Why Not to Pitch On Your Yeast Cake

grndslm said:

I was curious about this myself.

Is there any evidence for this claim other than a belief?

Click to expand...

Yup. The fact that, once I isolate a colony and make cells stocks, and replate it from cell stock, I select a ton of colonies for my starter, including the ones you are claiming are petit mutants. In fact, some of the plates I accidentally overplated, and many look like that and I have no choice but to select them when propagating. I have never had a poor attenuator like I have seen with ACTUAL petit colonies I have come across in my isolation efforts, which typically exhibit ~ 25% attenuation.

grndslm said:

Bob, you should try reading the last few posts of that thread I linked you to . You'll see that there most certainly is science to back up the conclusions of the beneficial purposes of yeast washing.

Click to expand...

Okay. Fair enough.

EAZ says there's NO BENEFIT in the face of scientific evidence. Then you say there are benefits, but the negatives outweigh them for you. Then you reverse stance and say there is NO POINT. Whose stance is really the one of a religious faith? I am acknowledging the pros and cons of these two methods, and there is scientific evidence to back up my reasoning. Where is YOUR scientific evidence?

Click to expand...

Okay, un-knot your panties and breathe, dude.

I did not reverse my stance. I said nothing contradictory. I disagreed with your assertions. Let me take them one by one:

PROS:
- Long-term yeast viability, particularly past one month or so.

This one I'll give you. However, I am compelled to point out that storing yeast that long without stabilizing the sample - which is NOT included in basic yeast-washing tutorials - is a Bad Idea, washed or not.

- Ability to remove ALL prior beer flavors, trub, dead yeast from the prior recipe [particularly useful when making a new recipe].

This is one of those bugbear homebrewer myths I was talking about earlier. Unless you're proposing to pitch yeast from a Stout to American Wheat (and even then in most circumstances), there is simply an insufficient amount of anything in a properly-sized slurry pitch to impact the subsequent batch in the slightest way. Years of professional experience, confirmed by discussing with other professional brewers their observations, confirm this. Further, merely rinsing the slurry with water is no guarantee at all of removing dead yeast. Finally, it has been shown by Fix, Bamforth, et al. that a certain amount of trub is harmless to the sample and may even assist the slurry from starving itself.

If you're that concerned with how yeast will impact a new recipe, pitch a fresh generation. Really, you're worrying over non-existent bogeymen.

- Better estimates as to yeast count for next pitch.

Okay, I can see that, but only to an extent. Unless you have a baseline for active cells per mL of rinsed slurry per strain, you really don't have a better count. Making those observations requires a haemocytometer and the knowledge of how to use it. You may have noticed in the OP that I have actually done cell counts. LOTS of them. Very probably more than you, because when I was a professional brewer it was part of my JOB. That's how I confirmed - with science! - that the good ol' brewery Rule of Thumb for pitching, set into tradition by decades, generations, of observed results, were actually accurate.

Listen, if adding an extra step or modification to my process will help me toward a better beer more consistently, I'm all for it. I maintain that yeast rinsing is a needless complication in the context of harvesting yeast for re-pitching. I find insufficient evidence of benefit in your citations or testimony to offset the PITA of rinsing yeast. Thus I can only conclude there is no point in the exercise.

rustym said:

For myself, I don't want to make good beer, I want to make great beer. I can through some extract, hops and yeast together and make good beer but when you know why and how things work, I think even on a basic homebrewer level, we can make great beer.

The fact that we can have this kind of discussion (especially how this thread started) is what helps us all learn how to make the best beer we can.

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase. If you can make good beer and Jamil can make great beer with the Mr malty calculator, why worry about it. I figure I am using one of many proven processes and it's working for them and for me. I'm not going to be changing until I fix the other things I am inconsistent at (mash temps and sparging come to mind).

I just don't see any reason to complicate it more than it already is unless you are going pro, in which case I hope you are far more advanced than myself. I would love to try some of your beer regardless of your yeast calculator as it sounds like you are being at a high level.

brewski09 said:

Let me rephrase. If you can make good beer and Jamil can make great beer with the Mr malty calculator, why worry about it. I figure I am using one of many proven processes and it's working for them and for me. I'm not going to be changing until I fix the other things I am inconsistent at (mash temps and sparging come to mind).

I just don't see any reason to complicate it more than it already is unless you are going pro, in which case I hope you are far more advanced than myself. I would love to try some of your beer regardless of your yeast calculator as it sounds like you are being at a high level.

Click to expand...

