Yankeehillbrewer
Well-Known Member
We agree..
That's the spirit
We agree..
That's the spirit
I don't understand the concept of "slurry". This is a 16 oz. jar with a compacted washed yeast cake on the bottom. How do I estimate the cell count?
and a terrible beer using great science.
Ya mean like Budweiser?
From what I understand from this thread, you're going to want to make a starter if you've stored that washed yeast for any longer than a week. The viable yeast count decreases enough that it is nearly impossible to estimate.
Also, Bob talks a lot about the slurry from your primary, which he estimates has only 25% of the cell count of the slurry from a starter, so make sure you're working with the right numbers for the type of slurry you're using.
You're right, I misremembered it as being any stored yeast.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.
its all just preference i guess.... I don't see it as crap...i just see it as more of the same as what i am adding. The krauzen ring? Theres just going to be another. The trub? Its just going to settle to the bottom. The autolysis? Never been a problem for me.
Again. There are plenty of theories and paper research. But what I care about it what you can actuality get away with an personally its a lot more than what a lot of people here suggest.
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.
If you don't trust the sanitization of your first batch, how can you trust it in the second?
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!Being sanitary isn't a problem for me, but if it's your problem.. then don't repitch.
Why would me not making a starter irritate you?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
While it takes great skill to produce a repeatable product, most of us don't even care to do so.
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.
Does anybody really believe that the ancient germans and belgians we revere so much washed out their damn fermenters every batch????
How do you know this to be true? I care.
Anyone want to talk about yeast?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
With that I agree entirely.I don't disagree with anyone in this thread, but its quite silly how worked up everyone gets.
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.There are however a lot of people claiming that its bad form and makes bad beer.
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?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.
Well, that last bit isn't true, because here I am.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".
And I/we don't? Urging brewers to implement good practices is not stoking fears. These things are not mutually exclusive.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 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.On purpose. I don't tweak their fear with the unknown of autolysis, cell count, pitching rate, sanitation, ect ect.
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.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.
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.
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.
QA cannot absolutely guarantee the production of quality products, unfortunately, but makes this more likely.
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.
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.
Enter your email address to join: