Why Not to Pitch On Your Yeast Cake

[scottlindner]

What if your goal isn't to see what you can get away with?

I have personal experience with very good homebrewers and with the laid back "everything works" hombrewers. IME, there is very little overlap between these groups.

What about the group of very good homebrewers that are lad back?

Beer isn't exactly a 21st century science. It is very very old world, and many of the things you chalk up to being lax, I chalk up to not being anal retentive to the point of being OCD about it.

Scott

 

[Bob]

If you don't trust the sanitization of your first batch, how can you trust it in the second?

Because I've dumped out all the stuff and cleaned the fermenter.

Being sanitary isn't a problem for me, but if it's your problem.. then don't repitch.

Whoa, now - I think we're talking about being clean. Me, I learned not to trust that a thing can be sanitary unless it's clean. Hell, even Papa Charlie preaches that!

It takes less than fifteen minutes to clean your equipment. Why not take care of your equipment? Why take the risk?

As YankeeHill said, the first step in brewing quality beer is sanitation. The first step in sanitation is cleanliness. A fermenter crusted with the krauesen and other detritus is not clean. QED.

Why would me not making a starter irritate you?

Frankly, it irritates me, too. The key to why is in the footnote to my original post:

"It will never cease to amaze me that brewers who will obsess over how many grams of Saazer are added at flameout, or the differences between US and Canadian 2-row malts, will just put any ol' amount of yeast in their fermenter."

If you're going to obsess about one part of your brewing ingredients, you're not doing the job properly if you fail to observe proper procedures with another. You wouldn't just toss any old amount of hops in the beer and expect proper results, would you? Nope. Neither should you do that with yeast. Add to this that yeast management is so terribly simple, and you can see why it's so irritating that people refuse to do it. It appears as petulance.

I think Bob said that harvested yeast that had not been washed loses 25% viability w/in a week. Washed yeast should be more resiliant. Maybe I need to re-read it.

I did say that, and I think I said I have no data on the resilience of washed yeast. I advise treating it like harvested slurry; that seems a safe practice. Get it going in a starter, chill the starter, and pitch the slurry therefrom.

What if your goal isn't to see what you can get away with?

I have personal experience with very good homebrewers and with the laid back "everything works" homebrewers. IME, there is very little overlap between these groups.

This.

Lax homebrewers get lucky when they brew an excellent beer, and have little hope of ever successfully reproducing that success. If that's enough for them, fine! I can't come into your brewery and force you to do things my way. All I ask is that lax brewers don't claim their processes are proper or in any way equal to established, proper procedure.

And for all those who started bashing Bud, here's my challenge to you: Try brewing some. Go ahead. Try it. Brewing a light lager is the most challenging thing in the field. Now you brew it in Newark, NJ and have someone else brew it in Tacoma, WA. Put your version and his version side by side. Is there a difference? If so, you screwed up. You're fired.

The brewmasters of the big beer factories have PhDs in this field and pull down six-figure salaries. Why? Because you have to be the best there is to brew like that.

It never ceases to irritate me when people dismiss Bud and other beers as somehow beneath contempt when they have a snowball's chance in a nuclear inferno of brewing anything that requires that level of expertise.

Beer isn't exactly a 21st century science. It is very very old world, and many of the things you chalk up to being lax, I chalk up to not being anal retentive to the point of being OCD about it.

What makes you think our brewing ancestors were any less stringent with such procedures as they knew? Had you a knowledge of historical brewing practices, you'd know that the exact opposite is true - in the days before advances in brewing science, the only way to replicate good results was to practice what you knew to be proper procedures every single time. Even then an incomplete knowledge of brewing science - compared with today - meant you sometimes ended up with foxed or flat or under-attenuated beer. But in order to reduce those situations as much as possible, you followed the procedures you were taught exactly, without deviation.

Far from being support for being lax, historical brewing tells us the observation of proper procedure is even more important. Hell, historical brewers were more anal retentive than me, and I spell it CDO, because OCD isn't in alphabetical order.

