Why Not to Pitch On Your Yeast Cake

[slowbie]

Are you in your home brew troll phase now?

I'm sorry that I'm being such a troll by pointing out facts. I'll leave you guys alone now.

 

[cheezydemon3]

SO a yeast cake has enough to pitch......what? 400 batches?


COOL!!!!!!

They are even better than I thought.

So I will scoop out what? 1 cup? and discard the rest.

Whatever the measurement (and the smaller the better since TRUB and other evils are also reduced) at some point a yeast cake fraction is basically equal to a starter.

FANTASTIC.

With the trub reduction, and that much new cell production, I will use the same "cake" for the next 2 years and post results.

 

[slowbie]

SO a yeast cake has enough to pitch......what? 400 batches?


COOL!!!!!!

They are even better than I thought.

So I will scoop out what? 1 cup? and discard the rest.

Whatever the measurement (and the smaller the better since TRUB and other evils are also reduced) at some point a yeast cake fraction is basically equal to a starter.

FANTASTIC.

With the trub reduction, and that much new cell production, I will use the same "cake" for the next 2 years and post results.

That is exactly what the OP said to do.

 

[Yooper]

I'm sorry that I'm being such a troll by pointing out facts. I'll leave you guys alone now.

You weren't being a troll by pointing out facts. You were trolling by asking for specific brewing references, and then dismissed them out of hand since "anybody could write it". You yourself pointed out that you were previously a wikipedia troll, and that's where his comment came from.

Listen to some of Basic Brewing Radio's podcasts featuring Kai, and read some of his articles and texts before quickly dismissing them. You'll learn alot. Some of Kai's videos on decoction have helped me tremendously with understanding the process. (The strong German accent helps with me picturing myself using German techniques along with Kai).

What we all have to remember is that nobody posts things on here, to "make things up". Sure, it's a community of brewers so we all bring our beliefs, processes, and ideas into it. But all told, there are many years of work in the science of brewing behind many of these claims. I am not a scientist, so I can only speak from my experience. That's why I appreciate the scientists who DO the studies and the work and further my understanding while improving the quality of my beer.

 

[slowbie]

You weren't being a troll by pointing out facts. You were trolling by asking for specific brewing references, and then dismissed them out of hand since "anybody could write it". You yourself pointed out that you were previously a wikipedia troll, and that's where his comment came from.

I'm sorry if I didn't convey the message I intended to, but when I wrote this:

I have never heard about him, but I will keep that site in mind as I continue to learn and grow in my homebrewing. It seems that the site is not a true wiki, but the format confused me. It doesn't look like I just anybody could edit it, and since Kai seems to have some good references, I'm inclined to trust it more. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

I was intending to say that I thought that anybody could edit it anonymously(a key word I should have included). As I said, I have seen too many problems with websites that allow anonymous editing. Also, when I mentioned good references I was referring to the people in this very thread who recommended him, because I have been very appreciative of the things I've been able to learn from this community. If I had more time when I initially viewed the article perhaps I would have realized that it was the work of a single person and rather than expressing my hesitations about community edited articles I would have looked for more information about the author.

I made a mistake by judging too quickly, was called out on this mistake, and then apologized and attempted to correct my mistake by reading the article and bringing up my comments. I was grateful for the behavior of the community in general in light of that, but was disappointed that rather than conversation being allowed to continue after I attempted to correct my mistake, I was dismissed as a troll instead.

 

[slowbie]

So if you really were a WP troll then you also know very well that you hit the locked topics because too many people were trashing them. Anyone can request a topic to be locked, and you are being irresponsible if you know more and either do not request it, or request the topic to be locked, controlled, or whatever they call it such that anonymous contributions cannot be made.

Check any of the politically charged topics and you'll see a note from the mods that they locked it for that very reason.

Scott

I am skeptical of community edited sources, especially those that can be edited anonymously, but I was mistaken in thinking that it is even relevant to our topic here. This is not the place to discuss the ethics and accuracy of community edited forums and I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. I apologize. Let's get back to the topic at hand, and if you'd like my opinions on what you've written above, you may send me a PM. Again, I apologize for starting this off-topic digression in the first place.

Besides, I think cheezydemon prefers that I keep my trolling on topic.

