Importance of wort clarity after mash

[Blazinlow86]

My opinion is if you have the equipment to produce clear wort into the kettle that it's the ideal method however if you aren't setup for that I don't think replacing a biab setup with a traditional mash system for example is worth it solely to get clear wort into the kettle. I don't think your going to notice a difference without a lab test of some sort. That also depends on your end goals and all that though. Cheers

 

[Dland]

Please post link to the paper if you find some time later on. It's not that I insist on this turbid thing, it's just that I haven't read anything that supported the clear wort theory in a scientific way beyond shelf live. But this doesn't mean that there cannot be something that was missed by all the stuff I read..

Here is "paper" I referred to: http://scottjanish.com/esters-and-fusel-alcohols/
Refer to end of first paragraph under Trub. Thanks to day trippr for original post of this.

If I read it correctly, it seems presence of trub influences ester and fusel profiles of beer yeast produces.

I have no idea to scientific veracity of this, or anything else I read on this forum for that matter, but I suspect it as at least as well founded as other oft quoted sources.

 

[RPh_Guy]

Obviously all that turbidity is just pulverized grain and husk material.

It's fatty acids.

This page explains the pros and cons of leaving the trub in the kettle and quotes the most reputable textbooks in the brewing industry, citing scientific literature.
http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/brewing-methods/trub-seperation-why-and-how/

 

[Jbrew]

My opinion is if you have the equipment to produce clear wort into the kettle that it's the ideal method however if you aren't setup for that I don't think replacing a biab setup with a traditional mash system for example is worth it solely to get clear wort into the kettle. I don't think your going to notice a difference without a lab test of some sort. That also depends on your end goals and all that though. Cheers

I currently do 5 gallon batches with a 10 gallon eBIAB setup, however I already have a 15 gallon kettle with mating false bottom. So I’m not to far off from being able to make the switch. It would still cost me an additional $200-300 between possibly another pump and additional plumbing and hardware. So that’s where Im trying to decide if it would be worth it to me.

 

[Jbrew]

It's fatty acids.

This page explains the pros and cons of leaving the trub in the kettle and quotes the most reputable textbooks in the brewing industry, citing scientific literature.
http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/brewing-methods/trub-seperation-why-and-how/

I’m not disagreeing with you at all. I’m sure you have better knowledge then I do that’s why I’m here asking. Saying that it’s obviously just pulverized grain and husk is probably an overstatement, but surely some of it has to be right?
Unfortunately I do not have my own mill (another investment I’m planing to make), so I have to purchase my grain already crushed. It comes bagged and you can see at the bottom of the bag the fine powder from grain and husk material.
Thank you for the insight, I will spend some time reading the link you provided.

 

[Dland]

Don't worry about it too much. If I know all the things I would have to do, acquire and know when I started home brewing, I would have been overwhelmed.

Just keep brewing, upgrade when you can afford it, change methods when you want to, etc. Your beer will evolve, as likely will your taste in beer.

I recommend getting that mill as next brew investment...

 

[Blazinlow86]

I currently do 5 gallon batches with a 10 gallon eBIAB setup, however I already have a 15 gallon kettle with mating false bottom. So I’m not to far off from being able to make the switch. It would still cost me an additional $200-300 between possibly another pump and additional plumbing and hardware. So that’s where Im trying to decide if it would be worth it to me.

Personally I wouldn't bother. I primarily Brew on a 3 vessel traditional Mash system but also have a biab smaller setup for test batches. The only difference I noticed between them is that the test batches take longer to clear when that's the goal. The beer made on the traditional mash system always ends up better all around however with that system I also use a unitank with all the accessories were as the biab setup I use carboys so its not a fair comparison in that regard. Cheers

 

[bierhaus15]

Packaged beer stability and clarity were the driving factors behind wort studies alluded to. Stroh's was the poster child for what happens when you can't deliver that; ie, nationwide recall, ect, and your brewery closes. That said, the current trend for large breweries is to move away from flotation tanks, ect, and optimize the balance 02/trub for fermentation performance.

Trub tends to contain a fair amount of lineolic acid and it is arguably the most influential fatty acid for fermentation performance. In lieu of trub in wort, there needs to be a high amount of 02 for the yeast, or fermentation can suffer. For lager fermentation, less trub is generally better for producing neutral-low flavor beers. That said, the amount of O2, mg, and zinc must be carefully controlled and most trub-less fermentations don't have enough of those things; RDF% will generally be lower. In contrast, some trub is seen as positive for ales and the presence of trub and 02 is best of both worlds.

