I cant wait to try it Scott,its been done fermenting for about 2 days.Pitching on a cake rules ,i've only had one batch ferment quicker and that was a dry yeast packet???
There have been quite a few comments on this thread that express great enthusiasm over the quickness and robustness of fermentation when pitching on the cake. This seems to be to be a very one-dimensional view of fermentation quality. You could probably also ferment at 80 and get fast violent fermentation as well, but we all know that this would not be a good thing. These comments seem to me to also miss the point of the original post, which is that overpitching does not provide an optimum and repeatable result.
I have pitched on the cake a number of times, had good results from it, and I love how low effort it is. I'm certainly not arguing that anyone should or should not pitch on the cake. But I can't help but point out the superficiality of these arguments in favor of pitching on the cake just because its fast.
There have been quite a few comments on this thread that express great enthusiasm over the quickness and robustness of fermentation when pitching on the cake. This seems to be to be a very one-dimensional view of fermentation quality. You could probably also ferment at 80 and get fast violent fermentation as well, but we all know that this would not be a good thing. These comments seem to me to also miss the point of the original post, which is that overpitching does not provide an optimum and repeatable result.
I have pitched on the cake a number of times, had good results from it, and I love how low effort it is. I'm certainly not arguing that anyone should or should not pitch on the cake. But I can't help but point out the superficiality of these arguments in favor of pitching on the cake just because its fast.
I also agree with carp and also don't think lag time (to a point) is an indicator of good fermentation.Excellent point. A fast ferment is not necessarily a good thing.
I agree with carp as well.
I think what everyone should take away from this thread is that pitching on a yeast cake is similar to not taking gravity readings. You may end up with good beer, but, if you don't, troubleshooting becomes difficult because you have another unknown variable. You will also have trouble repeating a good beer for the same reason. That's the real lesson here, not whether pitching on a yeast cake works or not (it clearly does).
In my opinion, brewing a starter from washed, stored yeast is no different than brewing a starter from any other package - step it up until you arrive at a sufficient quantity of slurry to inoculate your wort according to your calculations (well, to be safe, a little more).
You dig?
Bob
I agree with carp as well.
I think what everyone should take away from this thread is that pitching on a yeast cake is similar to not taking gravity readings. You may end up with good beer, but, if you don't, troubleshooting becomes difficult because you have another unknown variable. You will also have trouble repeating a good beer for the same reason. That's the real lesson here, not whether pitching on a yeast cake works or not (it clearly does).
I think that just pitching onto a cake because it is there and easy may be something like not taking hydrometer readings, but when I brew a beer specifically so I can pitch a large barleywine or RIS on that beer's cake I don't think I'm going to have trouble repeating that whole process, nor is it for laziness that I do it, but I need the high cell count to chew through all the fermentables in the big beers, and get a good attenuation.
Just out of curiosity, I've heard that larger commercial breweries like Sierra Nevada rely on massive pitch rates in order to go from wort to bottle in something like 3 days. I know we're talking about a very different scale here, but how can it be fine for them and a big no-no for us small timers? Would they turn out a much better product if they slowed down and pitched less yeast? Is it a noticeable difference?
Again, whitelabs does not produce shiny new yeast by magic.
The strain of yeast you use is probably 3000 years old.
Pitching on part of a yeast cake is as reliable a cell count as a starter if you don't have a way to count the viable yeast either way.
Nobody said you couldn't estimate the cells in a yeast cake, but when you repitch in the entire cake what you are doing is not caring how many cells there are.
I think that just pitching onto a cake because it is there and easy may be something like not taking hydrometer readings, but when I brew a beer specifically so I can pitch a large barleywine or RIS on that beer's cake I don't think I'm going to have trouble repeating that whole process, nor is it for laziness that I do it, but I need the high cell count to chew through all the fermentables in the big beers, and get a good attenuation.
Can someone please do a test next brew day - split the batch into two fermenters, pitch the one onto a yeast cake and use the recommended pitch rate in the other (same yeast strain), ferment and age as per usual and then blind taste. It seems easy enough. My next brew (tomorrow) is a big belgain so no good for the test.
I doubt that a single such experiment would prove or demonstrate anything. A significant aspect of the premise of the OP is that you would have to do SEVERAL such tests and compare the quality and repeatability of each approach. As another poster wrote recently, its certainly possible to make great beer pitching on the cake, but that one is more likely to make consistently great beer by taking more care with yeast quantities.
I'd prefer to see results in a homebrew setting. Its an easy enough experiment and will put all the debate to rest.
I'd prefer to see results in a homebrew setting. Its an easy enough experiment and will put all the debate to rest.
It most certainly will not put the debate to rest, and I'll tell you why: If you notice no difference, brewers like myself who like to understand the entire process of brewing from a scientific standpoint will ignore your results in favor of those found in more rigorous scientific studies.
On the other hand, if you do notice a difference, people who enjoy pitching on the yeast cake will disregard your results or find some way to rationalize things because in their experience, their beer tastes just as good if not better when they pitch on the yeast cake.
Besides - I want to see the results for myself.
It's like saying that liquid yeast is better than dry yeast. Then using dry yeast is always detrimental to beer.
Bingo.
If you really want to study this, take the George Fix approach and brew using both techniques and then send both beers off to several competitions and see if their is a strong preference for one or the other by the judges. This is the best type of study feedback (double blind and the participants didn't even know they were participating, let alone the nature of the study). If you taste the beers yourself, you'll just confirm your own beliefs, that's why scientists have rigorous protocols.
I agree your "George Fix approach" is best. But theres no need for a competition - there must be beer judges who would be willing to take part without knowing what the test was.
There is any way to find this studies on-line? I would like to read them.No, it's not. There are no scientific studies to support the claim that dry yeast is detrimental to beer. But there are studies showing that overpitching is detrimental.
Join a homebrew club and you'll at least have access to experienced brewers and beer drinkers if not actual certified judges.Im on the fence on this one - I take no stand and have no current belief that may sway my opinion. I simply want to see if a.) there is a difference and b.) is it negative or positive.
I agree your "George Fix approach" is best. But theres no need for a competition - there must be beer judges who would be willing to take part without knowing what the test was.
Enter your email address to join: