Why Not to Pitch On Your Yeast Cake

[meddin]

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.

I don't think anyone was being rude. At least on purpose (this is the internet after all ).

That being said, I think the point being expressed by some here is that there are ways to improve your aready fine beer. If you are satisfied with what you have, that is totally fine. It doesn't mean it cant be even better though.

I'll use a weak analogy. I was painting a room in my house a couple of weeks ago...I don't much like painting, and was cutting some corners. I put in a lot less effort than others may have done, but was happy enough with the end result. Now, had I worked harder, paid closer attention to the details, it would have turned out even better. There is no argument there. It wasnt, however, worth it to me at the time.

If you are happy with your current methods, that's awesome! Really. But following the OP's advice will increase your chances of making your product that much better. Whether it is worth it or not, is of course up to you.

 

[slowbie]

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

Just to save you from another flailing attempt Bob, I don't think that you want to imitate the second "brewery", as it is a power plant.

 

[scottlindner]

That being said, I think the point being expressed by some here is that there are ways to improve your aready fine beer.

Unfortunately, that isn't true. The title of the thread alone tells us the perspective on this forum is that there is only one method for producing good beer.

 

[slowbie]

Unfortunately, that isn't true. The title of the thread alone tells us the perspective on this forum is that there is only one method for producing good beer.

Each successive post from you gets more and more ridiculous. The title of this thread tells ME that there are reasons to not pitch on my yeast cake, and the text of the thread informs me that my beer will be better if I focus on pitching the correct amount of yeast as much as I focus on ingredients and other steps in my process.

I'm just confused by your continued insistence that this is stupid. I think we all agree that you can make good beer by pitching on the yeast cake. You can make good beer without fermentation temperature control, too. However, I think that we can all agree that temperature control can make your beer better. All Bob is trying to say is that proper pitch rates also make your beer better.

There are some things in my life where I just want good. When I cook, I rarely buy fresh whole spices. The ground packaged version is good enough for me. I can make good food. However, if I switch to fresh spices my food will be noticeably better. Beer is different though. If I'm making beer I want to make the best beer that I possibly can. Pitching properly can help me do that. It's just one variable among many that contribute to a better final product.

 

[meddin]

Unfortunately, that isn't true. The title of the thread alone tells us the perspective on this forum is that there is only one method for producing good beer.

Um, the title of the thread is 'Why Not To Pitch On Your Yeast Cake'. The OP then goes on to explain that your beer can be better by following a few, relatively simple, rules. The post wasn't titled 'Do Everyting They Way I Say Or Your Beer Is Going To Be Garbage', right?

Again, for the record, I often practice sub-par brewing habits. Sometimes I'm lazy. It doesn't mean that I don't believe that improved process won't make my beer better.

 

[Bob]

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.

Now you're being intentionally rude. I hope the moderators take note of it.

Let me point out for the record that, before you edited the post, what you really wrote was:

Now you're really showing your ignorance of beer.

That's laughable in itself. But I digress.

Please note I nowhere said that barrels or other vessels which contained desirable microflora were worth of nothing but firewood. Some wooden vessels, which contained desirable non-Saccharomyces microflora, were as prized historically as they are today. In fact, porter wouldn't have become porter in the 18th century without long maturation in wooden vessels which "infected" the beer with what brewing historians believe from flavor descriptions to be a kind of Brettanomyces. That, however, is by no means proof, historically or modernly, that all microflora infecting wooden vessels are desirable.
Please also note I was speaking of historical facts when it came to dealing with equipment. You are absolutely correct that, MODERNLY, many brewers create wonderful MODERN beers in wooden equipment our brewing ancestors would have considered hopelessly foxed. What you don't know is that many of the beers we modern drinkers acknowledge as wonderful would without question have gotten the stink-eye from our ancestors, been thrown back in the brewer's face. I know this because I look beyond the bar-stool at the local brewery and research historical brewing.

Kindly look now at your accusation through the prism of this knowledge and ask yourself if you really needed to so basely issue an ad hominem attack.

Really, you should just stop. You're arguing from a position so weak that it's not at all worth it.

Bob

 

[Bob]

Now, friends, let's dial it back.

Any more questions? Any more worthwhile comments?

Bob

 

[scottlindner]

I don't claim to know much about the science, but scaring people away from the hobby isn't good for the community. That's where I'm coming from.

 

[olllllo]

Bob. I think you've provided some great information, but as long as we are talking improvement, here are my suggestions:
1) Avoid value judgement terms such as lazy, and you won't offend the lazy.
2) If you're not going to agrue then don't.

Others
1) No matter what Bob says, he can't make you do anything you don't want to.
2) You're only lazy if you agree with what he says and choose to do otherwise. Or maybe just willfully ignorant.
3) If the thought of changing your process is unbearable to you, stop reading.

Also, stop screwing with the tags. It's childish and passive agressive and makes me thing less of you.