All said, don't fret over some trub in the fermenter, unless you are brewing super clean lagers and care about package stability. If you are not using pure 02, trub is a definite benefit for fermentation.

 

[Jbrew]

Thank you guys for the responses. I’m still kinda on the fence about what I want to do, but I think some degree of it is just wanting to rebuild some of my system.
In the mean the time, I need to brew more and I’ll try to scrutinize my process a bit to decide what items really are priority for change/upgrade.

 

[Miraculix]

Some interesting reads in here, especially the Scott Janish link. I like this guy, he always seems to be open minded with a neutral position doing some quality research.

However, at the end it is again a big "it depends", no clear answer possible. There are pluses and minuses for both, dumping all in and the other side, getting the pre-fermentation beer as clear as possible. Probably something in between is also a possibility....

 

[Bassman2003]

I just listened to a recent Brulosophy podcast which dealt with long term exposure to a ton of trub. End result was the low trub beer was preferred and the high trub beer developed off flavors. It was a good listen as they were expecting the beers to be the same based upon other exbeeriments in the past. I think best practice it is sort of in the middle to favoring lower trub situation. Seems like there is some wiggle room here, especially if you are making hoppy ales.

 

[Vale71]

Yeah, that's all very interesting except the thread topic is wort clarity going from mash/sparge to kettle which has nothing to do with hot/cold break and other post-boil trub material.

 

[Bassman2003]

I agree. I knew that when I posted but the conversation wandered. Since BIAB is so popular, the mash material topic does not seem to be very high on people's lists. One can say it is bad but then 10 folks will post about how they BIAB and their beer is fine.

Logically it seems like you would not want to boil up a bunch of grain particles but real world practice is coming out in different positives. This would be a good Exbeeriment as it is a part of BIAB that is undeniable.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I agree. I knew that when I posted but the conversation wandered. Since BIAB is so popular, the mash material topic does not seem to be very high on people's lists. One can say it is bad but then 10 folks will post about how they BIAB and their beer is fine.

Logically it seems like you would not want to boil up a bunch of grain particles but real world practice is coming out in different positives. This would be a good Exbeeriment as it is a part of BIAB that is undeniable.

I think your correct in that ideally you don't want to boil a bunch of grain particles but it's the same as alot of other ideal process that the majority of homebrewers don't do to save time, effort or money. There's not much at stake with homebrewing so shortcuts can be made that aren't in professional breweries. At the end of the day majority are happy with good enough and aren't willing or aren't capable to do/buy more things to get a few percent better end product. Cheers

 

[TheMadKing]

Why is this something to debate?

It is a scientific fact that clear wort reduces staling compounds, decreases the "nonenol potential" of wort which then reduces trans-2-nonenol (cardboard flavor) in beer resulting in brighter malt flavors and better flavor stability.

This matters for homebrewers if you take more than 2-3 weeks to drink your beers. Sometimes I have a keg last for 2-3 months and I enter competitions where beer may sit in a bottle for a month warm, so flavor stability absolutely matters.

Every brewing textbook explains why clear wort matters.

Is it going to make a dramatic change in your beer? No absolutely not.

Is it one more thing you can do to improve the quality of your product if you're making good beer otherwise? Yes, there's no debate

 

[kh54s10]

Why is this something to debate?

It is a scientific fact that clear wort reduces staling compounds, decreases the "nonenol potential" of wort which then reduces trans-2-nonenol (cardboard flavor) in beer resulting in brighter malt flavors and better flavor stability.

This matters for homebrewers if you take more than 2-3 weeks to drink your beers. Sometimes I have a keg last for 2-3 months and I enter competitions where beer may sit in a bottle for a month warm, so flavor stability absolutely matters.

Every brewing textbook explains why clear wort matters.

Is it going to make a dramatic change in your beer? No absolutely not.

Is it one more thing you can do to improve the quality of your product if you're making good beer otherwise? Yes, there's no debate

IMO, the debate is not that it makes a difference. The debate is whether the effort to get clear wort makes a big enough difference to make it worthwhile. For me the answer is a resounding no!!!

 

[Miraculix]

IMO, the debate is not that it makes a difference. The debate is whether the effort to get clear wort makes a big enough difference to make it worthwhile. For me the answer is a resounding no!!!

Or the question could also be, to which degree has trub a positive effect and which amount of residual cloudiness might actually be beneficial because the yeast "eats" that amount up anyway and will be healthier due to these nutrients?

