Importance of wort clarity after mash

[TheMadKing]

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.

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.

Its a fact that some people are able to taste things at a lower taste threshold than others - for example I'm almost completely blind to diacetyl but highly sensitive to acetaldehyde and phenols

professional sensory panelists have a profile that is built for them that shows their levels of sensitivity and perceptions of different compounds on a spider diagram and that profile is used to normalize results across the panel. The purpose of sensory testing is to identify flavor compounds in a brand of beer (and the human pallet is incredibly sensitive and can detect things even scientific instruments can't, especially sulfur compounds), not to assign a preference for them. So professional sensory panels are not looking for optimal taste, they are looking for specific taste compounds that they can identify and provide more data to the brewer.

It's a multi stage process so it goes:

Sensory panelists are trained and profiled
Sensory panelists are used to detect the flavor profile of the beer as compered to a spectrometer

Preference panels consist of hundreds of lay-people not trained panelists. So it's basically a mass poll, where they are served samples and told to select their most preferred.

The data from the sensory panel is then used to compile a flavor profile for the beer they tested
That flavor profile is compared to the flavor profile of the beer preferred by the preference panel
The brewer can then adjust his or her process to tailor the flavor profile of the beer to match what people prefer

Sensory panels are fairly objective - and just used to ensure that beer matches what people want

If you are evaluating your homebrew and wanting to make the best possible beer you can make, then you should prefer clear wort. It is an established best practice for brewing.

If you are brewing for your own tastes and simply doing it for love of beer and have no desire to hone your craft to a professional level then absolutely, cloudy wort is by far easier to deal with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I was just hoping to be informative on how sensory testing actually works

 

[RPh_Guy]

I can't agree with the above statement that some people "naturally taste things better than others".

There's been enough research done about tasting to allow us to realize that some people are indeed better at tasting.
People have different taste thresholds for the numerous flavor compounds in beer, which does make the people with lower tasting thresholds "better" at tasting those compounds.
People with low tasting thresholds across the board (typically because they have a physically higher concentration of taste buds than most other people) may be labeled as "super tasters".

And then there's training, as @TheMadKing pointed out.

 

[Broothru]

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.

OMG. Just the info I've been looking for. A treasure trove of data to suggest (if not substantiate) a roadmap of how to brew better beers, based on actual "sciencey" stuff. Many thanks for the link.

Brooo Brother

 

[Broothru]

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/

Thanks for the link. I'd seen it before but failed to archive it. This article and several others like it were what started me on the road to LoDO brewing, and it's made a significant improvement in my finished product.

Brooo Brother

 

[Broothru]

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

Just wondering.... what type 1V are you using? I started using a Braumeister 20L about 6 or 7 years ago after evolving from extracts to mini mashes to 3V Igloo to BIAB, and I've never had clearer wort than I get now. I was describing my setup to a pro brewer as a kinda RIMS/HERMS setup, and he said it sounds more like a 60 minute vorlauf! As clear as the wort is, it's hard to argue with him.

Brooo Brother

 

[hopjuice_71]

Just wondering.... what type 1V are you using? I started using a Braumeister 20L about 6 or 7 years ago after evolving from extracts to mini mashes to 3V Igloo to BIAB, and I've never had clearer wort than I get now. I was describing my setup to a pro brewer as a kinda RIMS/HERMS setup, and he said it sounds more like a 60 minute vorlauf! As clear as the wort is, it's hard to argue with him.

Brooo Brother

I use a Grainfather. The wort is largely clear, much more so than when I do the occasional actual BIAB, but the act of pulling up the mash pipe - as gently as I may try, even after making sure the the grain bed is set - always seems to disturb just a little bit of something. When I used a dedicated mash tun the wort running into the kettle was super clear. The Grainfather is just so much more convenient, and the product doesn't seem to suffer, that I don't worry about the difference.

 

[hopjuice_71]

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

Actually, I was really just curious.

I most certainly don't think that a beer that medals has to be flawless. As you say, there is a whole lot more to it. However, assuming beers made with cloudy wort do medal (?), it would illustrate that the beer must still be at least pretty good, no?

 

[hopjuice_71]

There's been enough research done about tasting to allow us to realize that some people are indeed better at tasting.
People have different taste thresholds for the numerous flavor compounds in beer, which does make the people with lower tasting thresholds "better" at tasting those compounds.
People with low tasting thresholds across the board (typically because they have a physically higher concentration of taste buds than most other people) may be labeled as "super tasters".

And then there's training, as @TheMadKing pointed out.

I fall into the category of highly compromised taster, which I think is why I like intensely flavoured hop bombs. The more "macro" brewed and closer to "flawless" that a beer gets the less I seem to like it. It may be why I like home brewing and the local craft beers - I like my beverages a little dirty.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Actually, I was really just curious.

I most certainly don't think that a beer that medals has to flawless. As you say, there is a whole lot more to it. However, assuming beers made with cloudy wort do medal (?), it would illustrate that the beer must still be at least pretty good, no?