Cheers Brewski!

I agree with your point. I am in no way brewing at a high level. I guess it's like any other "hobby", I like to learn and perform as best that "I" can.

One of the things that I have heard frequently is that you can make better beer by learning your yeast. I'm just trying to do the best I can with what I have so when I see these contradictory "calculaters" by experts that we all take advice from it makes me frustrated (not in a negative way!). I'll stay with JZ'z method for now because it works for me and I have been consistant. I'm not opposed to making any changes if I need to but I trust the work that he has done by himself and Chris White.


With regards to other parts of the process, I am constantly trying to improve on those as well. I think this is all part of the things we do for a hobby that we all are very passionate about. Some of this is way over my head but so was "all-grain" at one point.

Bob, I have really enjoyed your responses and passion on these topics and I have learned a few things in the process. I actually ran across this blog yesterday and when I read it I thought this made your point that you were trying to make originally (almost 3 years ago ). It's by Mitch Steele of Stone Brewery.

Granted he is a commercial, professional brewer that has to produce a consistant product, but I think his point is parallel to yours. We SHOULD strive to make the best beer we can make. I hope it's OK to post this without his permission...


"To The Stone Brew Crew:

Whenever we put out a new beer, I’m always asked “who came up with the recipe?”, and I am uncomfortable answering that question, because it is a simple answer that really doesn’t accurately convey why the beer is successful and tastes delicious.

I think far too much credit is given to the formulation/recipe for a beer’s success. I honestly believe that recipe formulation is one of the easiest parts of making a great beer, and accounts for about 5-10% of its potential success. In my opinion, anyone with some understanding of ingredients and styles can create a great recipe, but actually working with that recipe to brew a great beer is the hard part.

Think about it:

1. Without having sufficient supply of the highest quality ingredients, the beer will fail. This means formulating the beer knowing what ingredients are of the highest quality and their availability. Nothing ruins a good beer quicker than having to make inadequate ingredient substitutions.
2. Without having a robust brewhouse that produces consistent wort, and without having a pure yeast strain and carefully monitored fermentations, the beer will fail. Fermentation provides most of the “Beer” flavor you get in beer. Poor yeast health, improper temperature control, or insufficient oxygen addition will cause a poor fermentation with off-flavors.
3. Without having well designed, high quality, reliable production equipment that is maintained and optimized on a regular basis, the beer will fail. You need equipment that will allow you to produce consistent, high quality beer.
4. Without a great team of brewers, who understand craft beer, the beer they are brewing, and the best practices and procedures needed to make that beer, the beer will fail. Our brewers need to be equipped with the education and experience to make smart decisions that are in the best interest of beer quality.
5. Without having 100% focus on sanitation and cleanliness in the brewery, the beer will fail. This has killed many, many small brewers in the past 25 years.
6. It’s often stated that nothing “good” can happen to a beer when it is packaged. Without a great team who bottle and keg the beer, who understand the quality that needs to go into every single package, and who know how to respond when quality issues start to appear, the beer will fail.
7. Without a QA team that accurately measures the progress of the beer and reports it to the team, and looks for ways to improve our understanding of what is happening in the brewing, fermentation, finishing, and packaging processes, the beer will fail.
8. Without proper scheduling of the brewing and packaging of the beer, the beer will either sit too long, or not long enough in the tank, or will be shorted in supply to our sales team, who can then lose valuable handles and shelf space. Ultimately, without proper planning, the beer will fail.
9. Without having a sales and media team that understands the industry and our beers, and works tirelessly to ensure awareness, and deliver our message and vision, the beer will fail.
10. Without having company leadership that encourages risk taking, focuses on taste and quality, supports innovation in everything the company does, listens and supports creative ideas from the team, and supports all of the above items, the beer will fail.

My point is that while it’s great to get accolades about creating a beer recipe, not enough credit is given to the other critical parts of brewing a great beer, some of which are listed above. There are plenty more components that go into making a great beer, and everyone on our team plays a very important role in our success."

Thanks, Rusty, for posting that! We can do far worse than take a page from Mr Steele.

That really is my overall point - we homebrewers tend to focus so hard on ingredients, or process, or one tiny part of process, or some other discrete point in brewing space-time and act as though that datum is the One True Key to outstanding beer. It's not, it cannot be. Excellence is a spectrum. It is mastery of every part of the brewing process. That's why I encourage every brewer, n00b or veteran, to stop brewing a new recipe every single time you enter the brewhouse and instead brew a few - like four or fewer - basic recipes over and over and over until you get the process nailed, until you understand ingredients and their impact, until you get to know your yeast (pick one and use it until you KNOW it), until you understand how every single step in the brewing process impacts the beer, etc. Unless and until you've done that, you haven't achieved mastery.