And yes, I am using value judgement terms. It comes withthe job.

 

[meddin]

2) You're only lazy if you agree with what he says and choose to do otherwise.

This describes me perfectly!

 

[meddin]

In the intrest of getting this thread back on topic, I have a question. The OP gives instruction on how to harvest slury from the cake in order to more accurately pitch the proper amount.

Bearing that in mind, would it be better at that point to just go ahead and wash the yeast? Is washed yeast inherently 'better' than cake slurry? Or is itnot really worth it if you are not going to store it for any leangth of time?

 

[scottlindner]

In the intrest of getting this thread back on topic, I have a question. The OP gives instruction on how to harvest slury from the cake in order to more accurately pitch the proper amount.

Bearing that in mins, would it be better at that point to just go ahead and wash the yeast? Is washed yeast inherently 'better' than cake slurry? Or is itnot really worth it if you are not going to store it for any leangth of time?

I can envision the following considerations that you'd want to consider:

1. are you concerned with prolonged trub exposure?
2. are you concerned about autolysis (assuming washing removed an appreciable amount of dead yeast cells)
3. more accurate measure of the quantity of yeast to be pitched

 

[meddin]

I can envision the following considerations that you'd want to consider:

1. are you concerned with prolonged trub exposure?
2. are you concerned about autolysis (assuming washing removed an appreciable amount of dead yeast cells)
3. more accurate measure of the quantity of yeast to be pitched

1. A little...
2. Not too much actually.
3. This would be my main reason. Plus, I have heard that washed yeast stores better longer term. Not sure if that is wholly accurate though (I think it may have been covered in this thread... I will have to go back and look).

 

[masonsjax]

I have not read this entire post. From the looks of it, I don't want to.

I'm a lazy brewer. I barely measure anything, opting instead to eyeball most measurements. I know my equipment well enough that this system produces consistently repeatable results, for me. I will probably start removing some of the cake from my carboys before pitching a second or third beer, rather than (over)pitching to the entire cake like usual. Im happy with my results so far, but I'm happy to make tweaks in the right direction, especially if it's an easy adjustment.

I always enjoy reading scientific posts like this, and especially like Bob's well educated viewpoint. Thank you for freely sharing what you've labored to learn, Bob.

 

[scottlindner]

Plus, I have heard that washed yeast stores better longer term. Not sure if that is wholly accurate though (I think it may have been covered in this thread... I will have to go back and look).

I may have misunderstood your initial question. If you are harvesting to pitch immediately, then this doesn't matter. If you're storing, I would always wash. Although I can't recall my rationale, and I'm too lazy to search this thread to see if it has already been addressed.

Scott

 

[DKershner]

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

It makes sense, but I was wondering if there was an adjustment for all the dead guys in the beginning slurry. Seems like those would take up room in the pitching slurry. I guess "a little more" makes sense though!

Looks like I missed a lot of conversation...

 

[Doc Robinson]

It makes sense, but I was wondering if there was an adjustment for all the dead guys in the beginning slurry. Seems like those would take up room in the pitching slurry. I guess "a little more" makes sense though!

Looks like I missed a lot of conversation...

Yeah...I am still struggling with this concept of "slurry". I have 1 cm of compacted washed yeast in the bottom of a 16 oz. ball jar. Let's say the ball jar is 12 cm tall and 7 cm in diameter (462 cm cubed). The volume of my yeast @ 1 cm would be 38 cm cubed. So, I have 8% of the volume in the ball jar as a compacted yeast cake...therefore, I have 1.3 oz (16 oz. x 8%) of yeast at the bottom of this thing.

How many cells? At 29.6 ml/oz, it looks like I have 38.5 ml of "slurry". You are saying I can expect this to be about 38.5 Billion cells?

I'm posting the pic again for reference:

 

[Bob]

Bob. I think you've provided some great information, but as long as we are talking improvement, here are my suggestions:
1) Avoid value judgement terms such as lazy, and you won't offend the lazy.
2) If you're not going to agrue then don't.

Fair enough. After the bit immediately following, I'm done.

I don't claim to know much about the science, but scaring people away from the hobby isn't good for the community. That's where I'm coming from.

I get you. I agree that scaring people away is bad. I disagree that what I'm advocating is necessarily frightening. Is it more complicated? Yes. But to operate under the assumption that it's frightening doesn't necessarily follow. That's all. Fair enough?

How many cells? At 29.6 ml/oz, it looks like I have 38.5 ml of "slurry". You are saying I can expect this to be about 38.5 Billion cells?

I'm no expert on washed yeast. But, given that washed yeast contains far fewer non-yeast solids than harvested yeast - without doing a cell count and examination under microscopy I can't say for sure how much - it follows that the viable cell count has to increase by the same ratio as non-yeast solids decreases.

