Importance of wort clarity after mash

[hopjuice_71]

My point was this:
Where you choose to draw the line between simplicity and additional steps that increase quality is completely arbitrary.

My understanding is that BIAB was met with a lot of resistance in its infancy because of its deviation from sound brewing practice.

Why not take the laziness/simplicity one step further?
I bet if brulosophy made a beer that was boiled and fermented with the grain that their silly tasters wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Heck, maybe some people would even prefer it. Decoction is supposed to be great, right?

After that the guys doing the new no-lauter mash and brew with Grain In A Kettle (GIAK) will make snide remarks at the BIABers because they went though unnecessary expense and use extra unnecessary steps to make beer. Separating the grain is passé.

I'm not putting anyone's methods down. Use whatever makes you happy!

Your point is well taken, and I agree (well, not with GIAK.. ..but maybe you are on to something there?). It is also why it is interesting to have these discussions.

 

[Bassman2003]

The decoction point is well taken. After all, it is boiling of the mash itself, not just the remains of the day. But to make things more complicated, the mash is then lautered after the decoctions, so technically clear wort being transferred to the boil kettle.

The nitty gritty of this topic: Is the "stuff" that gets boiled in less than clear wort harmful to flavor, yeast, clarity etc... Does creating clear wort going into the boil kettle save the beer from anything? If one does a 60min boil and leaves all the trub behind, how damaging (if at all) is that 60 minutes?

We need evidence and testing.

 

[RPh_Guy]

When GIAK catches on, I expect credit!

 

[Blazinlow86]

I think the testing has already been done and comes back that clear wort into the kettle is ideal at least in the professional world. Admittedly I didn't do much research but I do remember the last time this came up the first few scientific reports indicated that. It's like all the best case processes. They all do add up to a better end product. It's just a matter if that specific brewer cares to put in that much effort time and money. Cheers

 

[TheMadKing]

Beers in the bronze age, all the way into the middle ages were brewed with all of the grain still in suspension as part of the food value... Might be a fun historical style to try

 

[Miraculix]

Beers in the bronze age, all the way into the middle ages were brewed with all of the grain still in suspension as part of the food value... Might be a fun historical style to try

Don't you suggest stuff like this while me being present and reading it!

Now I have to somehow talk my brain out of this "fun" idea!!!!

 

[TheMadKing]

Don't you suggest stuff like this while me being present and reading it!

Now I have to somehow talk my brain out of this "fun" idea!!!!

they didn't really boil it, or use hops either!

Good luck!

 

[Miraculix]

they didn't really boil it, or use hops either!

Good luck!

Luckily I can honestly say, been there done that already

 

[LittleRiver]

...My understanding is that BIAB was met with a lot of resistance in its infancy because of its deviation from sound brewing practice....

My understanding is that it was met with a lot of resistance because it demonstrated a more elegant solution.

A complicated rig that was designed to mimic the practices of a commercial brewery may be a source of pride for some folks. BIAB revealed that all that stuff is not needed to make excellent beer at home.

...Why not take the laziness/simplicity one step further?...

Laziness and simplicity are not synonymous, nor comparable.

... I'm not putting anyone's methods down...

Really?

 

[hopjuice_71]

Hmmm, found this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2006.tb00716.x. Seems to be freely available. Interesting read. This is a literature review, not a one-off research article, published in Journal of The Institute of Brewing titled "Influence of Lauter Turbidity on Wort Composition, Fermentation Performance and Beer Quality — A Review."

TLDR if you read it carefully you will see that research actually disagrees on the general importance of clear wort into the kettle.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Hmmm, found this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2006.tb00716.x. Seems to be freely available. Interesting read. This is a literature review, not a one-off research article, published in Journal of The Institute of Brewing titled "Influence of Lauter Turbidity on Wort Composition, Fermentation Performance and Beer Quality — A Review."

TLDR if you read it carefully you will see that research actually disagrees on the general importance of clear wort into the kettle.

What part are you referring to? The section "beer quality" seems to confirm that clear wort is preferred unless I'm reading it incorrectly. Cheers

 

[Robert65]

Hmmm, found this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2006.tb00716.x. Seems to be freely available. Interesting read. This is a literature review, not a one-off research article, published in Journal of The Institute of Brewing titled "Influence of Lauter Turbidity on Wort Composition, Fermentation Performance and Beer Quality — A Review."