Bob

 

[DKershner]

What if your goal isn't to see what you can get away with?

I have personal experience with very good homebrewers and with the laid back "everything works" hombrewers. IME, there is very little overlap between these groups.

There's also a difference between being laid back and "everything works". Many, MANY things in brewing beer you really should not care too much about. Now, when you are talking about two processes where one is super clean and exposes a minuscule risk, and the other is slightly less clean, but still very clean and hedges against that risk, which group do the two brewers fall in?

After all, this is supposed to be fun!

 

[cheezydemon3]

Well put. It is extremely lazy and unsanitary. Bob talked me out of pouring wort onto a cake over a year ago, with many of the same arguments he made in his OP (albeit they were dumbed down for me!)

The practice of knocking out onto a cake irritates me as much as homebrewers who refuse to make yeast starters for their White Labs vials and Wyeast smack packs. Again, if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right.

My 1/2 cake is better than your starter, so be annoyed.....very annoyed.

 

[scottlindner]

Bob,

You are confusing a repeatable quality process, with a quality product. If you're familiar with ISO 9000, you'll know that all it guarantees is the same quality you've produced before.

 

[DKershner]

Bob,

You are confusing a repeatable quality process, with a quality product. If you're familiar with ISO 9000, you'll know that all it guarantees is the same quality you've produced before.

I agree with this, most of us don't ever even brew the exact same recipe twice. While it takes great skill to produce a repeatable product, most of us don't even care to do so.

Also, we are getting a bit into beer brewing philosophy which should be reserved for another post, I am as guilty as anyone.

Back to the yeast cake science!

 

[cheezydemon3]

Does anybody really believe that the ancient germans and belgians we revere so much washed out their damn fermenters every batch???? Did they really have starsan back then? And stir plates and beakers?

Relax fellas. My beer is damn good, and I doubt that it would be much better, if at all, from a clean fermenter and a shiny new pack of yeast.

 

[scottlindner]

I agree with this, most of us don't ever even brew the exact same recipe twice. While it takes great skill to produce a repeatable product, most of us don't even care to do so.

Also, we are getting a bit into beer brewing philosophy which should be reserved for another post, I am as guilty as anyone.

Back to the yeast cake science!

Agreed. I really enjoyed reading the details in the OP's first post. I didn't know some of those details, and it will forever be in the back of my mind while I'm guessing how many scoops of yeast cake to pull out before racking my next batch on top of it. I always went with 50% just to not overdo it. Now I have more to think about and I might take more or less out depending on the previous batch and next batch.

Scott

 

[wildwest450]

While it takes great skill to produce a repeatable product, most of us don't even care to do so.

How do you know this to be true? I care.

 

[Bob]

You are confusing a repeatable quality process, with a quality product. If you're familiar with ISO 9000, you'll know that all it guarantees is the same quality you've produced before.

With all due respect, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm simply stating that a repeatable quality-assurance process assures a quality product.

Here's what Prof. Bamforth says about it, on p. 138 of Standards of Brewing:

"The ultimate ethos, whether you're an international brewing conglomerate or brewing in a bucket, should be 'right first time'. You should have systems and procedures that assure quality."

How are you going to argue with that?

Does anybody really believe that the ancient germans and belgians we revere so much washed out their damn fermenters every batch????

Don't know why you think you need to bold this, but I'll bite.

I don't believe it.

I know it.

My study of historical brewing techniques has revealed that one of the most common bits of advice to brewers is to do things like make sure all equipment is absolutely clean and to scald all equipment before use with boiling water.

Now I'm done with the philosophical hijack.

Anyone want to talk about yeast?

Cheers,

Bob

 

[DKershner]

How do you know this to be true? I care.

You want to debate about whether or not homebrewers on the whole produce the same recipe over and over or whether they produce a variety and/or tweak recipes?

Now, if you are talking about things like holding temps steady and hitting your gravity numbers, I think you have a much stronger case.

