Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => Going Pro => Topic started by: Thirsty_Monk on March 08, 2013, 08:31:19 pm

Title: Filtering
Post by: Thirsty_Monk on March 08, 2013, 08:31:19 pm
I just want to share an experience with new filter I have.
It is Pall housing with SupraDiskII Cartridges.

It was easy to set up, run and clean.
Cartridges (they call them modules) are reusable and housing does not need to be dis-assembled after each run.
Here are a few pictures:
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295524_576538649025284_294762955_n.jpg)

and
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/544351_576538909025258_705351901_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: Pawtucket Patriot on March 09, 2013, 01:44:35 am
Nice!  I've been looking into DE filters recently.  Not sure if we will actually filter our beer, but I'd like to know more about it.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: Thirsty_Monk on March 09, 2013, 02:43:03 am
Stay away from DE.
That is my opinion.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: Pawtucket Patriot on March 09, 2013, 01:00:20 pm
Stay away from DE.
That is my opinion.

Any particular reason?  Is it too costly?  Too difficult to maintain?
Title: Filtering
Post by: majorvices on March 09, 2013, 01:29:44 pm
Thanks for the post, I was looking at that exact model. Where did you get it from?
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: a10t2 on March 09, 2013, 02:58:04 pm
I've never used a lenticular filter, but I'd choose DE (well, Perlite, obviously) over plate-and-frame.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: Thirsty_Monk on March 09, 2013, 03:55:31 pm
I bought it from Enpro a "local supplier". Well they are in IL but have a office in Minneapolis.

Major pall had a sales rep on ProBrewer forum that was able to give a quote. If you want I could find it.
IMO DE is difficult to run and when you are done you still have filtering media to despise off.

As with all new equipment. It will take some time to get comfortable. The biggest concern is infection. Because modules are washable and unit does not break down after use. This is also the biggest advantage.

Close by brewery is able to run 1500 BBL thru one set of modules before replacement.
Title: Filtering
Post by: majorvices on March 10, 2013, 02:19:37 pm
I've never used a lenticular filter, but I'd choose DE (well, Perlite, obviously) over plate-and-frame.

I have never used a DE filter but the other local brewery in Huntssville which is a quite a bit bigger than us had 2 plate filters before the acquired their DE filter and they sold both of their plate filters so I don't doubt you are right.

We acquired one of their plate filters but I have not used it yet. But I just hired a guy who has a lot of winery experience and is used to working with plate filters and so he'll be doing the filtering. :)
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: Thirsty_Monk on March 10, 2013, 05:52:05 pm
I was deciding between plate and frame and lenticular.

It boils down to this:
Plate and frame you constantly change filter media.
With diverted plate you can do two stage filtering.

lenticular modules are cleanable and reusable.
If you want to do do two stage filtering you need to have two filters.

If you already have plate and frame use it.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: Thirsty_Monk on March 21, 2013, 12:33:12 am
Just an update.

I was filtering the other day.
I filtered 10.5 BBL final in BT in about 35 minuted.

Easy to set up and easy to clean.
The only difference I noticed is that beer is just a little lighter in color and has worst head retention.
Flavor is about the same.
I might have to go with little corset modules.

So far LOVE it.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: anthony on March 21, 2013, 03:53:47 am
What sort of waste? Do you anticipate any sort of customer reaction to finding out you're filtering? I have a fair number of people ask if we are (we don't, we currently use a two-part fining regimen).
Title: Filtering
Post by: Pawtucket Patriot on March 21, 2013, 01:43:06 pm
Not to hijack, but how many of you guys who aren't filtering are using finings?  And, for those using finings, are you adding them in addition to a cold conditioning period or in place of one?
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: tschmidlin on March 21, 2013, 04:17:18 pm
I just use super moss.  It's good enough for our purposes.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: kylekohlmorgen on March 21, 2013, 04:30:25 pm
What sort of waste? Do you anticipate any sort of customer reaction to finding out you're filtering? I have a fair number of people ask if we are (we don't, we currently use a two-part fining regimen).

I hope that filtering is another educational frontier, much like hops or sour/wild beers have been in the past.

I think marketing has convinced consumers that "unfiltered" is a true sign of an artisanal, local, and/or hand-crafted beer. The average craft beer drinker has been conditioned to think of filtering as industrial or artificial. In truth, filtering is an expensive and labor-intensive choice the brewer makes to ensure their beer's quality, consistency, and shelf life.