 

[Bru]

It seems there are two arguements here - pitching on the cake results in inconsistent results and pitching on the cake results in worse beer.
What Im suprised at is despite the aggressive tone of certain posts no evidence has been provided at all to support either arguement.
I can only assume that those who are so certain have done there own tests ?
Surely someone can provide some evidence - home brewery or commercial ?
For those that are so confident - what tests, done by whom will you trust ?
And before I get shot down - Im agnostic on this one.

 

[remilard]

It seems there are two arguements here - pitching on the cake results in inconsistent results and pitching on the cake results in worse beer.
What Im suprised at is despite the aggressive tone of certain posts no evidence has been provided at all to support either arguement.
I can only assume that those who are so certain have done there own tests ?
Surely someone can provide some evidence - home brewery or commercial ?
For those that are so confident - what tests, done by whom will you trust ?
And before I get shot down - Im agnostic on this one.

The OP is a home brewer and has been a home brewer and seems to be relating his experience.

Several references have been made academic studies.

What more do you want?

 

[Bru]

Either to see the studies or to hear other homebrewers experience.
Brewers have either pitched on the cake - what were the results ? or not because they "know" it to be negative or some other reason.
I can't recall reading anything from any other brewer that substantiates the arguement.
Where do you stand ? Have you found pitching on the cake to be negative in any way ?

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

The OP is a home brewer and has been a home brewer and seems to be relating his experience.

Several references have been made academic studies.

What more do you want?

Maybe even a little more than a homebrewer. From the OP's profile:

In the beginning of 2000, I talked my way into a commercial brewing job, and I worked as a micro and pub-brewer until the end of 2005.

Also mentioned his apprenticeship at a Ringwood brewery in the OP.

Just realized your post was perhaps a typo.

 

[slowbie]

Either to see the studies or to hear other homebrewers experience.
Brewers have either pitched on the cake - what were the results ? or not because they "know" it to be negative or some other reason.
I can't recall reading anything from any other brewer that substantiates the arguement.
Where do you stand ? Have you found pitching on the cake to be negative in any way ?

The OP lists several books you could look for if you wanted to. Otherwise, here is a link to an abstract with opportunity to purchase the entire article.

I personally have not chosen to pitch on the yeast cake for the following reasons:
1. I do not recall anyone producing an argument saying that pitching on the yeast cake produces better beer than making a starter.
2. It's really easy to scoop out the proper amount of yeast slurry from the cake, and then sanitize my fermenter, and regardless of whether or not overpitching is a problem, it makes me feel better about my sanitation.
3. So far, every study I've found that dealt with the topic has supported the OP's points.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

It seems there are two arguements here - pitching on the cake results in inconsistent results and pitching on the cake results in worse beer.

IMO, there are aspects of the OP that could have been worded better. I think the bottom line is - know your pitch rate (or at least approximate it as best you can). If pitching an entire yeast cake is the correct pitch rate then pitch the entire cake.

There's a big difference between 'making the best beer I can' and 'never had a problem'.

 

[cheezydemon3]

The whole thing can be shut down by these facts...............

1. White labs employs no fairies or other mythical creatures to spontaneously create "fresh" yeast.

2. The quantity of yeast to be saved from a yeast cake will contain very little TRUB.

3. If you are worried that your beer will be .00000000000000000000128% worse due to the fraction of trub, WASH THE DAMN STUFF.

4. Using the entire cake (if you keep it cool) will result in a 2% worse brew(), which some could care less about.

5. Anyone intent on exact replication of a brew, should ranch their own yeast.(after all, who says that those damn fairies at white labs don't ever make a mistake?)

6.RADADHBOSTFU

 

[jkarp]

Not defensive, just tired of the crap that goes on around here. Like I said it used to be a pretty nice DB, now its full of DBs. Oh well, I'm sure we will all never pitch onto a cake now that "Bob" has told us its bad! Thank you Bob....all hale Bob...... Cakes are bad (even though we have all done it)......Bob for president..... Ask Pol why he left, Oh yeah that's right you can't because he's gone.... got tired of the exact same BS I'm talking about.

FWIW McCuckerson, I agree. I pitch on full cakes every now and then - usually with lagers. Always had fantastic results and really don't care what the OP thinks of it or what the German texts say.

First-hand experience trumps opinion any day in my book.

 

[gxm]

FWIW McCuckerson, I agree. I pitch on full cakes every now and then - usually with lagers. Always had fantastic results and really don't care what the OP thinks of it or what the German texts say.

First-hand experience trumps opinion any day in my book.

