Why Not to Pitch On Your Yeast Cake

[scottlindner]

I wonder if there would be any harm in partially washing your yeast cake and then pitching just the suspended yeast?

I've done this 1 time and had good luck with it.

Basically, I just dumped about a 1/2 gallon of water onto my yeast cake and gave it a good swirl. Then after about 15 minutes, I poured off a quart or so into my new primary and then racked onto it.

This left all the garbage behind and gave me a good clean slury to pitch.

The only problem is that I have no idea what the cell count would be.

Any comments?

Bull

Based on the OP I think you run the risk of underpitching (or not knowing exactly how much you're pitching) but have addressed all of the other concerns. Sometime you should take that quart and let it settle into another container so you can gauge exactly how much yeast by volume you have and extrapolate from there.

My feel is what you're doing is better than using a new fresh vial of WL or pack of WY, so if that's all you care about I'd say you're already doing yourself better.

Scott

 

[cheezydemon3]

We are running into the question of doing a secondary or not at this point.

Week old trub in a yeast cake may harm the new beer...........

My brew that was in primary for 3 months turned out great.

My 4th brew on the same cake had NO off flavors.

Maybe the OP should read:

Pitching onto yeast cake BAD...If you are anal about EXACTLY replicating the same brew later.

I personally could not care less.

Even if a brew was WORLD CLASS, I am going to tweak it and experiment the next time around.

 

[scottlindner]

We are running into the question of doing a secondary or not at this point.

Week old trub in a yeast cake may harm the new beer...........

My brew that was in primary for 3 months turned out great.

My 4th brew on the same cake had NO off flavors.

Maybe the OP should read:

Pitching onto yeast cake BAD...If you are anal about EXACTLY replicating the same brew later.

I personally could not care less.

Even if a brew was WORLD CLASS, I am going to tweak it and experiment the next time around.

What you're describing is exactly the difference between a quality product and a quality control process. They both are very very different, but if you're not aware of this industrial practice you'd think they are the same since they both rely on the word "quality".

Cheers,
Scott

 

[cheezydemon3]

Cheers to you Scott.

Yes exactly. All I care about is a quality product.

If dumping my wort into a dirty hollow stump with some wild yeast yields fantastic beer every time, It is A OK with me.

 

[scottlindner]

Cheers to you Scott.

Yes exactly. All I care about is a quality product.

If dumping my wort into a dirty hollow stump with some wild yeast yields fantastic beer every time, It is A OK with me.

I think the point to be careful about is that using that as your process, you may not always have fantastic beer. I like the concept though, stump beer. Someone's gonna try it some day.

Cheers,
Scott

 

[Babylon]

What you're describing is exactly the difference between a quality product and a quality control process. They both are very very different, but if you're not aware of this industrial practice you'd think they are the same since they both rely on the word "quality".

Cheers,
Scott

A quality control process is going to yield predictable qualities in the final product.

I don't think anyone is saying that pitching on the cake makes a worse beer than not pitching on the cake in every case. However pitching from a starter yields a beer with more known qualities. Pitching on the cake introduces a lot of unknown qualities which means an unpredictable beer.

Unpredictable is not the same thing as bad. But a lot of people want to know what they are making, and controlling all the qualities gives you a much better chance of that

 

[scottlindner]

I don't think anyone is saying that pitching on the cake makes a worse beer than not pitching on the cake in every case.

I'm not sure everyone would agree. The bulk of this thread was dedicated to the argument that a poor quality process yields a poor quality product. That's why this became such a contentious thread.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I'm not sure everyone would agree. The bulk of this thread was dedicated to the argument that a poor quality process yields a poor quality product. That's why this became such a contentious thread.

EXACTLY.

I am, at times, tempted to say that those who live and die by the hydrometer, scale, and stopwatch are missing the boat, taking all of the joy out of brewing and making it robotic and tedious.

And by my reckoning, that is an undeniable truth.