That's hard to do in an amateur, hobbyist setting. But it's still necessary!

Cheers,

Bob

Bob, I promised myself I wouldn't post to this thread anymore but I feel compelled to thank you directly for your invaluable contributions on HBT. The first post here easily ranks within my all-time top five, and is the one that helped me break free from the cult of rinsing (or washing, or whatever we want to call it). Your recent contributions over last couple days have been icing on the cake.

Personally, I don't give a rip how many pages the "Yeast Washing Illustrated' thread has or how many times it's been "REVISITED!!" I don't care whether someone transfers once, twice or five times. I don't care whether they use a siphon or not. All I know is the only time I've ever dumped a batch was the last time I pitched rinsed yeast. Since then I've followed the approach outlined in the first post of this thread and I've made better beer more consistently.

I also appreciate that these general ideas have been echoed by homebrewing royalty like Denny. For both of you who aren't aware, Wyeast named a freakin' yeast strain after the dude. And if you batch sparge, there's a good chance you're doing it because of him. If you're serious about becoming a better brewer, pay attention to what he writes. I point this out mainly for the benefit of newer brewers who may be struggling to see through the static or who are unsure of to whom to give credence. It's tempting to conclude that the number of posts on a technique is a measure of it's value, or that visual appearances and abstract reasoning can assuredly lead to best practices. I get it; the yeast in the bottom of those rinsed jars sure looks a lot like what's in a fresh WL vial.

I've read every single post in the 'washing illustrated' thread. I've tried rinsing many times and I've used all the novel tweaks I can think of. At the end of the day, my own experience leads me to draw the same conclusion that Bob, Denny, EAZ et al. have drawn: on net balance, rinsing is a waste of time and effort. That said, for most of us, brewing is still just a hobby. If rinsing makes you happy, get up on that happy horse and ride it till the sun goes down. I won't tell anyone.

Thanks for the kind words, my friend!

I'm in the same place. If it makes someone happy, who am I to tell them not to do it? As I told my other correspondent up the thread a bit, "get down with yo' bad self."

At the same time, however, when it's presented as "best" or even "good" practice when that practice is demonstrably not good practice or a waste of time - whether it's self-congratulatory or based on poor understanding of brewing practice - I can be expected to kick like a mule. (And construct convoluted sentences.)

The moral of the story is this: Enjoy your beer.

Bob

Mods: end thread here.

(Isn't three years of butthurt over yeast enough?)

Seriously tho, thanks to Bob, Denny, and all the other contributors to this thread over the years. I stumbled over it the other day when trying to decide how best to handle a cake of WL013 I'm growing under a hopefully tasty Christmas ale in the other room. I'm convinced now that measuring out a cup or so for the next batch is the way to go.

I've learned a lot and gotten a kick out of some of some of the righteous indignation when certain practices are questioned. Who knew we could get so fired up about beige goo that just makes most people fart?!

Brew it like you stole it,

Tjash

I feel accomplished for having read through all 448 posts over the past couple days. :rockin:

In my mind, at each "step" of the brewing process, there are many options for how to do it, and also MANY variables within each option. I would surmise that if all of us employed the same method, because of the vast number of variables, we would all arrive at a slightly different output/result.

What I appreciate most, is everyone's contribution on how they do things and the results they've obtained, because that helps me think through my process, and things I can modify. I am on my 6th batch of an IIPA I formulated not long ago. Every time I brew it, I 'attempt' to identify the one thing I could change to have the greatest positive impact on the beer. When it is ready to drink, I assess that change. It is a ton of fun, and thankfully I love that brew. Every batch has turned out different, but great. The fun for me is in the search for that sweet spot (second to the consumption).

Anyways, enough of my binary cents...thanks to Bob for a great post to get gears turning, and to everyone who has chimed in with additional thoughts.
What a great resource. Thanks!

So what's the non-yeast washing method of repitching yeast, for someone who doesn't want to read all 5,000 pages of this thread?

bdf said:

So what's the non-yeast washing method of repitching yeast, for someone who doesn't want to read all 5,000 pages of this thread?

Click to expand...

It is in the first post of this thread.

bdf said:

So what's the non-yeast washing method of repitching yeast, for someone who doesn't want to read all 5,000 pages of this thread?