I'll chime in that I also agree.
I mostly pitch onto cakes for lagers, and I, SWMBO, my friends and my neighbors love the results.
Bob telling me that my beer could taste "better", without defining what that means, and without tasting the beer, is just annoying.

 

[wyzazz]

I'm thinking maybe its time to lock this thread up. Anyone agree?

I would tend to agree, however that is for the Mods to decide.

I think everyone gets way too defensive on the internet, brew how you want to brew, pitch on your cake if you want to. What works for one brewer may not work for another. If you like your beer, if others like your beer then keep on doing what you're doing.

Brew on Brutha's and Sista's!

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

I would tend to agree, however that is for the Mods to decide.

I think everyone gets way too defensive on the internet, brew how you want to brew, pitch on your cake if you want to. What works for one brewer may not work for another. If you like your beer, if others like your beer then keep on doing what you're doing.

Brew on Brutha's and Sista's!

I agree with everything except the lock the thread part. If a thread bothers someone they can just not click on it. I'm all for smaller government/less 'moderation'.

I've always thought that "Why do you brew?" is key. If one likes to sweat every detail that's cool and if one likes to take RDWHAHB to the nth degree that's cool too. There's room for everyone in this hobby.

For some people, liking their beer and having all their friends/family/neighbors like their beer isn't enough. They still want to improve it. Heck, most of my friends/family/neighbors like McDonalds and BMC...and I know better than to expect them to tell me they don't like the free beer I'm giving them.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I thank BOB, not because he was right, but because he wasn't.

Healthy discussion is good.

I will, from here on, use a smaller portion of my cake (thanks BOB) but I will use that yeast until the end of time (again, thanks Bob).

I will only buy yeast if I need a different strain.

*The yeast that sat in my ale pail for 4 months until it was dried and cracked, and still sprang to life in no time when pitched on, producing fantastic beer, tells me that yeast are hard to kill.

They go dormant. They don't die at a rate of 25% a day or whatever the hell was suggested.*

 

[Yooper]

Off topic posts and snarky comments will not be tolerated. There is good information in here, and there is value in discussion. There is NO value in snarky comments, off-topic posts and namecalling. OT posts will be removed.

 

[mojotele]

That's fair, Yooper. You deleted a lot of the nonsense, so that'll hopefully get the thread back on track. Thanks for that.

And, in the spirit of getting the thread back on track, I'll address a couple things.

Bob telling me that my beer could taste "better", without defining what that means, and without tasting the beer, is just annoying.

To be fair, I think Bob did try to define what he meant by "better." For instance:

The two most obvious effects of over-pitching are off-flavors. First, yeast material in excess quickly leads to autolysis, which has flavor by-products with very low flavor thresholds. In properly-pitched beers, this effect can take months to show itself. In beers with an excess of yeast solids, it can manifest in a matter of weeks - in fact, the time spent in a home-brewer's primary.

Second, tasters have observed thin beer, beer lacking in body and mouthfeel. To be perfectly honest, the exact cause of this effect is unknown, but it is strongly correlated with over-pitched yeast, so a connection is highly likely.

Third - and most important for the home-brewer - is suppression of esters. Yeast rely on the growth phase to reproduce enough cells to fully colonize the wort. In that phase, they use malt-based nutrients and the oxygen you provide during aeration to synthesize the components needed to build new cell walls during reproduction. While they're reproducing they're producing esters. All yeast produce esters, even lager yeast, and all beers benefit from ester production (yes, even lagers). Just because you can't taste as much ester from WLP840 as you can from Ringwood doesn't mean that WLP840 doesn't throw esters! Esters are absolutely necessary to beer, theory about "clean yeast" be damned.

When you over-pitch the colony doesn't need to reproduce. Thus measurably fewer esters are produced. This, while always detrimental to beer flavor, is noticeable in American and English strains and very pronounced with certain more flavorful strains, like Belgians.

Granted, he isn't talking about your beer. But I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Plus, he's talking about over-pitching and not reusing a yeast cake. Perhaps you haven't over-pitched when reusing a yeast cake. I guess his point is that you're much more likely to over-pitch, but it really depends on the beer. He probably could have stated that better.

First-hand experience trumps opinion any day in my book.

I agree, but I don't think we're talking about first-hand experience versus opinion here. We're talking about first-hand experience versus first-hand experience. Certain studies have shown one thing, but anecdotal evidence has shown another. In those sorts of situations there's often one or more variable of which one of the parties isn't aware. It is much more likely that the party with the anecdotal evidence is the one missing said variable(s) since they have a much less controlled experiment.