But that is just me. I should not assume that everyone should think like me......no matter how right I am.

 

[EO74]

EXACTLY.

I am, at times, tempted to say that those who live and die by the hydrometer, scale, and stopwatch are missing the boat, taking all of the joy out of brewing and making it robotic and tedious.

And by my reckoning, that is an undeniable truth.

But that is just me. I should not assume that everyone should think like me......no matter how right I am.

I couldnt agree more i seem to remember a time when u had to secondary so u didnt have autolisis now everyone says leave it on the yeast even if its for months just because someone says its right dosnt always make it right!Half the fun is experimentation and a lot of the stuff we do now they didnt or couldnt do 100 years ago!! MY 10 CENTS

 

[scottlindner]

MY 10 CENTS

I gotta ask. Is that a spin on, "There are 10 kinds of people. Those that understand binary, and those that don't?"

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

I am, at times, tempted to say that those who live and die by the hydrometer, scale, and stopwatch are missing the boat, taking all of the joy out of brewing and making it robotic and tedious.

Totally disagree. IMO it all comes down to "Why do you brew?" For most of us it's a hobby and so it's all about personal enjoyment. If you get personal enjoyment by 'living and dying by a hydrometer, scale, and stopwatch' then that's what you should do. Whether you get your kicks building all kinds of complex/shiny brewing equipment or just brewing in a stump, it's purely a personal preference. What's robotic and tedious to one person might be the exact thing that gives another the most joy.

 

[Blanda]

Totally disagree. IMO it all comes down to "Why do you brew?" For most of us it's a hobby and so it's all about personal enjoyment. If you get personal enjoyment by 'living and dying by a hydrometer, scale, and stopwatch' then that's what you should do. Whether you get your kicks building all kinds of complex/shiny brewing equipment or just brewing in a stump, it's purely a personal preference. What's robotic and tedious to one person might be the exact thing that gives another the most joy.

Agree about everyone enjoys a different way/part of brewing, some like more the robotic-tedious stuff, others DIY equipment and hardware, others experimenting every time (And maybe there are even guys that like washing and cleaning all the stuff after a brew-day ).

But when someone ask me why do I brew, the answer is very simple: I love damn good tasty beer! and I don't enjoy drinking BMC. So when we talk about quality process, scientifics studies, and what big breweries do...
I prefer doing damn good tasty beer.
No one can achieve better quality process than BMC, nevertheless we (I think I can't talk for most of HBT members) don't like their beers.

 

[slowbie]

No one can achieve better quality process than BMC, nevertheless we (I think I can't talk for most of HBT members) don't like their beers.

This is so ridiculously illogical that I could barely bring myself to respond.

Personal taste does not make it an issue of quality. The majority of HBT members don't like the style, and wouldn't like it whether BMC used a quality process or if they didn't.

 

[Blanda]

You quote me out of context... My point was that you can have the best quality process and/or product and nevertheless your product don't taste good (for me, you, or anyone).
I prefer brewing beer that I enjoy rather than guiding my self by a scientific study made in big breweries.

 

[Babylon]

I'm not sure everyone would agree. The bulk of this thread was dedicated to the argument that a poor quality process yields a poor quality product. That's why this became such a contentious thread.

I really saw that as a misunderstanding by folks who pitch on their yeast cakes. I personally plan to pitch on my yeast cake, I am aware that I am a lazy, sloppy brewer and I accept that means my beer is going to be unpredictable. I didn't anywhere see any of the don't pitch on your cake people saying It would yield a poor quality product, just that it yields a less predictable product, which means you can't get the same sort of product each time and the chance of a poor quality product increases.

 

[masonsjax]

I will do almost anything to not have to work with DME. I have yet to make a starter with DME where I didn't spill it making a huge sticky mess. I usually collect and freeze extra wort for starters when I brew, but if I don't have any available, and I have a beer ready to rack that used an acceptable strain, guess what's going to happen.