Or, if you are considering becoming a commercial brewer, this would also be very important.

Anyway, I guess I dont KNOW it to be true, I just listen to these people around me and it seems like most try new things every time they brew.

 

[DKershner]

Anyone want to talk about yeast?

Sure!

If you have a sample of washed yeast that has been in the fridge too long...say 6 months...what size starter should you start with and what is a good way to estimate the yeast count AFTER that starter?

Mr. Malty is of no help after you get more than 2 weeks in the fridge.

EDIT: I asked this same question about expired yeast packets and the small sample size concensus was that the yeast seems to "catch up" with the viability as you step up starters. Is that possible?

 

[slowbie]

Anyway, I guess I dont KNOW it to be true, I just listen to these people around me and it seems like most try new things every time they brew.

If I am trying something new that means that I want to know what the effect of the new thing is. The best way to do this is to make sure that the rest of my process, from mash temps to sanitation to pitch rates(on topic!) is consistent from batch to batch. That means if I taste my first and second revisions of a similar recipe, I know that any differences come from ingredients and I can properly determine what effects my changes had.

 

[meddin]

Does anybody really believe that the ancient germans and belgians we revere so much washed out their damn fermenters every batch???? Did they really have starsan back then? And stir plates and beakers?

Relax fellas. My beer is damn good, and I doubt that it would be much better, if at all, from a clean fermenter and a shiny new pack of yeast.

I think Bob's point was that these 'ancient' brewers followed established procedure (science of the time, such as it was) every time they brewed. I don't mean to speak for the OP, but the idea here is to use the best possible science & proven established practice to improve your beer.

If you are happy with your beer, keep doing it the way you have. No problem at all . I know that I for one am not as finicky with many of my procedures as I know I could be. Does my beer suffer from it? Probably. Do I still like my beer? Sure! Would I like it to be better? Yes. That's the point, right? If you don't feel reward is worth the extra effort, thats cool too. We all make choices based on effort vs. reward all the time.

As for the ancient brewers we revere so much: I do revere them for blazing the trail for beer we all use today. I pretty sure, however, that a Maibock brewed brewed in 1750 could be improved by today's practices. Maybe I'm wrong. But 'old' breweries (Guinness, Bass, et al) don't brew exactly like they did 200 years ago...

 

[BioBeing]

If I am trying something new that means that I want to know what the effect of the new thing is. The best way to do this is to make sure that the rest of my process, from mash temps to sanitation to pitch rates(on topic!) is consistent from batch to batch. That means if I taste my first and second revisions of a similar recipe, I know that any differences come from ingredients and I can properly determine what effects my changes had.

<nods in agreement>

Only change one variable at a time.

 

[DKershner]

If I am trying something new that means that I want to know what the effect of the new thing is. The best way to do this is to make sure that the rest of my process, from mash temps to sanitation to pitch rates(on topic!) is consistent from batch to batch. That means if I taste my first and second revisions of a similar recipe, I know that any differences come from ingredients and I can properly determine what effects my changes had.

I'll advocate nailing down your process as much as the next guy, but deciding between two ways to do something, BOTH of which are going to make very good beer, is a different story.

There is a big difference between keeping your mash at 152 and deciding between various theories on how to reuse yeast, all of which have produced award-winning beer. Hence this 10+ page debate.

<nods in agreement>

Only change one variable at a time.

<nods along as well>

This is just one of the variables. Which is why I want Bobby to get back to us with his results!

 

[Bob]

Sure!

If you have a sample of washed yeast that has been in the fridge too long...say 6 months...what size starter should you start with and what is a good way to estimate the yeast count AFTER that starter?

Mr. Malty is of no help after you get more than 2 weeks in the fridge.

EDIT: I asked this same question about expired yeast packets and the small sample size concensus was that the yeast seems to "catch up" with the viability as you step up starters. Is that possible?