EDIT: I hypothesize that the main "unknown variable" is just how many yeast cells you have in any given yeast cake. Bob cites averages, but that may not be very helpful for figuring out why pitching on a particular yeast cake works for some. In other words, how often and by how much does a yeast cake deviate from the average? What would make it deviate from the average? People who have successfully pitched on to yeast cakes without seeing any of the signs of over-pitching may not be over-pitching at all.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I submit that you CAN'T know how many cells are in a starter or even, for certain, a vial or packet.

I guarantee the ancient germans weren't counting cells.

Underpitching is WORSE than OVERPITCHING and is way way way way way more common.

 

[mojotele]

I submit that you CAN'T know how many cells are in a starter or even, for certain, a vial or packet.

You most certainly can. It's just prohibitively expensive for the home brewer.

 

[cheezydemon3]

You most certainly can. It's just prohibitively expensive for the home brewer.

What he said.

 

[masonsjax]

A desire to continue practicing old habits doesn't make the evidence go away, no matter how defensive you get. Some of the posts here make it sound like people are being forced to change. If you're happy with your process, more power to you. RDWHAHB

 

[mojotele]

Another possible explanation for all of this is that Bob didn't address how the effects of over-pitching vary with scale (if indeed they do, I assume they do). For example, I imagine over-pitching by a single yeast cell has absolutely no noticeable effect. However, over-pitching by 100 trillion cells probably has a very noticeable effect. How much more of an effect does it have? It isn't necessarily linear...

Anyway, my point is that if you are over-pitching when you pitch on a yeast cake, how much are you over-pitching?


I suppose the final thing I have to say in regards to this topic is this - it is possible to know how many yeast cells are in a given slurry, and I'm sure the people doing these studies know how much are in theirs within a very small margin of error. It is practically impossible for a home brewer to know, though, as the equipment costs waaaaay too much. The most obvious answer to why your (as in the brewing community's) anecdotal evidence conflicts with the conclusions of these studies is that you're simply doing something different. Perhaps you aren't over-pitching, or perhaps you are but not enough to notice. You can never know. In the end, I think what I learned from this thread is that Bob is advocating a method by which you are least likely to over-pitch or under-pitch. If you find you are not seeing the results of over-pitching with a particular recipe and yeast cake then you should by all means continue to pitch on that yeast cake in that situation.

If you are in doubt, though, you should use Bob's math to estimate the amount you are pitching.

Really, yeast is just another ingredient that a brewer can manipulate. I think people forget that. Just like you may decide to add more hops, you may decide to pitch more yeast. If it doesn't taste as good, though, you'd back it off. Likewise, you may decide to add less yeast. Experiment with your recipes and find what works for you for each particular beer.

 

[SC_Ryan]

I have found this thread really informational. I have pitched on yeast cakes in the past with good results and will continue to do so in the future with some of my beers (albeit with more of a measured approach). I have also found that the longer I have brewed and the more I refine my processes the better my beer has gotten.

I have cooled my wort in an ice bath in the sink over a three hour period with great results, but my hop flavor and aroma are better now with a chiller.

I have brewed with extract with great results but I switched to all grain and now my beer is better.

I have brewed all grain with my plain 'ol tap water with great results but now I adjust my mineral content to match predicted SRM and my beer is better.

I have brewed with an inconsistent and inaccurate thermometer with great results... You'll never guess what happened when I acquired an accurate consistent thermometer! My beers got better and more consistent.

I don't think you can argue the fact that it is "best practice" to pitch a well measured, known quantity (or your best estimation possible) of yeast into your wort and use a freshly cleaned and sanitized vessel for fermentation. That is what I intend to do with all of my "special beers" or competition beers from here on out. That said, I'm going to continue to pitch on cakes for some of my plane 'ol house ales and less important beers and I'm sure those beers will turn out fine.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I will lay all MY cards on the table at risk of ridicule.......

I think that ANY beer, commercial or otherwise could have been at least 2-3% better if some unknown variable had been adjusted....(except stone vertical epic 090909 which is not improvable)

But what is "better"? Any 2 brewers might disagree about whether the tweak was better or worse.



MOST IMPORTANTLY...

JAMIL is great, but I don't believe that brewing has been accurately studied inside and out.

No one can say the EXACT ideal temp to mash a given recipe at. No one can say for sure the absolutely ideal yeast strain and count. No one can say the precise amount of grains that would be ideal.