Hopefully craft brewers can help shed some light on this subject. Bravo to those of you taking on the financial and labor burden of filtering!
Title: Filtering
Post by: majorvices on March 21, 2013, 05:47:26 pm
I personally think you lose a good bit of flavor when you filter. It's just a fast way to condition beer IMO.certain beers like Kolsch may be better for it but others like pales and iPas suffer.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: a10t2 on March 21, 2013, 06:08:58 pm
Not to hijack, but how many of you guys who aren't filtering are using finings?  And, for those using finings, are you adding them in addition to a cold conditioning period or in place of one?

My preferred SOP:

It's a *very* time-intensive process (8 days from crashing to serving) but this will yield beer brighter than coarse filtration. If time is critical I won't repeat steps 4 and 6, or will skip the conical finings entirely.
Title: Filtering
Post by: majorvices on March 21, 2013, 09:07:38 pm
I just fine once in the conical after dumping and once in BBT, twice if needed. But yeah, Sean's method is mostly what I do. I go higher dosage on the bio fine.
Title: Filtering
Post by: Pawtucket Patriot on March 21, 2013, 11:05:38 pm
Thanks for the responses, Gentlemen!
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: Thirsty_Monk on March 21, 2013, 11:56:43 pm
Filtering is a personal preference.

When I filtered too rough someone told me:
Your hefewaisen is too bitter. I said it was Czech pilsner.
Presentation is a large portion of perception.

My yeast is pretty powdery. I tried to do all the findings. In Different stages of the process and it was not working. Sometimes it was current equipment limitation and sometimes it was lack of knowlage working with 10 BBL a time.

My beers are usually consumed pretty quick. I filter for presentation, beer stability and streamlining of my process.

As with every new equipment it is trial and error. It might take a few runs to learn it.
So far, I like it.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: anthony on March 22, 2013, 01:54:59 am
Not to hijack, but how many of you guys who aren't filtering are using finings?  And, for those using finings, are you adding them in addition to a cold conditioning period or in place of one?

My preferred SOP:
  • Crash conical to 0°C for 72 hours.
  • Harvest yeast if needed; dump yeast/trub.
  • Add 30 mL/bbl BioFine Clear A3; agitate with CO2 to mix.
  • Let settle 24 hours, dump trub; repeat.
  • Add 30 mL/bbl BioFine to bright; rack beer.
  • Let settle 24 hours, dump trub; repeat.
  • Carbonate and serve.

It's a *very* time-intensive process (8 days from crashing to serving) but this will yield beer brighter than coarse filtration. If time is critical I won't repeat steps 4 and 6, or will skip the conical finings entirely.

I hadn't considered dosing twice with Biofine. Right now I crash in conical, dump yeast/trub, harvest yeast, and then dump again before transferring to bright where I have 30ml/bbl Biofine waiting. Then after 10-12 hours, I add gelatin, hook up the carbonation stone + flow meter, unhook after 6-8 hours, then wait a couple of days for reasonably clear beer. It would be more clear if I dumped a few more times from the bright tank.
Title: Filtering
Post by: Pawtucket Patriot on March 22, 2013, 01:05:12 pm
Sounds like you guys keep your beer in the BT for 24+ hours. Is this pretty standard? 
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: a10t2 on March 22, 2013, 03:41:33 pm
Sounds like you guys keep your beer in the BT for 24+ hours. Is this pretty standard?

I guess I should have said up front that I was talking about pub brewing, where the bright is also the serving vessel. In a production setting I don't have any experience with finings, but we would filter, start carbonation, and package the next day assuming the schedule allowed for it. Once you have bright beer there's nothing that's going to change over time unless there was oxidation.

For fining in general, I think 24 hours is pretty much the minimum and 48-72 is going to be noticeably better.
Title: Filtering
Post by: majorvices on March 22, 2013, 04:06:05 pm
It depends for me. Sometime I can get the beer fairly bright in the fermentor and fine it in the bbt and have in ready in 48 hours or so. On beers that clarity is not an issue I can rack over to bbt, carbonate in as little as 8 hours and be kegging the next morning. Which is why if you are a production facility it's good to have wheat beer in the mix. ;) dark beers are more haze tolerant as well.

But, the same strain I use for my wit I also use for my higher gravity Belgians and that strain is a b1tch to clear and sometimes it takes me a week or longer in bbt and several finings. Have a dubble that's giving me fits right now.