TLDR if you read it carefully you will see that research actually disagrees on the general importance of clear wort into the kettle.

The (tentative, provisional) recommendation of that particular paper is a "moderate" wort turbidity relative to the greatest possible clarity achievable with the most modern technology. Please note that even this (relatively) moderate level of turbidity represents a far greater level of clarity than is achievable on most homebrew systems. Such professional studies need to be put into perspective.

 

[hopjuice_71]

What part are you referring to? The section "beer quality" seems to confirm that clear wort is preferred unless I'm reading it incorrectly. Cheers

Yes, if you take each section out of context, or even read the beginning of each section, you will come away with that impression. However, if you read the whole thing carefully and thoroughly you will see that almost every section cites studies that contradict the positive aspects of clear wort. Even the conclusion recommends some turbidity, but see below...

The (tentative, provisional) recommendation of that particular paper is a "moderate" wort turbidity relative to the greatest possible clarity achievable with the most modern technology. Please note that even this (relatively) moderate level of turbidity represents a far greater level of clarity than is achievable on most homebrew systems. Such professional studies need to be put into perspective.

Good point about the relative turbidity. EBC is a really weird measurement for turbidity (I work in AU or OD) so it is hard for me to place the numbers in any context. But if I understand the implications of what you are saying then the vast majority of home brewers exceed commercially recommended practices no matter what?

 

[Robert65]

^^^^
I have seen some worts from recirculating systems that are impressively clear to the naked eye, though I have no way of knowing how they actually measure. But I would bet that most of us, myself included with a conventional lauter tun setup and just a short Vorlauf, are cloudier than we probably ought to be. My wort after Vorlauf looks quite clear to me but I'm sure it's not. I wouldn't take any professional discussion of the benefits of a little turbidity as license to accept anything short of the best clarity we can achieve, in most cases.

 

[RPh_Guy]

Really?

I use BIAB for some of my batches. The beer is indeed "excellent" compared to the typical US craft brew. So I obviously have nothing against this method.

However the design of my 2V system does produce higher quality beer because this system makes it easier to reduce oxygen exposure and reduce the amount of staling compounds.
If you aren't taking the extra steps to reduce those two things then I wouldn't expect any improvement in quality using a multi-vessel system. .. or see much improvement by reducing the staling compounds alone (wort clarity).

 

[LittleRiver]

...reduce oxygen exposure and reduce the amount of staling compounds. If you aren't taking the extra steps to reduce those two things then I wouldn't expect any improvement in quality using a multi-vessel system. .. or see much improvement by reducing the staling compounds alone (wort clarity).

I do control O2 exposure on the cold side, with closed transfers into purged kegs. That definitely helps with the longevity of flavors.

I've not implemented any hot side lodo stuff, nor do I anticipate any need or desire to do so. Same with worrying about getting crystal clear wort into the boil kettle. If I could gain something from those things it would have to be worth the trade-offs (complexity, troubleshooting, extra cleanup, etc.), and it's just not.

That does not mean I'm accepting of unsound brewing practices or mediocre beer.

 

[hopjuice_71]

^^^^
I have seen some worts from recirculating systems that are impressively clear to the naked eye, though I have no way of knowing how they actually measure. But I would bet that most of us, myself included with a conventional lauter tun setup and just a short Vorlauf, are cloudier than we probably ought to be. My wort after Vorlauf looks quite clear to me but I'm sure it's not. I wouldn't take any professional discussion of the benefits of a little turbidity as license to accept anything short of the best clarity we can achieve, in most cases.

Well now you really have me thinking. So, the paper I linked says this in the conclusion "Thus, the average lauter turbidity dropped tremendously, now reaching a value of roughly 10 EBC units when applying state-of-the-art technologies." As Robert65 mentioned, the authors tentatively suggest slighter higher turbidity. I found a table in my copy of Malting and Brewing Science regarding EBC units and visually perceived turbidity, which is corroborated by a table I found elsewhere, summarized here:

Brilliant 0.0 to 0.5
Almost Brilliant 0.5 to 1.0
Very Slightly Hazy 1.0 to 2.0
Slightly Hazy. 2.0 to 4.0
Hazy. 4.0 to 8.0
Very Hazy 8.0 up

Units in EBC. A bit of a subjective scale, obviously, but food for thought...