Fix tells us that, on average, a harvested slurry contains 25% yeast solids and 75% non-yeast solids. So if you remove 100% of the non-yeast solids, your slurry goes from 25% purity to 100% purity, or pretty much what you get from a starter or a sample from a yeast manufacturer. Fix also tells us that there are 4 to 4.5 billion cells per ml of pure yeast solids. Therefore, if you have 38.5 ml of pure yeast solids, you have 154 to 173 billion cells in your washed slurry (provided it's fresh, newly washed).

Make sense?

Meddin, I hope that clears things up for you, too.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[rayg]

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.

They may be the best there is, but I doubt it's because of the PhD!

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.

Me too. I don't drink Bud regular but they make Natural Ice which is
5.9% abv and a clean tasting beer, if relatively flavorless. The fact
that it is consistently fresh tasting is amazing enough, but even more
amazing is that it is only $1.50 for a 40 ounce bottle in the local
convenience store! This is why I don't understand why anyone
bothers homebrewing a "cream ale".

Ray

 

[Doc Robinson]

Therefore, if you have 38.5 ml of pure yeast solids, you have 154 to 173 billion cells in your washed slurry (provided it's fresh, newly washed).

Make sense?

Well slap my ass and call me Shirley. Given that estimate, I think a conservative estimate for 38.5 ml of washed yeast that has been sitting for 2 months would be maybe, 65% viable (a combination of solids that aren't yeast and storage viability decreases). This would essentially leave me with 65% of 4 Billion x 38.5 ml or about 100 Billion cells.

Essentially, I can treat this washed sample the same as a new smack pack.

Would you agree that this is a decent conservative estimate?

Thanks for your help Bob!

 

[Bob]

There you go, Shirley.



Actually, I don't know I'd be all that confident with 65%. As I've said before, I'm no expert on washed yeast - I wish someone would do a comprehensive study on washed slants on a week-by-week basis with methylene blue and a hemocytometer - but I suspect the viability of a two-month-old sample to be considerably less than 65%. I equally suspect viability to be greater than that one can expect from unwashed, harvested slurry (which is practically nil at that length of time). Note again I haven't a shred of proof to back that up! It's just thinking out loud.

I'd treat it more as a small smack-pack, i.e., not the Wyeast "XL" smack-pack but its smaller brother, when planning starter-building. If you're pleasantly surprised by how viable it is, no harm done; just refrigerate and move up your brew day if you can. If you have to step up the starter as I suspect, no harm done, because that eventuality is planned for.

Cheers!

Bob

 

[Yankeehillbrewer]

Here is why I think it's a bad idea...

 

[scottlindner]

Should we take a show of hands for those willing to participate in a rewrite of the original post of this thread to be used as a sticky? The information is good, but the post and follow up are not objective. I would recommend the post and title to be along the lines of "Things to consider before racking onto an active yeast cake" to ensure the focus is objective.

I am willing to contribute and have a few good ideas of how to keep it objective.

Cheers,
Scott

 

[COLObrewer]

What were we talking about again?:rockin:

 

[Bob]

I totally support editing my original post to make it less inflammatory. Send ideas via PM, please.

Bob

 

[scottlindner]

It may be best to be semi open and collaborative. Private messages to you may not be fully captured. We could start another thread just for the rework, or a distro list by private email.

Scott

 

[Bob]

Let me do some editing myself, first. If the edited post is acceptable, we'll go from there.

 

[scottlindner]

That's a great place to start. Here are some thoughts I'd like to see in such a post. List all of the factors that go into this decision, and then the pros/cons/arguments for each. So partly like a wikipedia article, and somewhat like the voter information guides that list the facts, arguments, and a position statement from the infavor, and opposing sides for each of the arguments or considerations. That would keep it completely objective, and allow any reader to come to their own conclusions. That.. plus all of the great technical research you've done.

Scott

 

[Bob]

I get you. I'll work on it. I can't promise I can be completely objective - no author really is - especially about something about which I feel so strongly. All I can promise is I'll try - I'll try not to be hurtfully dismissive of methods not mine.

Owzat?

 

[scottlindner]

If I recall the major argument points are:
1. overpitching
2. underpitching
3. prolonged trub exposure
4. autolysis
5. sanitary issues

For each of these points, there are the two sides of the argument. From my view, I scoop out some and get close enough that I'm neither significantly over or underpitching. That would apply to the first two. Your argument would be that it's impossible to determine the quantity of viable yeast in a yeast cake. There certainly are facts that aid in the decision of each of these. For startes, after reading what you have written in the first post, I have a better idea of how to ballpark how much active yeast cake to use. I still don't have a clue that I'm close.

In terms of organization, I think your facts and a discussion on the affects of proper and improper pitching rates, and the methods of pitching (dry yeast, vial, smack pack, starter, and active yeast cake) might help kick start the article. but that's just my view, it's your brain work, so whatever you think works.

Scott