Yes. The more healthy, viable yeast end up in the bottom of the starter vessel, the better off you are. When you start building up a starter with expired yeast or an old washed slant, the cells which actually start are those with the highest viability. Stepping up the starter causes those cells to reproduce, building a larger colony of viable yeast; those cells which are not viable will be eliminated through natural selection, Mr Darwin.

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

 

[RenoDean]

when i brew a blond for the wife and those other people who don't care the "good" beers i brew, then maybe i should just pitch onto a cake and get a thinner less estery beer that they will love.

 

[Bob]

I think Bob's point was that these 'ancient' brewers followed established procedure (science of the time, such as it was) every time they brewed. I don't mean to speak for the OP, but the idea here is to use the best possible science & proven established practice to improve your beer.

Got it in one.

As for the ancient brewers we revere so much: I do revere them for blazing the trail for beer we all use today. I pretty sure, however, that a Maibock brewed brewed in 1750 could be improved by today's practices. Maybe I'm wrong. But 'old' breweries (Guinness, Bass, et al) don't brew exactly like they did 200 years ago...

I don't know that a 1750 Maibock would be improved measurably by using modern brewing science. I am convinced that consistent reproduction of that Maibock would be much more likely - if not assured - by modern brewing practices.

Modern brewing science is oriented primarily toward consistency in a product from batch to batch. For some people that's not important. I understand that. However, "consistency" need not mean "the same beer every time I brew". The techniques, procedures and instrumentation of modern brewing science permit the brewer to more fully understand what happens in his brewery. This understanding permits him to be more consistently successful, even if he never brews the same recipe twice.

That's why I think it's crucial that every brewer practice the best possible techniques. For myself, if I'm going to spend all this time and money doing something, I want to stack the odds I'll be successful. But then, I'm more goal-oriented than process-oriented; I only care about process in that a thorough understanding of and adherence to good process gives me a greater assurance of success.

Cheers!

Bob

 

[scottlindner]

With all due respect, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm simply stating that a repeatable quality-assurance process assures a quality product.

Your entire previous post was 100% about a repeatable process rather than a quality product. Your Bud example and PhD examples are the most obvious. AB doesn't hire PhDs to improve their product. They do so to improve their processes to keep the product as unchanged as possible.

This is pointless.

Scott

 

[Bob]

What are you saying is pointless, Scott?

That process can't ensure a quality product? The entire point of establishing a standardized process in a brewery is a quality product at the end of the process. If no quality product exists, the process is flawed.

Don't take my word for it; read the Bamforth book I quoted, which is all about using standardized process to assess and control quality, from the selection of raw materials to the beer in the glass.

Who said anything about improving product? Not me. That presumes a perception exists that the product requires improvement, which is not necessarily the case.

I don't really know where we're disagreeing here, Scott. Help me out.

Edited to add:I see now - You're right, I am focused on a repeatable process. I still stand by what I said before when I quoted Dr. Bamforth:

"The ultimate ethos, whether you're an international brewing conglomerate or brewing in a bucket, should be 'right first time'. You should have systems and procedures that assure quality."

In other words, a repeatable, standardized quality-assurance process assures a quality product.

At least, I think I understand you. Er.

Bob

 

[h4rdluck]

The biggest thing about this thread is its almost all entirely opinion. You can inject little scientific facts that support your opinions, but they don't in actuality prove your opinion.

I don't disagree with anyone in this thread, but its quite silly how worked up everyone gets.

There are easily enough people who rack on old yeast cakes to provide enough anecdotal experience that makes me believe there is nothing wrong with the procedure.

There are however a lot of people claiming that its bad form and makes bad beer. But have these people consistently been racking onto yeast cakes? Or is it such bad form to them they won't even consider giving it a go? That constitutes snobbery in my book. Which I have no place for.

I'm sure if you wash your yeast, pitch the proper amount of cells, make a starter every time you will make a damn fine beer. And I agree you are certainly going the extra distance. And compared to me you are way ahead of the game. I must look like some lazy slob sob to you. And you repeatedly make your opinion of me known. "Oh how people like you irritate me" "Oh i can't stand people who do this" "Oh if you do things like THAT I won't even BOTHER arguing with you".