 

[Bassman2003]

Or the question could also be, to which degree has trub a positive effect and which amount of residual cloudiness might actually be beneficial because the yeast "eats" that amount up anyway and will be healthier due to these nutrients?

Trub and mash runoff clarity are two different things. This line has been crossed a few times in this thread. Trub is after the boil...

 

[TheMadKing]

IMO, the debate is not that it makes a difference. The debate is whether the effort to get clear wort makes a big enough difference to make it worthwhile. For me the answer is a resounding no!!!

Absolutely a fair statement, however by a simple process modification clear wort requires no effort and becomes a byproduct of your process - just food for thought.

For BIAB it's a very difficult prospect and one of the many reasons I moved from BIAB to 3-vessel

 

[kh54s10]

Absolutely a fair statement, however by a simple process modification clear wort requires no effort and becomes a byproduct of your process - just food for thought.

For BIAB it's a very difficult prospect and one of the many reasons I moved from BIAB to 3-vessel

Your simple process modification cost big bucks!!!!! I use 3 tier gravity system, batch sparge, with no re-circulation. It would require at least a pump, hoses and fittings to make the next significant step. So it is not just a no effort step.

 

[madscientist451]

Back to the topic - there are chemical reasons all throughout the brewing process that have been studied and determined to be optimal. Optimal is the key word as it does not exclude other practices, just states what is best.

Does "optimal" include what the beer tastes like and if actual drinkers can detect a difference?
There are lots of industrial beers produced to be within optimal chemical standards that I just don't like. Somebody is drinking them, or they wouldn't be made on a huge industrial scale.
But some people like processed white bread, dollar menu hamburgers and lots of other things I won't touch.
My point is just because scientists have given their blessing to one process over another, doesn't mean anything when it comes down to actual taste and desirability.

 

[TheMadKing]

Your simple process modification cost big bucks!!!!! I use 3 tier gravity system, batch sparge, with no re-circulation. It would require at least a pump, hoses and fittings to make the next significant step. So it is not just a no effort step.

I'm not intending to cause aggravation at all, just trying to be helpful, apologies if I came across otherwise.

You can buy a small cheap inline pump for $25 + hoses and stainless QD fittings for another $25 that would be an effective recirc pump. I used that for my recir BIAB system for years before upgrading. As long as you keep the pump clean they stay working pretty well.

 

[TheMadKing]

Does "optimal" include what the beer tastes like and if actual drinkers can detect a difference?
There are lots of industrial beers produced to be within optimal chemical standards that I just don't like. Somebody is drinking them, or they wouldn't be made on a huge industrial scale.
But some people like processed white bread, dollar menu hamburgers and lots of other things I won't touch.
My point is just because scientists have given their blessing to one process over another, doesn't mean anything when it comes down to actual taste and desirability.

Most industrial beer quality control includes a sensory panel and a drinkability evaluation too. I agree that there's a difference between personal preference and quality product, but your last statement that the brewing science has nothing to do with taste and desirability isn't quite accurate, those factors are looked at very hard, and it's not just a bunch of lab techs looking at numbers.

This also leads to one of the problems I have with Brulosophy: he uses "average drinkers" as his taste panel, when he should be using sensory trained panelists.

Some people naturally taste things better than others and the only way to know for sure whether or not a certain taste is present is if you use a tasting panel that has the sensory training necessary to identify it. Will the average drinker taste it? Maybe not, but average drinker means 50% will and 50% won't.

It goes back to that George Carlin quote "Think about how dumb the average person is, and then realize that 50% of people are dumber than that"

 

[kh54s10]

I'm not intending to cause aggravation at all, just trying to be helpful, apologies if I came across otherwise.

You can buy a small cheap inline pump for $25 + hoses and stainless QD fittings for another $25 that would be an effective recirc pump. I used that for my recir BIAB system for years before upgrading. As long as you keep the pump clean they stay working pretty well.

No apologies needed. I was just stating that it would take more than just a process modification. $50 is more than just a process modification, IMO. I am close to where you were in regards to upgrading to get a better wort. Living in Florida now I find it difficult to get motivated to brew on my propane system when the temperature is in the 90s. I am looking at electric and debating on a single vessel 120V or a 3 vessel 240V.... Each day I switch to the other.. Save money or get what I really want - Spike complete system....

 

[TheMadKing]

No apologies needed. I was just stating that it would take more than just a process modification. $50 is more than just a process modification, IMO. I am close to where you were in regards to upgrading to get a better wort. Living in Florida now I find it difficult to get motivated to brew on my propane system when the temperature is in the 90s. I am looking at electric and debating on a single vessel 120V or a 3 vessel 240V.... Each day I switch to the other.. Save money or get what I really want - Spike complete system....