I usually plan out my brew days so that I'm brewing 3 beers using the same yeast in the same fermenter. On brew day, I keg the finished beer, dump out most of the yeast cake in the yard, leaving whatever sticks to the bottom and sides of the carboy, and rack the new beer right on top. Call me lazy (I am), but making starters is much less frequent this way, and I think my beer turns out great.

This has me thinking... lets say I'm finished for the time being with a certain yeast strain, and have a fat cake in the carboy. If I wanted to save the yeast in my fridge in mason jars (which I do), and plan to brew again using that strain maybe 2-3 months later, roughly how much slurry would I need to save to not need to make a starter? Right now I save about 6 oz of slurry and make a 2L starter for ales.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Totally disagree. IMO it all comes down to "Why do you brew?" For most of us it's a hobby and so it's all about personal enjoyment. If you get personal enjoyment by 'living and dying by a hydrometer, scale, and stopwatch' then that's what you should do. Whether you get your kicks building all kinds of complex/shiny brewing equipment or just brewing in a stump, it's purely a personal preference. What's robotic and tedious to one person might be the exact thing that gives another the most joy.

You obviously didn't read the whole post. I don't try to impress that view point on other people.

Honestly though, I didn't read your whole post either.

 

[gxm]

I don't think anyone is saying that pitching on the cake makes a worse beer than not pitching on the cake in every case.

From the OP: "Over-pitching is always detrimental to the beer. This does not say the beer will taste awful. Rest assured, however, that were one to place samples of the exact same beer - one fermented by overpitching and one by properly inoculating the wort - the properly pitched example will taste better. Blind taste tests prove it."

He claims the mantle of science, but it's mostly anecdote, personal opinion and sweeping statements.

 

[remilard]

Anecdote, personal opinion and the result of decades of US and German brewing science.

Thats all.

 

[gxm]

Anecdote, personal opinion and the result of decades of US and German brewing science.

Funny, I don't see any German references. I do see a link to Brau Kaiser's site which doesn't support your assertion - http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Experiment_Pitching_Rate_and_Oxygenation

Anyway, my point is that I didn't start brewing so that a Brewing Scientist (the guys that think Bud tastes best, taste tests prove it!) can tell me how to brew. Why they brew is completely orthogonal to why I brew.

If people are actually interested in putting their assertions to the test, such as in blind tests using the same recipe, I'd be happy to participate.

 

[maskednegator]

Funny, I don't see any German references. I do see a link to Brau Kaiser's site which doesn't support your assertion - http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Experiment_Pitching_Rate_and_Oxygenation

Anyway, my point is that I didn't start brewing so that a Brewing Scientist (the guys that think Bud tastes best, taste tests prove it!) can tell me how to brew. Why they brew is completely orthogonal to why I brew.

If people are actually interested in putting their assertions to the test, such as in blind tests using the same recipe, I'd be happy to participate.

They brew in order to make a consistent, repeatable, known product. If that's completely orthogonal to why you brew, I can only assume that you don't record things like specific gravity or recipes, and that you don't worry about things like temp control, or mash/hop schedule.

Bud is brewed in 6 different locations in the US and in mind-numbingly huge quantities, but every can of beer tastes exactly like every other can, no matter where you are in the world when you buy one.

That is more than a staggering achievement in process engineering. That is a staggering achievement in human history.
The fact that you think that following their brewing example is a negative speaks much more to your misunderstanding of process control than to the inferior quality of a BMC product.

 

[bob1852]

Bud is brewed in 6 different locations in the US and in mind-numbingly huge quantities, but every can of beer tastes exactly like every other can, no matter where you are in the world when you buy one.

Actually that's not true. I can taste some subtle variations from time to time. Not sure if it's a result of the brewing process or the packaging/shipping/aging process, but I'll have some bud light occassionally and taste some different flavors.