Click to expand...

I pour the post fermentation slurry into 2 sanitized containers. Leave some beer on top of it. That's it.

I leave the yeast cake in the fermenter, scoop out (or rinse out) 3/4 of it.

Pitch cooled wort on that.

Silentnoiz said:

It is in the first post of this thread.

Click to expand...

I didn't want to be the one to point that out. Thank you.

I usually use 2 fresh packages of dry yeast without starter for a 5 gallon batch. I've occasionally pitched onto a yeast cake. After reading through this thread, I decided to use about a cup of the previous yeast cake to brew a second similar batch of beer this past weekend. The explanation of yeast regeneration just made sense to me. The results...I can't remember the last time I had such a fast start and such an active primary fermentation.

I really learn a lot from all you fellow brewers. And I like threads like this that make me rethink how I'm brewing.

Cheers!

Denny said:

I pour the post fermentation slurry into 2 sanitized containers. Leave some beer on top of it. That's it.

Click to expand...

do you filter hops/break material from the kettle? about how much do you pitch in a batch of say 1.060 beer? assuming it is fairly fresh.

progmac said:

do you filter hops/break material from the kettle? about how much do you pitch in a batch of say 1.060 beer? assuming it is fairly fresh.

Click to expand...

I use bags for whole hops, but pellets go through the pump and into the fermenter. No big deal. Assuming the slurry is less than a month old, I pitch about 1/2 of what I harvest.

progmac said:

do you filter hops/break material from the kettle? about how much do you pitch in a batch of say 1.060 beer? assuming it is fairly fresh.

Click to expand...

I recirculate the bitter wort until it runs bright. I use whole hops almost religiously, as well as a kettle coagulant. Recirculation sets up a nice filter bed of hops petals and break material.

To determine how much, see the first post of this thread. The info is all there.

Bob

Bob (or anyone else), I just harvested the yeast from an IPA I made using Bell's yeast. The slurry is very thick. Almost like a milkshake consistency. It poured, but it poured very slowly. It also looked very clean. I avoided getting much trub into the fermentation bucket and I dry hopped in a muslin bag.

I know you said, "You can expect around 1 billion active cells in a ml of harvested slurry." But Mrmalty's calculator describes 1 billion cells/ml as a "thin slurry" that pours smoothly. I would not describe mine as thin.

Would you say that I should base my calculations on your high amount of 2 billion cells/ml? Mrmaltys calculator goes all the way up to 4.5 billion cells/ml for a "thick slurry".

I plan to pitch this to a 2.75 gallon 1.058 SG American brown so I don't want to overpitch a ridiculous amount.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

mtnagel said:

Bob (or anyone else), I just harvested the yeast from an IPA I made using Bell's yeast. The slurry is very thick. Almost like a milkshake consistency. It poured, but it poured very slowly. It also looked very clean. I avoided getting much trub into the fermentation bucket and I dry hopped in a muslin bag.

I know you said, "You can expect around 1 billion active cells in a ml of harvested slurry." But Mrmalty's calculator describes 1 billion cells/ml as a "thin slurry" that pours smoothly. I would not describe mine as thin.

Would you say that I should base my calculations on your high amount of 2 billion cells/ml? Mrmaltys calculator goes all the way up to 4.5 billion cells/ml for a "thick slurry".

I plan to pitch this to a 2.75 gallon 1.058 SG American brown so I don't want to overpitch a ridiculous amount.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Click to expand...

1/4 cup.

That is my unprofessional opinion, and the extent of thought I give to such matters.

cheezydemon3 said:

1/4 cup.

That is my unprofessional opinion, and the extent of thought I give to such matters.

Click to expand...

I like to overthink everything.

But if I assume, 2 billion cells/ml and 10% non yeast material, given the age when I pitch it this weekend and the gravity and batch size, that is the exact amount I come up with (to the hundredths place)!

If it matters, here is the yeast slurry after it sat in the fridge for for over a day. I don't see any settling or separation, so it is a very thick slurry, which makes me think I could get away with pitching less into this batch.

mtnagel said:

I like to overthink everything.

But if I assume, 2 billion cells/ml and 10% non yeast material, given the age when I pitch it this weekend and the gravity and batch size, that is the exact amount I come up with (to the hundredths place)!

If it matters, here is the yeast slurry after it sat in the fridge for for over a day. I don't see any settling or separation, so it is a very thick slurry, which makes me think I could get away with pitching less into this batch.

Click to expand...