I really want to move toward filtering my higher gravity Belgians but have avoided it thus far. Only a matter of time though. I also have an extra 30 bbl bbt on order and that will take care of some of the log jams due to beer clarity and tank time. Plus, if it really becomes a problem ( like the dubble I have sitting now) I can filter from one bbt to the other. I'm thinking this will alleviate some of the headaches involved with filtering from fermentor to bbt. Sean may correct me if I'm wrong since I'm a filtering noob. But ime you always get a plug of yeast from the fermentor no matter how much you fine and dump.
Title: Filtering
Post by: majorvices on March 22, 2013, 04:16:23 pm
Btw if you do filter on the way over to bbt and get the beer clear you can carbonate it and have it packaged in 24 hours or less. If the beer is cold I can have it carbonated really quick. Hours with the diffusion stone. I have never been in such a hurry as to need to carb and keg the same day and don't filter anyway. But for me I keep any beer I want clear in bbt for at least 48 hours. That's why filtering is so cool, you can turn it around a lot faster.

I still think unfiltered beer tastes better though, in many cases. But for lagers like Leos is doing I think filtering actually improves those beers. Ipas .... Not so much. In fact I distrust clear iPas.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: bluesman on March 22, 2013, 04:35:48 pm
I personally think you lose a good bit of flavor when you filter. It's just a fast way to condition beer IMO.certain beers like Kolsch may be better for it but others like pales and iPas suffer.

I agree Keith. Filtering strips out hop flavor compounds and renders beer less hoppy. It also depends on the size particles that are being removed as well.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: kylekohlmorgen on March 22, 2013, 05:50:20 pm
I personally think you lose a good bit of flavor when you filter. It's just a fast way to condition beer IMO.certain beers like Kolsch may be better for it but others like pales and iPas suffer.

I agree Keith. Filtering strips out hop flavor compounds and renders beer less hoppy. It also depends on the size particles that are being removed as well.

Particles and compounds are different things - I definitely don't want hop/yeast solids in my beer, but their flavor contributions are dissolved in solution. Filtering shouldn't strip out hop flavor just like it wont strip out malt flavor.

I guess this is just theoretical - I've never filtered a beer so I can't back it up with experience.

Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: majorvices on March 22, 2013, 05:56:33 pm
It's not theroretical at all. Hop compounds are resins that are in the beer. When you filter the yeast you strips some of those compounds. If you ever have a IIPA on tap and drink it fresh and young it should have a haze to it. Over time that haze drops out and the beer turns clear and you lose hop aroma and flavor. The haze is your hop tannins suspended in the beer.

I was at a pub a few nights ago drinking a IIPA from Terrapin brewery out of Atlanta and the beer was very hazy and delicious. I stopped on the way home and picked up a sixer of 2XIPA from Southern Tier and it was OK, but crystal clear and lacked the aroma and flavor of the hazy Terrapin beer.

Like I said, I don't trust brilliantly clear ipaS. ;)
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: majorvices on March 22, 2013, 06:09:21 pm
I should add, a slight haze. Not a yeast haze. You are better off dropping the yeast before dry hopping as yeast will pull the hop tannins down with then as is drops. In that case it may be better to rough polish filter first and then dry hop. But that's not possible for us.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: bluesman on March 22, 2013, 06:56:20 pm
I personally think you lose a good bit of flavor when you filter. It's just a fast way to condition beer IMO.certain beers like Kolsch may be better for it but others like pales and iPas suffer.

I agree Keith. Filtering strips out hop flavor compounds and renders beer less hoppy. It also depends on the size particles that are being removed as well.

Particles and compounds are different things - I definitely don't want hop/yeast solids in my beer, but their flavor contributions are dissolved in solution. Filtering shouldn't strip out hop flavor just like it wont strip out malt flavor.

I guess this is just theoretical - I've never filtered a beer so I can't back it up with experience.

I disagree with your assessment. Filtering can/will strip flavor from the beer. Turbidity causing substances are those which filtering can/will remove, including yeast, proteins, polyphenols and hop flavor compounds, which all lend flavor to the beer. The matrix and changing nature of these variables contribute to the challenges and difficulties of beer filtration.
Title: Re: Filtering
Post by: kylekohlmorgen on March 22, 2013, 07:34:47 pm
It's not theroretical at all. Hop compounds are resins that are in the beer.

That makes sense. We're looking to extract oil from hops ("resin"), which is only slightly soluble in water, even though it may not be so light/heavy that it floats or sinks (like motor oil and water). I guess this is also why my beer may get a haze after dry hopping?

I'm still not against filtering since one of my favorite IPAs is filtered (FW's Union Jack).

Along with so many topics I've come across in this forum, sounds like there's no right/wrong way. All that matters is what makes good beer.