You don't really hear those kinds of things from my side of the podium. I calm newbies fears when they do things. I tell them their beers going ot be fine. I practice bad form all the time. On purpose. I don't tweak their fear with the unknown of autolysis, cell count, pitching rate, sanitation, ect ect. I will carry on a conversation with anyone..I won't outright claim that someone is not worth my time....how rude.

If people want to strive to make their beer in such a fashion...than more power to them. But I'm making 100-150 gallons a year of the stuff and putting in 1/4 if not less of the work, and I'll be damned if people aren't always screaming for more of my beer. And that is frankly the only thing that matters to me.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Granted surgery is improved and more "consistent" today than 200 years ago, but I do not believe that cooking has had any measureable advances since the french became obsessed with it so long ago.

Perhaps with plastic, squeaky clean each time, NO RESIDUE, is better, but I bet that with a wooden fermenter it would season, not entirely unlike cast iron, and be fine for many batches in a row.

I see the risk of cleaning residue left in the fermenter to be equal or greater to that of the risk of trub effects.

 

[scottlindner]

For the new brewers that are intimidated by this thread.

Keep in mind this is what my home brewery looks like:

This is what Bob's home brewery looks like:

 

[cheezydemon3]

LMAO scott.

 

[Bob]

The biggest thing about this thread is its almost all entirely opinion. You can inject little scientific facts that support your opinions, but they don't in actuality prove your opinion.

I'm sorry you think standard brewing practice is "little". I mourn for you that you think supporting that practice with solid documentation by some of the biggest names in the brewing industry still confines that standard brewing practice to the realm of "opinion".

Opinion is supported by fact becomes fact.

I don't disagree with anyone in this thread, but its quite silly how worked up everyone gets.

With that I agree entirely.

There are however a lot of people claiming that its bad form and makes bad beer.

On the contrary, I have said nothing of the kind. I have said the practice makes mediocre beer, in comparison with properly-prepared wort, as proved by blind tasting panels. A practice which makes a product which at best can be called mediocre is a bad practice. QED.

But have these people consistently been racking onto yeast cakes? Or is it such bad form to them they won't even consider giving it a go? That constitutes snobbery in my book. Which I have no place for.

I've tasted beers brewed that way, and both organized and participated in blind tastings. I've tasted the difference. So no, I won't give it a go. My experience tells me it's bad practice which leads to mediocre beer. What would giving it a go do besides waste my time, effort and money confirming something I already knew through my research?

That's not snobbery. That's intelligence and discretion being exercised. If you have no place for that, I can't help you.

I'm sure if you wash your yeast, pitch the proper amount of cells, make a starter every time you will make a damn fine beer. And I agree you are certainly going the extra distance. And compared to me you are way ahead of the game. I must look like some lazy slob sob to you. And you repeatedly make your opinion of me known. "Oh how people like you irritate me" "Oh i can't stand people who do this" "Oh if you do things like THAT I won't even BOTHER arguing with you".

Well, that last bit isn't true, because here I am.

My question for you is this: Why are you so quick to cut corners? Do you cut corners in your other ingredients, like malt and hops? Do you carefully measure your other ingredients? If mashing, do you monitor the amount of your strike and sparge liquors?

If you do all that, why do you then refuse to quantify the fourth major ingredient, one which (arguably) has the most significant impact on flavor?

That's why I use words like "irritate". If you measure every other ingredient and refuse to measure the fourth, if you refuse to clean and sanitize your equipment before use, the only possible explanation is laziness. When you kick against good practices in a public forum with unsubstantiated (read "anecdotal") claims of quality, it starts to resemble petulance, which is even more annoying.

You don't really hear those kinds of things from my side of the podium. I calm newbies fears when they do things. I tell them their beers going ot be fine.

And I/we don't? Urging brewers to implement good practices is not stoking fears. These things are not mutually exclusive.