 

[gxm]

They brew in order to make a consistent, repeatable, known product. If that's completely orthogonal to why you brew, I can only assume that you don't record things like specific gravity or recipes, and that you don't worry about things like temp control, or mash/hop schedule.

And you assume incorrectly sir. My 100+ page brewing spreadsheet is infamous among my friends. I plan everything I do weeks in advance. Guess again?

Why Bud brews - Make as much money as possible over the long term. A perfectly consistent product brewed as cheaply as possible aligns perfectly with their goals.

Why gxm brews - To make tasty and interesting beers that please myself and SWMBO. I don't try to brew the same thing every time. There are some recipes I like to repeat, though I tend to vary yeasts and hops to see what I might like better.

 

[Bru]

Can someone please post links to the scientific studies.

 

[slowbie]

Funny, I don't see any German references. I do see a link to Brau Kaiser's site which doesn't support your assertion - http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Experiment_Pitching_Rate_and_Oxygenation

I don't think you're going to get too many people excited about a wiki that happens to support you. I didn't read it myself, but I tend to be skeptical of articles that can be literally edited by anybody with a computer and an internet connection, especially if they contradict everything else I've ever heard. Also, I can't speak to the OP, but my guess would be that the lack of German references has something to do with the fact that the majority of the people reading this cannot read German.

And you assume incorrectly sir. My 100+ page brewing spreadsheet is infamous among my friends. I plan everything I do weeks in advance. Guess again?

I think you missed the point on this one. The point is, the things maskednegator mentioned are things that are also very helpful in making a consistent, repeatable process. Obviously those are things you'd be completely uninterested in if you truly believe that the things the BMC brewers have in mind while brewing are orthogonal to your own beliefs.

When designing a science experiment, one would try to control as many variables as possible. For example, if one were to do an experiment that for whatever reason involved shooting a cannon to see how far the cannonball went, it's pretty obvious you'd want to use the same size and weight of cannonball every time, as well as the same amount of gunpowder if you're aiming for the same distance. However, other things such as barometric pressure, wind, temperature, and a variety of other external factors would also be important. If you focused all your attention on the size and weight of the cannonball and the amount of gunpowder used, and worked all day on a sunny, windless, 75 degree day to see how much gunpowder to use for a certain size cannonball to make it go a certain distance, it's pretty obvious that if you went out the next day and it was 55 degrees, rainy, and with 25 mph winds, your data would not be very useful.

Similarly, let's say that the different distances you want the cannonball to go roughly correlate to different recipes. I would argue that you could roughly correlate the yeast to the wind. Now, if you ignore the wind completely will you get pretty close to the target most of the time? Yes. Will you hit it? Sometimes. However, even when making different recipes, correct pitching rates will help you evaluate the recipe by controlling one more variable. I've seen the "whenever I rebrew a recipe I always change it anyways" argument plenty of times in this thread and that is one that if anything suggests to me that you would be benefited even more by controlling as many variables as possible so you can have a beer that is as close to being the same to your old recipe as possible so that you can be more sure that any changes you taste are due to the changes you intentionally made.

 

[slowbie]

Can someone please post links to the scientific studies.

There are some books listed in the OP. The only ones I could find online were ones you had to pay to read, just like most scientific studies.

 

[conpewter]

Why is it assumed that you are overpitching if you are using the yeast cake?

 

[masonsjax]

I don't think goals have anything to do with what we're talking about here. If it took no effort to precisely control every possible variable in brewing, wouldn't we all do so?

There's a threshold that we have all set for ourselves that determines how much trouble we are willing to go through vs. how acceptable the quality of our product is to us. For some, it's worth every extra step to get that much closer to perfection. For others, just shy of perfect is acceptable in order to avoid extra steps. Decide for yourself and proceed accordingly.

 

[slowbie]

I don't think goals have anything to do with what we're talking about here. If it took no effort to precisely control every possible variable in brewing, wouldn't we all do so?

