Why Not to Pitch On Your Yeast Cake

[masonsjax]

Just out of curiosity, I've heard that larger commercial breweries like Sierra Nevada rely on massive pitch rates in order to go from wort to bottle in something like 3 days. I know we're talking about a very different scale here, but how can it be fine for them and a big no-no for us small timers? Would they turn out a much better product if they slowed down and pitched less yeast? Is it a noticeable difference?

 

[remilard]

Just out of curiosity, I've heard that larger commercial breweries like Sierra Nevada rely on massive pitch rates in order to go from wort to bottle in something like 3 days. I know we're talking about a very different scale here, but how can it be fine for them and a big no-no for us small timers? Would they turn out a much better product if they slowed down and pitched less yeast? Is it a noticeable difference?

You heard wrong. Sierra Nevada does not bottle in 3 days and their pitching rate is comparable to the rates advocated by Fix, Bamforth, Jamil Z etc.

Pitching huge rates would only speed up fermentation by a max of the 6 give or take hours of lag time that results from the rates advocated in literature.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Again, whitelabs does not produce shiny new yeast by magic.

The strain of yeast you use is probably 3000 years old.

Pitching on part of a yeast cake is as reliable a cell count as a starter if you don't have a way to count the viable yeast either way.

 

[remilard]

Again, whitelabs does not produce shiny new yeast by magic.

The strain of yeast you use is probably 3000 years old.

Pitching on part of a yeast cake is as reliable a cell count as a starter if you don't have a way to count the viable yeast either way.

Nobody said you couldn't estimate the cells in a yeast cake, but when you repitch in the entire cake what you are doing is not caring how many cells there are.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Nobody said you couldn't estimate the cells in a yeast cake, but when you repitch in the entire cake what you are doing is not caring how many cells there are.

I go for about 2 cups of yeast left after I discard some.

 

[jmo88]

This thread has been mostly about the effects of overpitching. Some are combatting this by eliminating half of the cake. I would think that repitching the yeast cake, whether half or whole, would still be bad for the beer because of all the trub. If you are going through several cycles of trub, won't this have a negative impact on your beer? While I agree that pitch rate is very important, clean yeast seems even more important.

 

[mojotele]

I think that just pitching onto a cake because it is there and easy may be something like not taking hydrometer readings, but when I brew a beer specifically so I can pitch a large barleywine or RIS on that beer's cake I don't think I'm going to have trouble repeating that whole process, nor is it for laziness that I do it, but I need the high cell count to chew through all the fermentables in the big beers, and get a good attenuation.

That's cool. I don't think there's really anything wrong with that. You're clearly happy with the results so keep on doing it.

If you weren't happy with the result, though, it would be tough to fully define the problem. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Bru]

Can someone please do a test next brew day - split the batch into two fermenters, pitch the one onto a yeast cake and use the recommended pitch rate in the other (same yeast strain), ferment and age as per usual and then blind taste. It seems easy enough. My next brew (tomorrow) is a big belgain so no good for the test.

 

[suprchunk]

Big Belgian would be a good test subject.

 

[Bru]

I guess it would be. Next brew - one batch with slurry, the other on the cake.

 

[NewBrewest]

Can someone please do a test next brew day - split the batch into two fermenters, pitch the one onto a yeast cake and use the recommended pitch rate in the other (same yeast strain), ferment and age as per usual and then blind taste. It seems easy enough. My next brew (tomorrow) is a big belgain so no good for the test.

Actually it seems like the differences would be the most pronounced in a big belgian, because you have the combination of a lot of yeast activity and a yeast which produces a ton of flavors. If there was a difference it would show up most substantially in this case.

If you couldn't taste the difference between two big belgians, I don't think anyone could say that it would affect the taste between two small lagers.

 

[carp]

I doubt that a single such experiment would prove or demonstrate anything. A significant aspect of the premise of the OP is that you would have to do SEVERAL such tests and compare the quality and repeatability of each approach. As another poster wrote recently, its certainly possible to make great beer pitching on the cake, but that one is more likely to make consistently great beer by taking more care with yeast quantities.

 

[Bru]

This is my plan - feel free to comment :
brew day tomorrow - Belgain Golden Strong Ale with WLP530 1.061 (exlcudes sugar added at 1 week - total OG : 1.085 - 2L starter)

In four weeks I will brew a Belgian Dark Strong Ale 1.082 (22L batch)
Split into two 11L batches
Remove 1 cup of slurry from cake of Golden (which will be racked to secondary same day)
Pitch one batch onto remainder of cake
Pitch 1 cup slurry into other batch

Is this scientific enough for a test ?

 

[NewBrewest]

I doubt that a single such experiment would prove or demonstrate anything. A significant aspect of the premise of the OP is that you would have to do SEVERAL such tests and compare the quality and repeatability of each approach. As another poster wrote recently, its certainly possible to make great beer pitching on the cake, but that one is more likely to make consistently great beer by taking more care with yeast quantities.

Understood, but we are talking science, and if pitching on a yeast cake yields an equal, maybe superior beer sometimes, there must be a reason. The trick is to understand it, and duplicate the results you want. That's how human innovation has always worked. That's why we don't use model T's anymore.

 

[Ichthy]

Replication! You need it to come up with any "evidence".

 

[Bru]

Is anyone else keen ? A few tests should quickly reveal a pattern.

 

[remilard]

Wait, why haven't any brewing scientists thought to test the impact of yeast pitching rates on the qualitative aspects of beer?