On purpose. I don't tweak their fear with the unknown of autolysis, cell count, pitching rate, sanitation, ect ect.

I wonder why you assume talking about brewing with a new brewer will "tweak their fear". That assumption is false. Will some new brewers get confused and intimidated? Sure. But to willfully withhold information because you decided they didn't need to know it, or because you decided they might become intimidated is arrogant, sir, because you presume to judge what the new brewer is capable of understanding. I, on the other hand, offer whatever information I can bring to the table to help anyone make the best beer they possibly can.

If people want to strive to make their beer in such a fashion...than more power to them. But I'm making 100-150 gallons a year of the stuff and putting in 1/4 if not less of the work, and I'll be damned if people aren't always screaming for more of my beer. And that is frankly the only thing that matters to me.

Bully for you! I mean that. I'm glad people appreciate your work. That's what this is all about - raising happiness levels with mugs of adult beverage. We each have our preferences of how to go about it.

You may use whatever method works for you. It doesn't make your method any more, or my method any less, objectively correct. I'm only listing the practices as recognized and accepted by professional and well-informed amateur brewers across the globe. You don't have to accept them.

Perhaps with plastic, squeaky clean each time, NO RESIDUE, is better, but I bet that with a wooden fermenter it would season, not entirely unlike cast iron, and be fine for many batches in a row.

Unfortunately, this is both true and untrue.

First, a wooden vessel can become foxed. Historically as now, when a wooden vessel becomes foxed, the only thing it's useful for is firewood.

Second, think through what I wrote before. One of the most common instructions in historical brewing manuals is to scald all equipment - including the wooden vessels - with boiling water immediately before use. Why do you think they advised that?

Mr Lindner, I assure you my brewery looks exactly like the first picture. In fact, all of my fermenters have the same label!

The difference between the people taking cheap shots and me is I want my brewery to have quality assurance procedures on a par with the brewery in the second picture. I want everyone to brew beer as consistently excellent as that produced by the best, most highly-regarded brewing practices as implemented by the best, most highly-regarded commercial breweries - breweries like Sierra Nevada, Victory, Dogfish Head, Bell's, Unibroue, Ommegang, etc.

I guess you think that's a bad thing. For the life of me, I can't figure out why.

Regards,

Bob

 

[scottlindner]

Mr Lindner, I assure you my brewery looks exactly like the first picture. The difference between the nay-sayers and me is I want my brewery to have quality assurance procedures on a level with the second picture.

I knew it! You DO rack onto an active yeast cake!

Read the second sentence in this WP article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_assurance
I'll quote it for the forum's sake.

QA cannot absolutely guarantee the production of quality products, unfortunately, but makes this more likely.

 

[cheezydemon3]

bob

regards.

 

[scottlindner]

First, a wooden vessel can become foxed. Historically as now, when a wooden vessel becomes foxed, the only thing it's useful for is firewood.

Be careful with how arrogant you are.

Just last night I was at a local brewery that specializes in aging beer in that firewood you're talking about. They intentionally buy used, funky, nasty, barrels that were slated for firewood.. and OMG.. sorry to say this, but one of those firewood barrels of aged beer they made.. oh.. I don't know if I can do this to you.. well.. OK.. here goes... led to a GABF Gold this year.

Sorry mate.. but now you're just full of it.

 

[Bob]

I knew it! You DO rack onto an active yeast cake!

Huh? I harvest from those buckets.

Make sense, man. You're grasping at straws.

Read the second sentence in this WP article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_assurance
I'll quote it for the forum's sake.

I'll repeat it, with the important stuff in bold:

QA cannot absolutely guarantee the production of quality products, unfortunately, but makes this more likely.

You do realize that the more you flail about trying to "prove" me wrong, the more solidly you're making my point, right?



Oh, and will the person stupidly invoking Godwin's Law by tagging the thread with the word "Nazi" please stop? You're only embarrassing the adults.

Bob