There's a threshold that we have all set for ourselves that determines how much trouble we are willing to go through vs. how acceptable the quality of our product is to us. For some, it's worth every extra step to get that much closer to perfection. For others, just shy of perfect is acceptable in order to avoid extra steps. Decide for yourself and proceed accordingly.

+1. I wanted to say this at the bottom of my long post, but you said it much better than I ever would have.

 

[Yankeehillbrewer]

Why is it assumed that you are overpitching if you are using the yeast cake?

I think it's more fact than assumption. From what I have learned(using Designing Great Beers as my reference), it's typical that you want to pitch somewhere between 200-400 billion cells depending on your OG. There is also said to be 1.5 billion cells per mL of yeast cake. If you take 1 quart of a yeast cake, that equals 944 mL which would equal about 1.4 Trillion yeast cells, and I typically have about 2qts or more of yeast cake in my fermentor. I think this also aligns pretty well with Mr.Malty.

One other thing I was thinking about on this subject was that the higher your pitch count, the more vigorous your fermentation will be, which will lend itself to higher temps inside the fermentor, and the harder it will be to control those temps. Which could also lead to some off flavors. Just a thought.

 

[jkarp]

I don't think you're going to get too many people excited about a wiki that happens to support you. I didn't read it myself, but I tend to be skeptical of articles that can be literally edited by anybody with a computer and an internet connection, especially if they contradict everything else I've ever heard.

Maybe you should. You're clearly very new to homebrewing if you don't know Kai Troester.

 

[remilard]

Funny, I don't see any German references. I do see a link to Brau Kaiser's site which doesn't support your assertion - http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Experiment_Pitching_Rate_and_Oxygenation

Anyway, my point is that I didn't start brewing so that a Brewing Scientist (the guys that think Bud tastes best, taste tests prove it!) can tell me how to brew. Why they brew is completely orthogonal to why I brew.

If people are actually interested in putting their assertions to the test, such as in blind tests using the same recipe, I'd be happy to participate.

Interesting, the page you linked too quotes a German brewing scientist as saying that increased pitching rates lead to higher ester production. Maybe you should have looked harder for those German references.

 

[Bru]

Except for this :
Conclusion
Despite the 9 fold difference in pitching rate and oxygen injection, which showed differences in the fermentation performance, the samples tasted remarkably similar and none of the blind taste tests could tell them apart. The actual difference in dissolved oxygen that was available to the yeast was likely much smaller, but the pitching rates were definitely widely different.

This experiment needs to be seen as inconclusive and further experiments need to be done with a different yeast. But at that point only 3 or 4 fermentations should be run to test either the influences of the pitching rate or the oxygen levels. Having only 3 to 4 samples that need to be evaluated is more manageable than 9 samples.

 

[scottlindner]

I don't think you're going to get too many people excited about a wiki that happens to support you. I didn't read it myself, but I tend to be skeptical of articles that can be literally edited by anybody with a computer and an internet connection, especially if they contradict everything else I've ever heard.

Why are you reading this thread?

Any good wiki will use a governance model to ensure what you fear doesn't happen. Wikipedia enforces governance and standards on topics that have the problem you are suspicious of. So if you are skeptical, you may want to seek out only those sources with adequate governance that suit your needs.

Scott

 

[slowbie]

Why are you reading this thread?

Any good wiki will use a governance model to ensure what you fear doesn't happen. Wikipedia enforces governance and standards on topics that have the problem you are suspicious of. So if you are skeptical, you may want to seek out only those sources with adequate governance that suit your needs.

Scott

I know wikipedia's 'governance and standards' and I can assure you that I have seen blatantly incorrect information last literally for years. And I'm not even talking about things that could be points of contention or open to interpretation. I'm talking accepted scientific fact.

However, I should say that I did not mean to be as dismissive of the article as I seemed. After re-reading my post I realized that I wasn't communicating the point I wanted to get across, which is this: I did not read the article yet because I am a busy guy, but I plan to. However, once I do read the article, regardless of what it says I will be skeptical because of my past experience with wikis.

