down immediately. It might come out different than holding the whole kettle at 180 for the hop stand (say 30 min) and then chilling the whole kettle to below 160 very quickly but could see an argument you might preserve even more of the most volatile oils by having part of the wort chilled right away.

Think I'm going to give it a try.

So once it is in the conical how long do you need to let it settle to dump the trub and cold break? And do you oxygenate and pitch yeast right away or wait until you have dumped?

 

[Vale71]

Cold break can take days to settle so you can just disregard it, the important thing is formation rather than actual separation.
Hot break is very coarse and settles to the bottom pretty quickly.
The biggest issue is with hop material which is quite fine and can take too long to fully settle which is why I always try and get full trub separation in the whirlpool.
BTW chill haze is not related to insufficient cold break.

 

[Genuine]

So for my system, I got a 400micron stainless hop spider. I have having issues with my CFC getting clogged when making NEIPA's. If it's 1-3oz in a batch, it would handle the hop matter and trub fine however a lot would make it's way into my fermenter. Since I've had the hop spider, it's been such a wonderful difference. Now I have minimal make it into my fermenter and it keeps all of the hop matter in the spider. Couldn't be happier with it.

 

[BarryBrews]

Hey all, I’m about to be a proud new owner of the brutus pro exchillerator. I think I know how I plan to use it, but figured I’d ask here for best practice.

I brew a lot of IPAs and whirlpool. My plan is to whirlpool in line back into the pot chilling to about 160 and maintaining the whirlpool.

I’d like to leave as much trub, proteins etc in the kettle ... maybe.

After whirlpool, should I continue to chill to pitch temp in the kettle and let things settle out nicely in a cone, then slowly transfer to fermenter for max clean wort

Or

Should I go direct to fermenter in one pass from 160 to pitch temp, transferring break material and other kettle junk.

Water usage is not a concern for me.
I think I’ve heard that one pass is faster chilling than recirculating. I’ve got a unitank and can dump. Should I care about leaving break material in the fermenter or just chill it as fast as possible and dump from the unitank?

I have come to enjoy NEIPA's to the exclusion of all other beer styles. To this extent the use of a hop basket or a muslin bag just doesn't work well during whirlpooling for the amount of hops used. So my first attempt at free range hops nearly clogged up my plate chiller (therminator) making for the cleaning job from hell. Fixed that problem with a tubular CFC (kegco SS CFC). So now I can cool to 160F for whirlpooling hops and maintain that temperature for 20 minutes with the RIMS which is still in line with the pump and then finish by chilling down in the kettle to less then 80F for settling over night. Settling over night leaves all the break, hot and cold, and all the hops in the bottom of the kettle for a clear wort transfer to the fermenter. Much easier than using the dump valve on my fermenter and also lowers the risk of yeast delay infections when the wort is left in the heat sanitized kettle. Besides I want to oxygenate and pitch my yeast immediately after the wort transfer.

There are three huge additional advantages to this approach. The first is the clear wort is run through the CFC again on the way to the fermenter which allows the wort to be warmed or chilled to fill the fermenter at exactly pitching temperature desired. The second is that "clear" wort never blows out the airlocks in my experience, even with a hefeweizen! There is much more movement in a fermenter when large trub pieces are present. The third benefit is yeast harvesting is much simpler without of the trub present, especially with the new kveiks which are great for NEIPA's. Hmmm.....does not having to clean a hop basket or muslin bag count as an easier procedure?

Though I don't dry hop for some of the reasons mentioned here, I still get huge hop flavor with just the whirlpool hop addition and feel my NEIPA's compare well with commercial examples.

In my experience, plate chillers are the most water efficient by far, but a nuisance to clean. Immersion chillers inhibit the whirlpool effects on the trub and are by far the less water efficient. Tubular CFC's are the perfect in between solution and work perfectly in obtaining the final pitch temperature which neither of the other two options can do well. Try it.