MHB said:
Wrong seriously and fundamentally bad brewing practice!
One of the main reasons for boiling a wort is to coagulate and remove excess particularly high molecular weight protein. To suggest adding it to the fermenter is very bad advice.
Why? The only statement that even remotely supports your belief is
"Proteins which combine with unoxidised polyphenols are soluble in boiling wort but precipitate when chilled and can give rise to chill haze and cold break. The polyphenols
may subsequently oxidise during beer processing and may produce colloidal instability in packaged beer."
This can only occur if the protein-polyphenol complexes are in the packaged beer. As they are insoluble in beer, and not in the packaged beer, as they are left in either the kettle or the fermenter, then this concern is minor. Particularly in the context of the O.P.'s scenario. He's brewing a carton of beer FFS (yes, I can swear at people on the internet too). I'm not too sure that he's worried about colloidal instability.
But what about "off flavours" I hear you cry?
No mention of that in
your article the article that you found that applies more to large scale breweries.
What is mentioned is
"The DMS released during boiling is rapidly lost through evaporation. However, the breakdown of S-methyl methionine continues during the period between the end of boiling and wort cooling. The DMS released is not lost and persists into the finished beer. It is, therefore, possible to control the level of DMS by varying the duration of boil and whirlpool stage.
Methods of control DMS levels in beer:
• use malt with low S- methyl methionine levels.
• long wort boiling time to decompose precursor and vaporise DMS.
• short whirlpool stand time to reduce decomposition of the precursor.
• rapid wort cooling – reducing the time the wort is held hot.
• use wort stripping after the whirlpool stand to remove DMS."
Quick, better go tell all the no-chill brewers that they're full of **** and their beers are (excuse the technical terms but I'm trying to establish my superiority and I haven't got any science-y articles to link to) "chocka's full of DMS".
Oh wait, here's an article that discusses the effect of wort turbidity
linky
They state that
"According to Sommer the influence of wort turbidity on beer quality is often overestimated. For example in his investigations fast and turbid lautering did not lead to a deterioration of flavour quality of the resulting beer.111 In the extensive large-scale trials mentioned previously, Schur and Pfenninger evaluated the influence of different lauter regimes (turbid, clear) and lauter durations (long, short) on the flavour quality of the resulting beers. Related to lauter turbidity and duration they found the following order with decreasing sensory quality of the fresh beers: “turbid/short”, “turbid/long”, “clear/short”, “clear/long”. When the same beers were aged for 5 weeks at 25°C the order was as follows: “turbid/long”, “clear/ short”, “turbid/short”, “clear/long”. In contrast, Mück reported a negative influence of turbid lauter worts connected with high fatty acid amounts prior to wort boiling and high oxygen content on beer flavour and observed an unpleasant bitterness which most probably did not depend on fatty acids. Here, the influence of turbidity seemed to be bigger than that of oxygen. In contrast, Whitear et al. explained that the effect of lipids was overestimated and weighs much less than the oxygen pick-up during wort production"
Also,
"In conclusion, many authors support that the removal of fatty acids from wort, as far as possible, is favourable for flavour stability. According to Zangrando clear lautering is obligatory to providing good flavour stability. On this point Schur and Pfenninger partly disagree as they found that beers produced from extended lautering and very clear worts performed the worst in taste testings of fresh and aged beers."
Which basically states that wort turbidity is complex and produces a highly variable effect on beer flavour quality. They report similar variation in terms of flavour stability and foam stability.
One of their concluding statements
"most of the authors pointed out the positive influence of cloudy wort in terms of yeast metabolism and fermentation performance. At the same time, however, the adverse consequences of high lauter turbidity for the final beer quality, particularly for flavour and foam stability, were thoroughly discussed. Since the negative consequences seemed to outweigh, this led to the preference of high wort clarity, and this has been generally accepted among brewers until today."
Given that the main issue is one of stability, I question the impact this will have on nizmoose's beer.
Here's a related experience on a small scale
http://brulosophy.com/2014/06/02/the-great-trub-exbeeriment-results-are-in/
Here's what they found
"
The assumption that clearer wort in the fermentor leads to clearer beer in the end appears to be false, at least based on the results of this exBEERiment, with all samplers agreeing that Truby was brighter than Non-Truby."
Additionally,
"
For those who tend to prefer clearer and crisper beers with potentially sharper bitterness, consider not worrying too much about the amount of kettle trub you transfer to the carboy. Alternately, those who enjoy slightly smoother bitterness and don’t mind a bit more haze in their beer may want to continue investing a little more effort in transferring only the clearest wort to their fermentor."
Again, if you like your information to be more authoritative then the effect of adding trub to fermentation vessels was also reported
here.
They found that
"The
addition of hot trub of various origins to yeasts of various vitalities
leads to higher cell counts in suspension and consequently, to
higher fermentation performance. In summary, hot trub addition is beneficial to yeast of either, high vitality (e.g. propagated/assimilated yeast), or low vitality (e.g. after several fermentation cycles). Further,
the more hot trub or particles are added,
the more advantageous for fermentation."
Admittedly, they concede that
"potential consequences for final beer quality are somewhat [beyond] the scope of this paper and have to be considered when applying hot trub in practical operations."
None of this means that fermenting on trub is 'fundamentally bad brewing practice!". It means that nizmoose should listen to and do whatever the **** he want's to enhance his enjoyment of this hobby.
Or just PM Mark every time you have a question.
Before you start slagging off at people you might want to consider that you don't know everything.
EDIT: Before the flaming starts I want to point out that
i) I have a Science degree, have worked as a scientist, I understand science.
ii) Peer reviewed journals are fundamental for the rigor that is necessary in the execution of good Science
iii) Science can be performed by anyone, anywhere, anytime. I'm not saying that the blog "proves" anything about fermenting on trub. I'm aware it's one persons experience. FWIW, I think that it is one of his better experiments but I place no statistical significance in his findings. I include it as it shows the potential for nizmoose to minimise system losses whilst having a potentially minimal impact (positive or negative) on beer quality.