 

[RPh_Guy]

I do control O2 exposure on the cold side, with closed transfers into purged kegs. That definitely helps with the longevity of flavors.

I've not implemented any hot side lodo stuff, nor do I anticipate any need or desire to do so. Same with worrying about getting crystal clear wort into the boil kettle. If I could gain something from those things it would have to be worth the trade-offs (complexity, troubleshooting, extra cleanup, etc.), and it's just not.

That does not mean I'm accepting of unsound brewing practices or mediocre beer.

OK

 

[Robert65]

Well now you really have me thinking. So, the paper I linked says this in the conclusion "Thus, the average lauter turbidity dropped tremendously, now reaching a value of roughly 10 EBC units when applying state-of-the-art technologies." As Robert65 mentioned, the authors tentatively suggest slighter higher turbidity. I found a table in my copy of Malting and Brewing Science regarding EBC units and visually perceived turbidity, which is corroborated by a table I found elsewhere, summarized here:

Brilliant 0.0 to 0.5
Almost Brilliant 0.5 to 1.0
Very Slightly Hazy 1.0 to 2.0
Slightly Hazy. 2.0 to 4.0
Hazy. 4.0 to 8.0
Very Hazy 8.0 up

Units in EBC. A bit of a subjective scale, obviously, but food for thought...

There are different units for lauter turbidity and beer turbidity. Those units you cite match a table I have from the ASBC Methods of Analysis converting EBC to ASBC FTUs, or formazin turbidity units, used to measure chill haze in finished beer. But the EBC scale for that pretty much ceases to be of practical application above 6 (ASBC 400) because no beer is likely to develop more chill haze than that.

Kunze refers to a comparison done at Weihenstephan (his reference 399) of a clear wort, described as 16 EBC units, and a turbid wort, 140 EBC, where the 140 EBC wort has unacceptable levels of long chain fatty acids and lipoxyoxidation products leading to decreased stability of the beer.

Therefore we can conclude that what the authors of this paper are calling "moderate turbidity" at 10 EBC is even clearer that what Kunze refers to as "clear" wort, and so they are still prescribing a very high standard of clarity.

 

[hopjuice_71]

There are different units for lauter turbidity and beer turbidity. Those units you cite match a table I have from the ASBC Methods of Analysis converting EBC to ASBC FTUs, or formazin turbidity units, used to measure chill haze in finished beer. But the EBC scale for that pretty much ceases to be of practical application above 6 (ASBC 400) because no beer is likely to develop more chill haze than that.

Kunze refers to a comparison done at Weihenstephan (his reference 399) of a clear wort, described as 16 EBC units, and a turbid wort, 140 EBC, where the 140 EBC wort has unacceptable levels of long chain fatty acids and lipoxyoxidation products leading to decreased stability of the beer.

Therefore we can conclude that what the authors of this paper are calling "moderate turbidity" at 10 EBC is even clearer that what Kunze refers to as "clear" wort, and so they are still prescribing a very high standard of clarity.

Do you have a source for the different turbidity units? In my poking around to figure out how turbidity is measured it seemed that an EBC for turbidity is the same no matter what is being measured. However (!) I had no frame of reference for what the numbers actually meant, other than the vague descriptors in the tables. I'm guessing, based on what you are saying, 10 EBC to describe "very hazy" chill haze is still actually a pretty clear solution. Thanks for that. Ah, and I just found pictures of reference solutions - after conversion to EBC, around 10 EBC is indeed quite clear.

 

[kh54s10]

Every one of us can do things to improve our beers. Even the LODO crowd. What it really comes down to is where are you comfortable with cost, complexity of brewing etc versus improvement.

In my case I think I may take a step sideways. I now brew 3 vessel gravity fed rig on propane. I am contemplating a Unibrau electric system. I would get re-circulation and the ability to brew inside in the A/C. I would go from a coarse grind and better filtered wort to a fine grind BIAB. I expect I would lose some clarity throughout the process.

Personally I like my beers the way they are and don't feel the need for steps such as LODO. I have made beers that did not significantly suffer as far as shelf life. My Russian Imperial Stout was much better at over a year old than it was a 3 months. My APAs are as good on the last day as they are at 3 weeks conditioning. But those will only last a couple months at best.