I take my best shot and say HAIL MARY.

I believe that my haphazard approach is more likely to hit on a "perfect" recipe, than someone who is anal about hitting a precise temp, or a precise yeast count.

They are likely laboring towards a point that is, in fact, not ideal.

I take notes, and haphazard is not the word I would use, but it is the word that anyone who owns a refractometer would use about my process.

 

[remilard]

You most certainly can. It's just prohibitively expensive for the home brewer.

Really? What about a homebrewer who already has a microscope?

Personally when I think of the cost of a used microscope and hemocytometer, the word "prohibitive" doesn't come to mind. I understand that some people may have less walking around money than me.

It's more prohibitively time consuming (to do it for each pitch) from my perspective.

 

[SC_Ryan]

I think that ANY beer, commercial or otherwise could have been at least 2-3% better if some unknown variable had been adjusted....(except stone vertical epic 090909 which is not improvable)

But what is "better"? Any 2 brewers might disagree about whether the tweak was better or worse.



MOST IMPORTANTLY...

JAMIL is great, but I don't believe that brewing has been accurately studied inside and out.

No one can say the EXACT ideal temp to mash a given recipe at. No one can say for sure the absolutely ideal yeast strain and count. No one can say the precise amount of grains that would be ideal.

I take my best shot and say HAIL MARY.

I agree with you 100% on this point. There's more than one right way to do things and there is always room for improvement. This is where science ends and the art of brewing comes in and it's one of my favorite aspects of brewing. That said, I still prefer to control what I can (within reason) in my brewing process so that I feel my art is presented in it's best light. But that's just my way of doing things.

 

[mojotele]

Really? What about a homebrewer who already has a microscope?

Personally when I think of the cost of a used microscope and hemocytometer, the word "prohibitive" doesn't come to mind. I understand that some people may have less walking around money than me.

It's more prohibitively time consuming (to do it for each pitch) from my perspective.

You're right, that was a pretty dumb comment.

I agree with your last statement.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I agree with you 100% on this point. There's more than one right way to do things and there is always room for improvement. This is where science ends and the art of brewing comes in and it's one of my favorite aspects of brewing. That said, I still prefer to control what I can (within reason) in my brewing process so that I feel my art is presented in it's best light. But that's just my way of doing things.

Cheers brother.

lol, like your sig. Bitter beer face? Wish I could get that!

Stone ruination barely makes me twitch, much less a full face scrunch.

 

[onemanlan]

I do want to argue with you. If you know anything about microbiology it IS possible to calculate viable cell count of a yeast slurry in final solution. Maybe not to the average home-brewer, but you can achieve relative number to work with. You can also use growth rate constants (for the strains of yeast) along with the understanding what phase of growth the yeasts is in to determine how much yeast will be present in your final solution. You can just use your pitch for inoculation at after a timed period of growth leading to a determined # of cells/unit volume.

Besides your merely going from late log phase or stationary phase to log phase again. There maybe a small lag phase, but the lag phase length of time will be much quicker than pitching the cells because you're not changing the environment up that much. Taking out of the wort and giving them new/different metabolites to grow on, causing the cells a primary lag phase, then introducing them to a wort environment will cause a secondary lag phase. There are such things as catabolite repression and change in log, stationary, and death phases of the cell growth cycles.

Yes, as you said over-pitching is bad, but that doesn't mean you can't restart and regrow your cells if you need to. What if I just wanted to re-use my strain of yeast later and just want to culture the strain for use later on?

Please don't take 'no-argument' approach to your opinions on science. Yes there maybe strong supporting evidence that something could be treated as a fact, but nothing is proven to be 100%. This is coming from some one in science and that kind of mentality leads to bad science and stubborn people.

Good post though. I see your point and why brewers do it. They definitely have their art down for a good reason.

 

[cheezydemon3]

,,,Good post I think....

It is unclear if you are addressing the OP or not.

 

[Palefire]

Ok, bump here, since there was a question earlier in the thread that I've been wondering about too ... thought I'd just post here instead of PM'ing Bob. It's this:

I have a question about the viability of the yeast in the primary. So we know that the viability of a portion of harvested yeast cake drops at a rate of 25% per seven days while in cold storage. We also know that washed yeast stored the same way keeps better but to an unknown degree.

