Pour new wort on pellicle?

[Zippox]

I had originally posted this question in Amanda's lambic recipe but with no replies and I'll be brewing this afternoon so I am looking for some quick guidance.

I have 5 gallons of a month and a half old lambic in a bucket and I have yet to transfer it to a glass carboy. The plan is to lift the lid a little bit, add some tubing to the buckets spigot and turn it on. I have been planning on reusing the yeast cake at the bottom but I wonder what I should do if there is a hard pellicle on the top? Do I just pour the new wort on top of it and shake it all up as I would a normal batch of beer and let the pellicle chunks float around?

 

[COLObrewer]

Yes that will be fine, the pelicle will re-form, it won't matter if some pelicle chunks get in the secondary or stay in the primary. My only caution would be to make certain you do not splash the fermenting beer when transferring.

 

[bradjoiner]

I personally would rack onto. You do not want to aerate because of the lacto in there from my basic understandings so try to disturb the cake as little as possible. This has worked really well for me. Also you want to pitch fresh sacc as the yeast in there is probably dormant.

 

[Zippox]

Yes that will be fine, the pelicle will re-form, it won't matter if some pelicle chunks get in the secondary or stay in the primary. My only caution would be to make certain you do not splash the fermenting beer when transferring.

Good to know. And yeah, there are three reasons why I chose to start my lambic in a bottling bucket and then move it to a carboy. The first being that all I have to do is hook up tubing to it and it will easily be transferred to the carboy. Second is that I expect some trub to transfer which would be food for the year long aging process. And lastly, it will leave most of the yeast in there so when I pour the new wort on top I don't have to re-pitch

 

[Zippox]

I personally would rack onto. You do not want to aerate because of the lacto in there from my basic understandings so try to disturb the cake as little as possible. This has worked really well for me. Also you want to pitch fresh sacc as the yeast in there is probably dormant.

So even though a typical brew needs a lot of aerating when you first add the yeast to it, it's not recommended for the second round of this yeast?

And how will this fair out if I do not have fresh sacc? I'm looking for a strong sour taste, but if this is needed I can. I do have a packet of Safale S-04 laying around I believe (that what you suggest?)

 

[COLObrewer]

So even though a typical brew needs a lot of aerating when you first add the yeast to it, it's not recommended for the second round of this yeast?

I believe what bradjoiner is saying is not to splash the fresh wort when adding to the fermentor to prevent lacto oxidation, it should be well aerated however prior to adding it if you want to use sacch (resident or fresh inocculation) for initial fermentation. Did the initial "lambic" inocculation have lacto in it?

And how will this fair out if I do not have fresh sacc? I'm looking for a strong sour taste, but if this is needed I can. I do have a packet of Safale S-04 laying around I believe (that what you suggest?)

It may take longer, presumeably the lambic yeasts/bacterium have consumed a portion of the initial sacch. The initial sacch is also stressed

 

[Zippox]

I believe what bradjoiner is saying is not to splash the fresh wort when adding to the fermentor to prevent lacto oxidation, it should be well aerated however prior to adding it if you want to use sacch (resident or fresh inocculation) for initial fermentation. Did the initial "lambic" inocculation have lacto in it?

The only blend I had was wyeast 3278. I pitched that along with bottle dregs from a cuvee rene. So I take it I should not have shaken it...very vigorously... Crap.

So given my current circumstances, I should carefully pour the new wort on top of the old yeast cake and not shake it up this time?

 

[COLObrewer]

No need to shake at all, aerate prior to transferring to the fermentor/old yeast cake. Personally I would use fresh sacch yeast as well. The 3278 initially had everything in it however the sacch is dormant and/or stressed, perhaps a belgian sacch strain of some sort if you want the same profile as the last brew.

 

[Zippox]

Ok I won't shake the bucket after adding the wort to the yeast cake and I'll pour the safale s-04 in there too. But how do you suggest aerating the wort prior to adding it to the bucket? I mean, I take my 5 gallon pot off the stove, chill it, then usually pour it in the bucket, snap the lid and shake the living daylight out of it. So if I'm not supposed to do that I am not sure how I can aerate it while there is the three gallons of wort in the brewing pot.

 

[iowabrew]

If you use dry yeast, as in 04 or 05, you won't really need to aerate. Somewhere on here as well as other sources you don't really need to aerate for dry yeast. I've no chilled many times and never aerated the wort when pitching dry 05 and it came out just fine, attenuated well and all.

 

[Zippox]

On a side note, it was mentioned here that I should not have shaken my wort when I pitched the lambic blend that does contain lacto. Can I expect I have a horrible brew now? What off flavors could I see?

 

[COLObrewer]

. . . . . . . how do you suggest aerating the wort prior to adding it to the bucket? . . . . . . .

One method is to pour it through a sieve or strainer, but i assumed you had another bucket or other receptacle(maybe bottling bucket) you could aerate it in. That would be ideal.

 

[COLObrewer]

On a side note, it was mentioned here that I should not have shaken my wort when I pitched the lambic blend that does contain lacto. Can I expect I have a horrible brew now? What off flavors could I see?

If it has no discernable off flavors now It'll be fine, from what I understand it's not really a problem of off flavors but that oxygen is potentialy fatal to lactobacilus (it's possible the dying of the lacto could cause off flavors, actually it is all quite confusing as is most lambic style fermentation), that is why most add the lacto after initial fermentation but some have had success using both sacch and lacto from the start.

There is quite alot of discussion regarding lacto fermentation in this thread: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/working-lactobacillus-215797/
However there are some misleading discrepencies there as well.

All my "lambic" experiences are summed up in one continuing brew where I had no commercial innoculation, the wild yeast came from my cellar and I speculate it does harbour an incredibly agressive lactobacillus. https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f127/13-gallons-unintentionally-wild-brown-can-i-use-133003/ I continue to add to this brew but all addition are previously sacch fermented.

I would try whichever method you feel is logical, There are numerous books and discussions to learn from but in my experience it is extremely hard to mess up beer of any kind.