 

[foles]

I would not embrace turbid wort, personally. With most of the yeasts I use, clear wort seems to produce better beer. There are exceptions of course, such as kveik or perhaps saison. But my lagers and basic ales have improved since I cleaned up my wort.

100% - I'm convinced from experience that you need a damn fine fabric/stainless filter, otherwise you better clear that wort with proper mashing techniques. I had super grainy/harsh beers with a stainless mesh basket and full volume BIAB mash, despite good pH. Took me dozens of batches before I got a proper mash tun and finally my beers were where I wanted them to be. Tough lesson indeed.

 

[Miraculix]

100% - I'm convinced from experience that you need a damn fine fabric/stainless filter, otherwise you better clear that wort with proper mashing techniques. I had super grainy/harsh beers with a stainless mesh basket and full volume BIAB mash, despite good pH. Took me dozens of batches before I got a proper mash tun and finally my beers were where I wanted them to be. Tough lesson indeed.

I did biab for years without much problems, switched to a "proper" mash tun, results were not good, switched back to biab, all good again. Don't know what you did wrong, but it's not biab's fault.

 

[cire]

I did BIAB before it was called BIAB. Buying a suitable bag then was far easier than making a false bottom that worked well. I thought it was great and all I needed as the beer was drinkable.

Times changed and brewing became a more serious hobby than it previously was, so embarked on various modifications with expectations of better beer. It wasn't straightforward and lots of years later, there are no pending changes. RIMS took four of those years before it was abandoned.

Probably no original equipment is now in use, maybe none of the first modifications survived either. The bag was replaced early in the process and 4 different false bottom designs immediately come to mind, but in that phase only once was the bag reused.

While brewing without a bag is a fraction of my brewing experience, I've no intention to return.

 

[SaltNeck]

Does anyone run the wort from the mash tun through an additional mechanical filter before going into the kettle? In addition to vorlauf/recirculation.

Does anyone run the wort from the kettle through an additional mechanical filter before going into the fermenter? In addition to whirlpooling.

Something like this:
Amazon.com: DERNORD 2 Inch Tri-Clamp Filter - SS304 Sanitary Fittings Inline Straight Strainer with 100 Mesh Stainless Steel Screen : Industrial & Scientific

In my first batch sparge system, I was concerned about the amount of trub I was dumping from the kettle to the fermenter. I invested in a series of strainers 600, 400, 200 and 100 microns. The wort was run through a stack of those strainers into the fermenter. I'm not sure I could tell the difference between the filtered wort beer and the unfiltered wort beer.

Anyone with a system that has mechanical filters at those points would make an interesting data point.

Example strainer for 5 gallon bucket:
600 Micron (0.023550") Coarse EZ-Strainers™ for 5 Gallon Containers | U.S. Plastic Corp. (usplastic.com)

 

[doug293cz]

Does anyone run the wort from the mash tun through an additional mechanical filter before going into the kettle? In addition to vorlauf/recirculation.

Does anyone run the wort from the kettle through an additional mechanical filter before going into the fermenter? In addition to whirlpooling.

Something like this:
Amazon.com: DERNORD 2 Inch Tri-Clamp Filter - SS304 Sanitary Fittings Inline Straight Strainer with 100 Mesh Stainless Steel Screen : Industrial & Scientific

In my first batch sparge system, I was concerned about the amount of trub I was dumping from the kettle to the fermenter. I invested in a series of strainers 600, 400, 200 and 100 microns. The wort was run through a stack of those strainers into the fermenter. I'm not sure I could tell the difference between the filtered wort beer and the unfiltered wort beer.

Anyone with a system that has mechanical filters at those points would make an interesting data point.

Example strainer for 5 gallon bucket:
600 Micron (0.023550") Coarse EZ-Strainers™ for 5 Gallon Containers | U.S. Plastic Corp. (usplastic.com)

Need to be careful when talking about mesh and opening dimensions in microns. The are very different and go in opposite directions. For example:

100 Mesh has an opening dimension of 149 microns (not such a big mismatch here)​

​

600 Mesh has an opening dimension of 16 microns ​

​

30 Mesh has an opening dimension of 560 microns​

​

Know what "units" you are working with.