I respect that. The problem, as I see it, is that even after exhaustive calculations, it is still just an educated guess.

Without a microscope and some extrapolation (which still means "educated guess") you will likely end up within 1/16 of a cup of what I am suggesting.

Knock yourself out!

Definitely agree it's just an educated guess based on assumptions, so you're probably right that I'm over thinking it, but I can get mrmalty's calculator to tell me to pitch all the way down to 1/8 of cup, which is more than 1/16 of a cup difference from 1/2 cup Seems scary that I could be pitching 4 times too much yeast (or more) though. That's why I questioning what I have.

Bob said:

It also has a lot to do with homebrewers thinking they're doing something worthwhile, but they're not. Here are a couple of simple facts:

1. Hundreds of years of dealing with yeast have taught us that the best place to temporarily store yeast intended for repitching is under beer. Not boiled water - beer. Not any other substance - beer.

2. As others have pointed out, what homebrewers call "yeast washing" is really "yeast rinsing". It's another technique the homebrew community has taken from professional brewers in a half-assed way because they don't fully understand it (like hot-side aeration, ad nauseum). Then - worse! - they over-think the activity, and back-document into all manner of pre-determined justifications and call it "science".

3. Then things take on the proportions of religion. "ALWAYS wash your yeast!" "Just pitch right on to your yeast cake!" "NEVER rack your beer!" "If you splash about in your beer you'll ruin it!" They're all kind of good ideas. There's a kernel of truth at the core of each. Unfortunately, the reasoning behind them is frightful if it exists at all, the mysticism surrounding the kernel of truth at the core is blown out of any semblance of proportion, adherents are more rabid the less they truly understand what they're talking about - you know, just like religion.

Anyway. I need to get back to work.

Bob

Click to expand...

Robert,
Came back to this thread after a long time,
Bravo!

This is the thread I've been looking for, thanks Bob


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

Hi Bob et. al, great post!

Quick question about pitching rates. In the OP, you advocate a million cells per deg. Plato per ml as a nominal pitching rate. You also mention that a controlled increase in pitching rate can be used to limit ester production and produce a 'cleaner' beer (as per your brewery experience). Similarly, I have read that a controlled under-pitch can be used with Belgian strains to accentuate the characteristic flavors from those strains. This, to me, is really reminiscent of mashing where you have a nominal single infusion temp of ~ 153F, but one can mash hotter or colder to tailor the beer to style. As a result, there's a window of 150 - 158F that brewer's use to influence the flavors of the beer and the fermentability of the wort [Palmer, How to Brew, ed. 1].

From that standpoint, can you comment on an equivalent range for pitching rate? Maybe something like 0.7 - 1.3 mil/deg. P/ml, where 0.7 ensures lots of ester production, and 1.3 limits it? I think establishing some sort of range would go a long way in creating another useful tool for brewing great beer and also potentially giving some insight into the tolerances for estimation of viable cell count.

Thanks!

Can anyone contribute any insight to yeast cakes with a collection of bugs included? I have seen recommendations of re-using the yeast cake through NB videos. I see the benefit of trying to leave behind as much trub as possible through a simple swirl and re-pitch onto fresh wort, but would this be good practice with a year or more collection of bugs included?

Thanks in advance.

FYI, you posted this to the forum dedicated to not repitching. You may want to look up the one that advocates repitching your yeast for better answers.

I assume by bugs you mean sour bugs. I'm under the impression that when using bugs you should start fresh every time because the ratios are likely to be off. Some grow at faster rates than others and you won't get a consistent product if you repitch the yeast with bugs.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

I just racked a 1.073 brown ale pitched with about 1 6oz of 4th generation wlp002. For anyone doubting autolysis in homebrewed beer I'm here to tell you it's real. I have it to a small degree, but it's there. I didn't wash the yeast and I think that was the fatal flaw. From now on, I'll be adding less to my jars and then rinsing it right before pitching. I had no additional room for rinsing water in my jar, so I added most of its contents without the proper cleaning. How do I know it's autolysis and not some random infection, try racking a pale ale that's been sitting on the yeast cake at room temp for 9 months, then you'll know. That was a very unpleasant experiment. Burnt rubber is all I can say. Oh well, live and learn.

