Beer Forum

I use a filter housing like this one (with a carbon filter cartridge) to filter my brewing water.



For some reason whirpooling doesn't do a whole lot in my kettle, and I lose a lot of wort to trub. I was thinking that maybe I could replace the carbon filter with a course polyester pleated fitler (20-50micron) and pump from a pick-up tube right at the very bottom of my (converted keg) kettle through the filter to my plate chiller.

Thus losing about 3L (0.75G) less wort to trub than before and getting lovely crystal clear, no Hot break, no hop residue wort into my fermentor. Still get cold break of course, but thats no great issue.

I'd think about putting it downstream of the chiller to catch the cold break as well, but then it introduces another infection risk.

Possible? workable? practical? Anyone tried it?

Feedback much appreciated

Thirsty

Well, Thirsy. I think you have attempted to solve my biggest peeve with my system - getting minimal trub into my fermenter. I don't think there is a single thing that I have though about improving more. I'm still no where near where I want to be.

I used to use 1/2" OD tubing, through a 3/8" OD CFC, and back into the top of the kettle. Even at full bore, there is not enough velocity to get a whirlpool going. I have since moved to 1/2" ID tubing - and I am considering replacing my CFC with Jamil's immersion chiller method. The full 1/2" ID tubing results in a significantly more powerful whirlpool. However, the pump impeller pulverizes all the hotbreak into smaller chunks that don't settle out as easily. I'm thinking that the bottom coils of the immersion chiller could serve as a full diameter diversion plate, if I draw from outside it. I'm not as worried about loosing the volume of wort, as I take that into account. I just want minimal trub going into the fermenter.

The filter thing might work - even with the "particulate" filter that is usually "stage 1" (upstream) from the charcoal filter in a two stage unit. It might be very expensive, however - because I wouldn't plan on getting more than one use out of it. Is there any detriment to removing all of the trub on the way to the fermenter? Aren't there yeast nutrients that would be lost if you did?


Mylo

MyloFiore wrote:Well, Thirsy. I think you have attempted to solve my biggest peeve with my system - getting minimal trub into my fermenter. I don't think there is a single thing that I have though about improving more. I'm still no where near where I want to be.

I used to use 1/2" OD tubing, through a 3/8" OD CFC, and back into the top of the kettle. Even at full bore, there is not enough velocity to get a whirlpool going. I have since moved to 1/2" ID tubing - and I am considering replacing my CFC with Jamil's immersion chiller method. The full 1/2" ID tubing results in a significantly more powerful whirlpool. However, the pump impeller pulverizes all the hotbreak into smaller chunks that don't settle out as easily. I'm thinking that the bottom coils of the immersion chiller could serve as a full diameter diversion plate, if I draw from outside it. I'm not as worried about loosing the volume of wort, as I take that into account. I just want minimal trub going into the fermenter.

The filter thing might work - even with the "particulate" filter that is usually "stage 1" (upstream) from the charcoal filter in a two stage unit. It might be very expensive, however - because I wouldn't plan on getting more than one use out of it. Is there any detriment to removing all of the trub on the way to the fermenter? Aren't there yeast nutrients that would be lost if you did?


Mylo

The filter cartridges I am talking about are polyester pleated ones like this



they are washable and happy up top 120°C, exactly the same type I use for filtering finished beer, just a differnet micron spec. Should be ok for repeated use up to about 1000L .
$19.00 for the one I want.

My understanding is that there is nothing in hot break and trub that is good for your yeast or your beer, there is some goodness in cold break and it has a lot less negative impact on your finished product... ergo putting the filter before the chiller

If I'm wrong.... somebody let me know please

Hot break and hops - OUT
Minimal infection risk because its all hotside
Coldbreak still goes to fermentor a it would without the filter.

I'm with you... I hate the trub, want it gone, but also hate leaving the equivalent of 15glasses of beer behind in the kettle. I'm gonna try the filter and see how it goes... it might be such a PITA that I give it a miss thereafter, but at least I will know.

Thirsty

I would be worried about infection issues with a filter or cartridge type device you showed in your pic.

In "Principles of Brewing Science", Fix speaks of a starter tank, where you would pitch your yeast and let the beer settle for 24 hours, then transfering to a fermentation vessel.

While I don't think its a good idea as this could cause all kinds of stuck fermentation issues, I do think it doesnt hurt to rack your wort to a fermentation vessel, allow it to settle out for 12-24 hours while cold crashing. Then rack to another vessel and pitch your yeast on top of that.

Sean

seanhagerty wrote:While I don't think its a good idea as this could cause all kinds of stuck fermentation issues, I do think it doesnt hurt to rack your wort to a fermentation vessel, allow it to settle out for 12-24 hours while cold crashing. Then rack to another vessel and pitch your yeast on top of that.

¡INFECTION ALERT!

Unless you have the best sanitation ever, I wouldn't try this. Allowing the beer to sit without yeast allows bugs to take hold. That is why we as brewers want to pitch yeast so fast and pitch good quantities.

Sorry if I'm not getting it but I'm just curious guys if you are having issues that negatively affect your final product? What problem are you trying to solve here, other than a bit of wort loss to trub? I whirlpool the old fashioned way, with a spoon and then rack to fermenter. I end up with varying mounts of cold break in the fermenter depending on various factors such as time and wort composition, and leave most of the trub behind in the kettle. Do I stand to gain quality in my final product by filtering before pitching? If so is the improvement worth the trouble or possible infection?

Hop backs (using whole leaf hops) are a good way to filter wort between the kettle and the chiller. A fine mesh hop strainer like the hop stopper works also.

Those in line filters seem an expensive way to increase the risk of infection in your beer.

I don't quite understand how you guys think that this is an infection risk??

It will of course be sanitised and its on the hot side of the equation.. before the chiller. I cant see how it could be any more of an infection risk than a hop back would be... and in fact by stuffing some hops in there would serve quite nicely AS a hopback, and I could use pellets in it instead of flowers, which I generally don't use.

J.brew ... whirpooling is a mysterious process that other people make work, in my system all it achieves is extra time and effort wasted. I usually just let the trub settle to the bottom without a whirpool... If I do whirlpool.. it seems to make no difference at all.

I am as I said before, unconcerned about cold break, but I want to get more of the wort lost to trub, into the fermentor and keep hot break and hops out of the fermentor.

I currently use a hop bag for my pellets... and I dont particularly like it, but if I dont use it I lose even more wort to trub.

The filter will cost me only $19.00, is sanitizable enough so that I use the same type without concern to filter finished beer & will be on the hotside of the chiller anyway and should allow me to go back to using pellets directly in the boil... all while simultaneously more than halving my losses to trub and saving the 30mins settling time

I think thats covered the issues raised so far (to my satisfaction at least) anyone have any others?? I'll probably go ahead and try it anyway, but I'm interested to hear more of what people think.

Thanks

Thirsty