It's not a question if cloudy wort makes pretty good beer though. The question is would that cloudy wort beer be better in anyway or any amount if the wort into the kettle had not been cloudy. Cheers

 

[TheMadKing]

Actually, I was really just curious.

I most certainly don't think that a beer that medals has to be flawless. As you say, there is a whole lot more to it. However, assuming beers made with cloudy wort do medal (?), it would illustrate that the beer must still be at least pretty good, no?

Agreed that's exactly what I've been saying - cloudy wort alone will never make a beer completely bad - however if it comes down to a small difference between two good beers, that might be the deciding factor of one being better than the other.

 

[hopjuice_71]

Agreed that's exactly what I've been saying - cloudy wort alone will never make a beer completely bad - however if it comes down to a small difference between two good beers, that might be the deciding factor of one being better than the other.

Sorry, didn't want to seem like I was pointing a finger at you or anything. I think you were clear about this and I totally get it and respect it. My feeling is that if it comes down to a matter of taste, then this is all very subjective (hence my "tastes great less filling" quote), which I think was brought up again earlier. My better might not be your better. For example, I found out that I actually don't like beers made with [insert method here that gets threads shut down for mention outside of dedicated threads ] methods. Go figure, seems I like a bit of oxidation on the hot-side. Some agree with me, some would think I am a heretic.

Now, if it only comes down to a matter of beer longevity in the keg/bottle, then that is a different issue entirely. Personally, my beer hasn't lasted long enough to stale.

 

[hopjuice_71]

It's not a question if cloudy wort makes pretty good beer though. The question is would that cloudy wort beer be better in anyway or any amount if the wort into the kettle had not been cloudy. Cheers

Yep, true. One would have to define "better" though. If it were some physicochemical parameter like stability, then probably (the science seems to support this). If we are talking taste, then we are getting subjective and better becomes a matter of opinion (science can't support this).

 

[cmac62]

So, I read both linked articles, thanks for the links. Two things stood out to me: the fact that more trub reduces the amount of esters and alcohols produced and that trub is made up of mostly unsaturated fats. I'm no chemist/scientist (unless psychology is considered a science LOL) but I did watch a Good Eats episode where AB had a great visual aide about unsaturated fats. He used a train, anyway it does make a lot of sense that the more US fatty acids the quicker beer will stale. I have never worried too much about cloudy wort going into either the kettle of the fermenter. I always thought it would drop out eventually. I even don't worry much about taking in a little stuff into the keg. Most of my beers sit in the beer fridge before there is room in the kegerator so everything get some lagering time. This brings up way more questions than answers. LOL Fun stuff, I love this hobby.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Yep, true. One would have to define "better" though. If it were some physicochemical parameter like stability, then probably (the science seems to support this). If we are talking taste, then we are getting subjective and better becomes a matter of opinion (science can't support this).

One could even argue that they prefer a less stable finished product for whatever reason and in that case cloudy wort into the kettle is better in there opinion and they would be correct regardless what science says. Cheers

 

[RPh_Guy]

Why even bother lautering? If you leave in all the grain during the boil and then transfer all the grain into the fermenter it'll be "good" and win medals.

In fact why even transfer it at all? Just open ferment in the kettle with all the grain. And then pour it into a keg after 3 weeks.

 

[TheMadKing]

Why even bother lautering? If you leave in all the grain during the boil and then transfer all the grain into the fermenter it'll be "good" and win medals.

In fact why even transfer it at all? Just open ferment in the kettle with all the grain. And then pour it into a keg after 3 weeks.

See now that's not helping anyone with anything... No reason to get sarcastic, this is a good conversation

 

[hopjuice_71]

One could even argue that they prefer a less stable finished product for whatever reason and in that case cloudy wort into the kettle is better in there opinion and they would be correct regardless what science says. Cheers

This is actually an interesting point. I remember before canning technology improved, and a lot of our imported lagers were in green bottles, that people actually seemed to prefer the flavours of oxidized, light struck beer (I'm looking at you Heineken) over fresher, local offerings of similar style. Maybe this is still the case to some extent? I dislike PU in the bottles but really like it from the cans. A friend of mine likes the bottles.

 

[hopjuice_71]

Why even bother lautering? If you leave in all the grain during the boil and then transfer all the grain into the fermenter it'll be "good" and win medals.

In fact why even transfer it at all? Just open ferment in the kettle with all the grain. And then pour it into a keg after 3 weeks.

Actually, I got a chuckle out of this.. ..because I have done it. However, I distilled it after fermentation

 

[RPh_Guy]

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!

 

[hopjuice_71]

Just something to think about with respect to the core discussion... ...There is a local brewery here that brews pretty darn good German style beers. Most of the beers are triple decocted, so a significant proportion of the mash is boiled multiple times during the mashing process. If boiling cloudy wort is detrimental, wouldn't decoctions be an extreme version of boiling cloudy wort?

 

[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.