Quaffman said:

I just racked a 1.073 brown ale pitched with about 1 6oz of 4th generation wlp002. For anyone doubting autolysis in homebrewed beer I'm here to tell you it's real. I have it to a small degree, but it's there. I didn't wash the yeast and I think that was the fatal flaw. From now on, I'll be adding less to my jars and then rinsing it right before pitching. I had no additional room for rinsing water in my jar, so I added most of its contents without the proper cleaning. How do I know it's autolysis and not some random infection, try racking a pale ale that's been sitting on the yeast cake at room temp for 9 months, then you'll know. That was a very unpleasant experiment. Burnt rubber is all I can say. Oh well, live and learn.

Click to expand...

I don't rinse yeast and I have never had autolysis. Are you saying that you left the yeast sitting at room temp for 9 months, or is that just an example? If the yeast I'm reusing is more than a month or 2 old, I rebuild it with a starer.

The only time I have thought about pitching on yeast cake is when doing a ~1.100 barleywine. I was thinking of doing a 5 gallon 1.040 SMaSH as the starter for it. I'd rack the SMaSH off the yeast and rack the barleywine onto it.

It gets me to a 1.21M cells/mL/P pitch rate using brewersfriend's calculator.

Do you guys think this would work? Or should I go the tradition route of building up a starter from a stir plate?

Beernik said:

The only time I have thought about pitching on yeast cake is when doing a ~1.100 barleywine. I was thinking of doing a 5 gallon 1.040 SMaSH as the starter for it. I'd rack the SMaSH off the yeast and rack the barleywine onto it.

It gets me to a 1.21M cells/mL/P pitch rate using brewersfriend's calculator.

Do you guys think this would work? Or should I go the tradition route of building up a starter from a stir plate?

Click to expand...

No, that's fine. That's what I like to do for lagers- make a small batch of a 1.040 lager, then use the yeast cake for a bigger lager. Since for one batch, I'd need a 3 gallon starter anyway I decided to make a 2.5 gallon batch of beer and then have enough yeast for my dopplebock.

Denny said:

I don't rinse yeast and I have never had autolysis. Are you saying that you left the yeast sitting at room temp for 9 months, or is that just an example? If the yeast I'm reusing is more than a month or 2 old, I rebuild it with a starer.

Click to expand...

No, I've left beer sitting on the yeast at room temp for 9 months in the past. That's how I was able to identify the autolysis flavors and aroma. The yeast I used for the brown ale was only in its 4 generation, but was harvested from the previous batch 1.5 weeks prior. I went ahead and pitched more because it was a little higher og and the yeast had been sitting a little while. It's carbing up now, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out. I jay checked and I probably pitched about 24 ozs of the slurry, so I obviously overpitched, which is probably the reason for the flavor.

Sub


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

So, the brown ale never did get much better. I fed it to the snails and made way for an awesome citra pale ale, so no complaints. I'll be washing the yeast from now on.

Quaffman said:

So, the brown ale never did get much better. I fed it to the snails and made way for an awesome citra pale ale, so no complaints. I'll be washing the yeast from now on.

Click to expand...

Are you certain that was the problem? I haven't washed yeast in the several hundred batches and have had no problem with not washing it.

Pretty sure. I'd say I'm pretty familiar with the autolysis flavor now. No big deal really. Just gotta revamp my process a little and hopefully the issue doesn't pop back up. I'm planning on going to nhc in san diego next year. Maybe I'll see you and we can talk more about it then. I think it was a combination of the over pitching and amount of dead yeast in the pitch. I am currently working with some wlp090 and repitching that by washing it first. We'll see how that goes.

I'm skeptical as well. I too have made several hundred batches with zero yeast "washing" and zero autolysis, despite the occasional batch that sits for several months in primary. I even had one light style sit for over 7 months without issue. There must be more pieces to this puzzle. Perhaps temperature, initial yeast health, water quality/chemistry, ... ?

masonsjax said:

I'm skeptical as well. I too have made several hundred batches with zero yeast "washing" and zero autolysis, despite the occasional batch that sits for several months in primary. I even had one light style sit for over 7 months without issue. There must be more pieces to this puzzle. Perhaps temperature, initial yeast health, water quality/chemistry, ... ?

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly....

Made a10% triple ipa and used at least half a yeast cake from a 6.5% ipa on Saturday. Those yeasties were ready to go. It was fermenting within the hour. Im wondering if I overpriced. I usually use closer to 1/4 of a cake for 1.060 ish beers and they always take at least several hours to show airlock activity. Could be the yeast too. It was my first go around using 2nd generation White labs 090 san diego super yeast.

Count another who has experienced a thin beer after pitching onto an entire cake. Hope I didnt pitch too much this go around as the hop bill alone for the triple ipa was a good $20