Let's say your primary fermentation conditions were optimal and your fermentation completed in 4 days. How much if any viability is lost post fermentation while the cake is sitting at the bottom of the primary? I will primary my beers for 1-3 weeks depending on my schedule.

That's my question too: is there a general rule of thumb for how much viability decreases (if at all) during post-fermentation time in primary? I.e., can we assume that Bob's estimate of there being "~1 billion active cells in a ml of harvested slurry" holds whether the beer's been in the primary for 3 weeks or whether it's been in there for for 5 weeks (say)? If not (i.e. if there are fewer active cells the longer the beer's been sitting in primary), do we know what a good rule of thumb for calculating the difference would be?

I'm assuming that a super-long primary (just guessing, something like 6+ weeks for a standard-sized beer) would leave the less somewhat less viable, though I could be wrong about that too.

I'm really hoping not to revive the other debates here about process vs. product, etc., just to find out if a) post-fermentation time in primary decreases yeast viability, and b) if so, if there is a rough guideline for calculating the rate of decrease.

Thanks!

 

[broadbill]

That's my question too: is there a general rule of thumb for how much viability decreases (if at all) during post-fermentation time in primary?

I would guess that viability certainly decreases over time post-fermentation since yeast viability is known to change in Wyeast smack-packs the older they get. Since

Jamil's Mr. Malty calculator actually takes yeast viability into account when deciding required starter size. I wonder if you can extrapolate from the data set used to make that calculation and use it to roughly determine yeast viability of a yeast cake post-fermentation....

A quick play with Mr. Malty:

Smack pack packaged today: 97% viable
1 month ago: 75% viable 23% decrease
2 month ago: 54% viable 44% decrease
3 month ago: 32% viable 67% decrease
4 month ago: 11% viable 87% decrease
5 month ago: 10% viable n/c from 4 month
6 month ago: 10% viable n/c from 4 month


Pretty much what I would expect in terms of decreases in yeast viability, IF you assume that changes in yeast viability are similar between Wyeast packs and sitting in the bottom of the fermenter.

If anything, I would guess that the decreases in yeast viability may be more pronounced in the fermenter (larger decrease in yeast viability)...the fermenter/ yeast cake would be stored in the 60s (ale fermentation temps) where Wyeast smack packs are stored in the refrigerator.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I had yeast stored warm in a bucket until it was dry and cracked. 5-6 months I believe.

It sprang to life no problem and made great beer.

I think dry stored yeast has longer life.

 

[broadbill]

I had yeast stored warm in a bucket until it was dry and cracked. 5-6 months I believe.

It sprang to life no problem and made great beer.

I think dry stored yeast has longer life.

A couple of points on this:

It probably wasn't completely dry, it might have had enough moisture to keep on kicking...

The data I show above indicates that after 5-6 months there is still 10% viability. So its entirely possible that viable yeast could have come from that cake to ferment the beer. Optimal conditions?...probably not.

The method they use to dry yeast is much different from letting it slow-dry like you did. Its actually freeze-dried I believe. Either way, dry yeast does have a much longer life.

 

[cheezydemon3]

A couple of points on this:

It probably wasn't completely dry, it might have had enough moisture to keep on kicking...

The data I show above indicates that after 5-6 months there is still 10% viability. So its entirely possible that viable yeast could have come from that cake to ferment the beer. Optimal conditions?...probably not.

The method they use to dry yeast is much different from letting it slow-dry like you did. Its actually freeze-dried I believe. Either way, dry yeast does have a much longer life.

Far less than ideal.

That was my point.

I now pour out all but 1/4 of my cake and pitch on that.

That has been successful for 8 consecutive batches now.

*man this thread is a ZOMBIE!!!!lol*

 

[Palefire]

I wonder if you can extrapolate from the data set used to make that calculation and use it to roughly determine yeast viability of a yeast cake post-fermentation....

A quick play with Mr. Malty:

etc.

Damn, that's smart. Or, rather, pretty straightforward, just far too sensible for me to have figured out on my own. :rockin:

Seems like a good variable to add into the equation. Worst case scenario would be a slight overpitch, but since we're playing with estimates anyway, better safe than sorry, I think.

Thanks.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Damn, that's smart. Or, rather, pretty straightforward, just far too sensible for me to have figured out on my own. :rockin:

Seems like a good variable to add into the equation. Worst case scenario would be a slight overpitch, but since we're playing with estimates anyway, better safe than sorry, I think.

Thanks.

And far more chanc of under than over in my estimations.