Brew on

 

[SaltNeck]

Need to be careful when talking about mesh and opening dimensions in microns. The are very different and go in opposite directions. For example:

100 Mesh has an opening dimension of 149 microns (not such a big mismatch here)​

​

600 Mesh has an opening dimension of 16 microns ​

​

30 Mesh has an opening dimension of 560 microns​

​

Know what "units" you are working with.

Brew on

I would agree but not sure of the applicability to my post?

 

[cire]

Yes, but not filters of that type.

I use a Valentine Arm on the mash tun. There's a thread about such a device on this forum, but it isn't as mine or how the original design intended. After the mash period, wort is gently recycled from the tap, then the arm is fitted seen below.

The mash tun is the middle vessel , the Valentine Arm the copper pipe fitted to it's bottom outlet. The arm angle to the vessel is adjusted until the horizontal section of the arm is exactly at the same level as the top of the grain in the tun, when the the tap is opened allowing wort to flow up the arm and be at the same level as the wort in the tun. The pump and the fly sparge are then started and wort will be transferred to the kettle at a same rate as the sparge. With this method, once the wort has run clear, it will remain clear and progress is monitored by refractometer readings to achieve high efficiency.

I use cone hops with the occasional pellet in small quantities. Half inch copper pipe with sawcut slots runs around the the circumference at the bottom of the kettle and into to the outlet ball valve. The cones can't enter the copper pipe and become a very effective filter for hot and cold break as well as some pellet hop materials after a couple of pints are recycled. This produces bright wort for the FV.

 

[doug293cz]

I would agree but not sure of the applicability to my post?

Go back at look at your post. You link to a 100 mesh filter, and then go on to talk about SS strainers with opening sizes in microns.

Brew on

 

[SaltNeck]

Go back at look at your post. You link to a 100 mesh filter, and then go on to talk about SS strainers with opening sizes in microns.

Brew on

It's true that the SS strainer is measured in mesh and the plastic 5 gallon bucket strainers are measured in microns but I'm not relating or comparing them in anyway.

 

[Bassman2003]

I am replying to this older thread because I think the topic still has relevance. What are the negatives associated with turbid wort going into the boil kettle vs the positives of clear wort? Sorry to be posting my video again on the forum but I recently did a four batch experiment that wound up proving this point (to me). In the video below I brewed four batches of the same recipe while varying the process technique. Please take notice of the hot break between the batches. I wish I had done a fifth batch of a lauter with the HIDO BIAB process... I know my tasting notes are subjective in many eyes, but to me, the clearest wort into the boil kettle produced the cleanest tasting beer.

 

[Brewdog80]

Cleanest TASTING? what does that have to do with clear beer?
It is interesting discussion. I brewed in the past with a 3 vessel system. Heated mash directly to raise temp, and used both whole hops (my actual preferred hops) and pellets. I drained and pumped into kettle through a brass screen that has holes 50 to 60 thousandths in diameter. Large holes. Pelletized hops could go through. I have a false bottom in kettle that had 75 to 100 thousandth diameter holes. It would stop only whole hops. I recirculated with pump for 5 to 10 minutes before going into the fermenter. Used counterflow chiller.
I've been using an anvil foundry for my return to brewing. Use only pellet hops, and in a 400 mesh spider. I recirculate for 10 to 15 minutes before going into fermenter. All the beers so far are way hazier than past brewing. But they all taste fine....

 

[Bassman2003]

I don't know if you had the chance to watch the video or not, but yes, taste is what the end goal is for me. We are speaking about mash wort, not boil or kegged beer clarity.

 

[foles]

I did biab for years without much problems, switched to a "proper" mash tun, results were not good, switched back to biab, all good again. Don't know what you did wrong, but it's not biab's fault.

My stainless mesh basket wasn't fine enough. Too much husk material and whatever else got through in the final beer.

 

[odie]

I only bother with wort clarity into the fermenter. everything before I don't care...not the mash, not the boil. Once I'm done brewing , it all goes thru a 200micron bucket strainer and I get the clean wort into the fermenter and a nice clean yeast cake to harvest and reuse.

 

[Oleson M.D.]

We do not purposely do anything to ensure clear wort.
But our recirculation of the mash, for as long as 2 hours or longer, always gets us brilliantly clear wort into the boil kettle.

When chilling the boiled wort, we do not start the runoff until the cold break has fully formed. This is all filtered out in our bed of whole cone hops, resulting in crystal clear wort for the ferment.

Not a big deal, it just happens.