 

[remilard]

Except for this :
Conclusion
Despite the 9 fold difference in pitching rate and oxygen injection, which showed differences in the fermentation performance, the samples tasted remarkably similar and none of the blind taste tests could tell them apart. The actual difference in dissolved oxygen that was available to the yeast was likely much smaller, but the pitching rates were definitely widely different.

This experiment needs to be seen as inconclusive and further experiments need to be done with a different yeast. But at that point only 3 or 4 fermentations should be run to test either the influences of the pitching rate or the oxygen levels. Having only 3 to 4 samples that need to be evaluated is more manageable than 9 samples.

I don't think "except" means what you think it does. There is definitely a link from a German brewing scientist that is critical of overpitching.

Was it confirmed by a single ad-hoc trial carried out by an amateur brewer? No. Is it possible for a single ad-hoc trial carried out by an amateur to impeach the conclusions of rigorous science? No.

 

[jkarp]

I did not read the article yet because I am a busy guy, but I plan to. However, once I do read the article, regardless of what it says I will be skeptical because of my past experience with wikis.

If your profile data is valid, you're barely a year into your drinking / brewing career. If you're really serious about homebrewing, there's much valuable info to be learned from Kai. Worry less about wiki formats and more about learning from respected and published experts like Kai and applying such knowledge to your own personal brewing experience.

Experience always trumps "what I read" or "what I heard" claims in homebrewing.

 

[scottlindner]

I know wikipedia's 'governance and standards' and I can assure you that I have seen blatantly incorrect information last literally for years.

Then you also know it is your duty to report it when you see it.

 

[slowbie]

If your profile data is valid, you're barely a year into your drinking / brewing career. If you're really serious about homebrewing, there's much valuable info to be learned from Kai. Worry less about wiki formats and more about learning from respected and published experts like Kai and applying such knowledge to your own personal brewing experience.

Experience always trumps "what I read" or "what I heard" claims in homebrewing.

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 read the article, I kept an open mind, and now I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only one who read past the abstract. The maximum yeast count in the experiment is only 30% above the suggested rate given in the OP. If anything, the study is grounds to stop making starters and pitch directly from the vial. The maximum yeast count is 300mL of slurry, which the article states is taken from a yeast cake of a previous batch. Bob suggested 228mL given the same situation. And actually, the batch in the article is a little over 5.25 gallons, while the OP gave numbers for a 5 gallon batch. This means that the highest pitch rate in the article is 25% more than what was presented as optimal. The lowest, on the other hand, is only pitched at about 2/15 of the accepted rate.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I did check and both were using a 12 P wort which makes things convenient.

An aside:

Then you also know it is your duty to report it when you see it.

Yes, but I went through a wikipedia troll phase in early college, just to see how long I could make misinformation last. I'm not saying I'm proud of it, but I am saying that it has left me with a degree of skepticism.

 

[doctorRobert]

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 read the article, I kept an open mind, and now I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only one who read past the abstract. The maximum yeast count in the experiment is only 30% above the suggested rate given in the OP. If anything, the study is grounds to stop making starters and pitch directly from the vial. The maximum yeast count is 300mL of slurry, which the article states is taken from a yeast cake of a previous batch. Bob suggested 228mL given the same situation. And actually, the batch in the article is a little over 5.25 gallons, while the OP gave numbers for a 5 gallon batch. This means that the highest pitch rate in the article is 25% more than what was presented as optimal. The lowest, on the other hand, is only pitched at about 2/15 of the accepted rate.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I did check and both were using a 12 P wort which makes things convenient.

An aside:


Yes, but I went through a wikipedia troll phase in early college, just to see how long I could make misinformation last. I'm not saying I'm proud of it, but I am saying that it has left me with a degree of skepticism.

Are you in your home brew troll phase now?