I just went through that dilemma myself and I feel your pain. FWIW I just bought the Spike system (custom specs and using a stout CFC), and I have no regrets but it ain't cheap and I'm just grateful I have an awesome wife who also likes beer.

 

[Miraculix]

Trub and mash runoff clarity are two different things. This line has been crossed a few times in this thread. Trub is after the boil...

Are the substances which are removed by clarifying wort, binding to/included in the hot break if the wort is not clarified? If so, it would just move the removal part to a later stage.

 

[TheMadKing]

Are the substances which are removed by clarifying wort, binding to/included in the hot break if the wort is not clarified? If so, it would just move the removal part to a later stage.

Yes and no - some of them are, and some of them bind with other chemicals and hops in the boil and create new compounds (not all undesirable, but many that are) and stay in solution. So it would not be exactly correct to say that wort protein/haze and boil trub are the same thing in different points of the process

 

[hopjuice_71]

These kind of threads always fascinate me. Its so awesome that people have such passion for their hobby, but these discussions kind of end being like the "tastes great, less filling" argument to me. People want different things out of a hobby, including this one.

For what it is worth, I'm an uptight scientist and I love the idea of evidence based improvements to a process. Nevertheless, I tentatively went backwards from a 3V system to a 1V all-in one, and the wort going into the kettle is no longer clear. The quality of my beer did not decline and it lasts for several months in the keg with no change, even super hoppy ones (at least undetectable to me). This being said, I am super careful with post-ferm O2. Also, I am not sensory trained in anything, just an average beer drinker

Finally, how many NHC medals have been won with beer brewed from cloudy wort? Just wondering.

Cheers

 

[TheMadKing]

These kind of threads always fascinate me. Its so awesome that people have such passion for their hobby, but these discussions kind of end being like the "tastes great, less filling" argument to me. People want different things out of a hobby, including this one.

For what it is worth, I'm an uptight scientist and I love the idea of evidence based improvements to a process. Nevertheless, I tentatively went backwards from a 3V system to a 1V all-in one, and the wort going into the kettle is no longer clear. The quality of my beer did not decline and it lasts for several months in the keg with no change, even super hoppy ones (at least undetectable to me). This being said, I am super careful with post-ferm O2. Also, I am not sensory trained in anything, just an average beer drinker

Finally, how many NHC medals have been won with beer brewed from cloudy wort? Just wondering.

Cheers

One point of caution on your implied thinking that NHC medals = flawless beer. It just means it was the best beer in that flight to that judge pair on that day. It doesn't account for handling, quality of other entries, etc. So a cloudy wort beer might win a gold at NHC but that doesn't automatically mean that cloudy wort beer is superior in the long run

I've recently become a beer judge and judged my first couple competitions and it was a real wakeup call that winning competition medals does not necessarily equal a great brewer - in my limited view, winning a gold in a competition is 30% brewing prowess, 20% selecting the right category for your beer, 20% how your beer was handled prior to judging, 15% the quality of the beer you're competing against, and 15% the preferences/sensitivities/preconceptions/biases of the judge

 

[madscientist451]

The OP's original question:
This made me start thinking of how importance wort clarity maybe.

If you are selling your beer, its important not to have any problems, either now or after the beer has been sitting around for a while.
So I suppose a better question would have been: "how important is wort clarity when you are home brewing" and then the answer would be dependent on whether you notice any difference or you don't.

Some people naturally taste things better than others and the only way to know for sure whether or not a certain taste is present is if you use a tasting panel that has the sensory training necessary to identify it. Will the average drinker taste it? Maybe not, but average drinker means 50% will and 50% won't.

I can't agree with the above statement that some people "naturally taste things better than others". Everyone has DIFFERENT tastes. Something that a trained BJCP judge thinks is the best beer ever might totally suck to others. So that's the problem with using science for "optimal taste". When it comes to taste preferences there are too many variables to achieve an optimal result. The best that can be achieved is a result that is not offensive to a large number of consumers.
Sure, you can make a beer that sells 20 million barrels a year, but do you "need" clear wort to achieve that? The only way to test it would be to change a mega-beer process, produce cloudy wort and see of the next 20 million bbls sells or doesn't sell.
No corporate CEO is going to approve that kind of test, so we're stuck with the small panels of taste testers at the homebrew level.
I don't have time to run side by side experiments, but hope others will keep doing it and keep the lively discussion going.