The pitching rates advocated in literature were determined to be the rates that produced the best quality beer by scientists who study such things for a living.

 

[Bru]

I'd prefer to see results in a homebrew setting. Its an easy enough experiment and will put all the debate to rest.

 

[remilard]

I'd prefer to see results in a homebrew setting. Its an easy enough experiment and will put all the debate to rest.

What if I told you that countless homebrewers had already done this experiment? What if I told you that the experiments were generally poorly designed and inconclusive? What if I told you that one of these experiments was documented in a recent BYO?

Why will the 500,000th iteration of this experiment put the debate at rest?

 

[slowbie]

I'd prefer to see results in a homebrew setting. Its an easy enough experiment and will put all the debate to rest.

It most certainly will not put the debate to rest, and I'll tell you why: If you notice no difference, brewers like myself who like to understand the entire process of brewing from a scientific standpoint will ignore your results in favor of those found in more rigorous scientific studies.

On the other hand, if you do notice a difference, people who enjoy pitching on the yeast cake will disregard your results or find some way to rationalize things because in their experience, their beer tastes just as good if not better when they pitch on the yeast cake.

 

[remilard]

It most certainly will not put the debate to rest, and I'll tell you why: If you notice no difference, brewers like myself who like to understand the entire process of brewing from a scientific standpoint will ignore your results in favor of those found in more rigorous scientific studies.

On the other hand, if you do notice a difference, people who enjoy pitching on the yeast cake will disregard your results or find some way to rationalize things because in their experience, their beer tastes just as good if not better when they pitch on the yeast cake.

Bingo.

If you really want to study this, take the George Fix approach and brew using both techniques and then send both beers off to several competitions and see if their is a strong preference for one or the other by the judges. This is the best type of study feedback (double blind and the participants didn't even know they were participating, let alone the nature of the study). If you taste the beers yourself, you'll just confirm your own beliefs, that's why scientists have rigorous protocols.

 

[Bru]

I personally agree that the evidence shows that over pitching is negative but there seems to be those who disagree or at the very least disagree that it makes any noticable or negative difference.
Why is there debate if the results are so clear ?
A few objective tests will put all debate (and lets face it theres plenty) to rest. And whats more objective than a blind tasting?
Besides - I want to see the results for myself.
And I disagree that the test has to be done repeatedly. If it makes such a difference the results should be clear.
Is there anything on HBT where its been done ? Ive searched and can't find anything.

 

[Blanda]

I don't think the debate is about better or poorer beer. The debate was about that pitching on the yeast cake is a bad practice and it's always detrimental to beer. And I couldn't disagree more. It is just a practice, and if you do it right and carefully, you obtain great results (and also have a lot of advantages and benefits for homebrewers that scientist wont ever evaluate).
It's like saying that liquid yeast is better than dry yeast. Then using dry yeast is always detrimental to beer.
(Or at least, that is what I understood from the OP).

 

[slowbie]

Besides - I want to see the results for myself.

I think that this is a very good reason to do the test, but don't expect other people to see it and agree.

 

[slowbie]

It's like saying that liquid yeast is better than dry yeast. Then using dry yeast is always detrimental to beer.

No, it's not. There are no scientific studies to support the claim that dry yeast is detrimental to beer. But there are studies showing that overpitching is detrimental.

 

[Bru]

Im on the fence on this one - I take no stand and have no current belief that may sway my opinion. I simply want to see if a.) there is a difference and b.) is it negative or positive.

I agree your "George Fix approach" is best. But theres no need for a competition - there must be beer judges who would be willing to take part without knowing what the test was.

Bingo.

If you really want to study this, take the George Fix approach and brew using both techniques and then send both beers off to several competitions and see if their is a strong preference for one or the other by the judges. This is the best type of study feedback (double blind and the participants didn't even know they were participating, let alone the nature of the study). If you taste the beers yourself, you'll just confirm your own beliefs, that's why scientists have rigorous protocols.

 

[remilard]

I agree your "George Fix approach" is best. But theres no need for a competition - there must be beer judges who would be willing to take part without knowing what the test was.

Maybe, but it is generally cheaper and easier to just send the beers to competitions rather than trying to assemble a panel of experienced judges ad-hoc.

 

[Blanda]

No, it's not. There are no scientific studies to support the claim that dry yeast is detrimental to beer. But there are studies showing that overpitching is detrimental.

There is any way to find this studies on-line? I would like to read them.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Im on the fence on this one - I take no stand and have no current belief that may sway my opinion. I simply want to see if a.) there is a difference and b.) is it negative or positive.

I agree your "George Fix approach" is best. But theres no need for a competition - there must be beer judges who would be willing to take part without knowing what the test was.

Join a homebrew club and you'll at least have access to experienced brewers and beer drinkers if not actual certified judges.

I thought you were only allowed to enter one brew per category in most homebrew comps...but I haven't participated in that many so I dunno.

The thing I took home most from the OP was actually estimating a cell count of the settled yeast. I already was trying to pitch the correct amount and trying to practice good sanitation. IMO, the Mr Malty PRC is grossly deficient to the unedumacated in this area. I was pitching about half of the amount of slurry the OP recommended because that's what I thought the PRC was telling me to pitch. I still can't corroborate the PRC and OP's numbers. But just after this thread was made I pitched a ~13P Moose Drool inspired ale with ~225mL of washed Notty and it came out really good. So there's one more data point among the bazillions.

And yes, I actually washed yeast that costs $1.50 per packet. Jamil says it get's better in future gens.

 

[bullinachinashop]

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