Why Not to Pitch On Your Yeast Cake

[grndslm]

Preferably, one doesn't want to carry the least flocculent yeast over to the next fermentation. In a pure culture, the least flocculent yeast cells tend to be respiratory-deficient mutants.

Interesting. That's definitely a new one to me.

I don't suppose you have any material on the subject matter for me to review, do you?

 

[EarlyAmateurZymurgist]

Interesting. That's definitely a new one to me.

I don't suppose you have any material on the subject matter for me to review, do you?

It's common knowledge that the least flocculent fraction of a pure culture is composed mostly respiratory-deficient mutants. That's why crops are taken from the middle of the yeast layer in the cone of a conical fermentor.

A Wiki entry on petite mutation (I know, Wiki is not a citable source):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_mutation

A seminal paper on respiratory-deficient mutants is:

Respiratory Deficiency in Brewing Yeast Strains-Effects on Fermentation, Flocculation, and Beer Flavor Components. José R. Ernandes, John W. Williams, Inge Russell, and Graham G. Stewart

 

[grndslm]

WRONG POST.

Please delete.

 

[Bob]

(4) I disagree that the OP thinks that yeast counting isn't important, as that's precisely what he's doing.... but he's doing it from a standpoint of a "rule-of-thumb" that's based on some generic recipe, which who knows what that is. The amount of hops changes with each recipe. The initial yeast count changes with each recipe. The various yeasts change their own final count with each recipe.

Kind of. I'm the OP. I've been away for a while, but I'm baaaaaack! :fro:

For the home brewer, cell counts are impractical. But hey, if you're anal enough to do it, knock yourself out!

The "generic recipe" is based on an OG of 12 degrees Plato, or 1.048 specific gravity. That's all that's really important. IBU, except in the case of ridiculous Imperial whatsits, are immaterial to pitch rate. Yes, the count changes with each recipe. That's why I very clearly wrote the formulae in the original post. Let me state them again:

The standard, according to Fix, Daniels, Bamforth et al., is one million active cells per milliliter of wort per degree Plato. Or:

1,000,000*1ml*1°P

Constants:

• There are 3785 ml per US gallon, or 18,925 ml in 5 US gallons. Round this up to 19,000 (19L) for ease of calculation if you do predominantly 5 gallon batches.
• One °P is roughly equivalent to 4 points of gravity. For an approximation, 1.048 is thus 12°P. This goes askew above around 1.060; in fact, you may find it simpler to consult a chart like this: http://plato.montanahomebrewers.org/ - or use the formula:

{Plato/(258.6-([Plato/258.2]*227.1)}+1 = Specific gravity

Thus, for 5 gallons of wort at 12°P, we need

1,000,000 * 1 ml * 12°P, or 12,000,000 cells per ml.

12,000,000 * 19,000 = 228,000,000,000 - that's 228 billion cells.

You can expect around 1 billion active cells in a ml of harvested slurry, depending on how much trub and break material makes it into the fermenter. My counts ranged from 0.5 billion to 2 billion, depending on style brewed and brewery practice. 1 billion is a solid average across a dozen different breweries, professional and amateur.

Thus, 228 ml of freshly-harvested slurry is the correct pitch for 5 gallons of 1.048 wort. Conveniently, that's only a few ml less than that found in one cup (8 fluid ounces).

Jamil Zainasheff recommends a modified pitch rate, advocating 0.75 million cells per ml per °P for ale ferments and 1.5 million for lagers. My experience tells me the standard rule of thumb - 1 million - is quite sufficient for both ales and lagers. If it makes you lager brewers feel better, pitch at the higher rate. It won't harm anything.

You can very easily scale the rate up or down depending on gravity.

I also agree without reservation that washing is unnecessary and potentially damaging unless you're engaged in laboratory-grade acid washing in order to isolate strains.

There is still no advantage to washing yeast with boiled water. In fact, washing yeast with water is detrimental to the health of the culture, as it raises the pH of the solution and removes all of the nutrients. If one is brewing a different recipe, all one needs to do and should do is to decant the liquid fraction of the crop and replace it with new wort before swirling the solids back into suspension.

THIS. Goes back to what I posted ages ago about the best place to store yeast is ...

...wait for it...

...under beer.

 

[grndslm]

There are most definitely benefits to rinsing/washing yeast....

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/saving-yeast-432059/index3.html#post5530951

 

[Bob]

Yes, but those benefits are outweighed by the negatives. At least for me. You get down with your bad self - if washing works for you, have fun. For me, it doesn't, and the science hasn't sufficiently supported the conclusions provided by its proponents.

This is another of those double standards imposed by brewers who think they're doing something cool. They insist there's no chance of introducing contamination in their yeast-washing, but 99% of the time, they're the same people who tell new brewers not to rack because of the chance of contamination. The same principle holds, so there's nothing but cognitive dissonance in holding two opposing views. You might say, "Ah, but I'm an experienced brewer, so I can be more assured of proper sanitation." To which I reply, "Bollocks." Any fool can follow simple instructions and properly sanitize.

The trouble is even if proper sanitation procedures are followed, you're still needlessly introducing opportunities for bad stuff to happen. That's just stupid. The fact is that simply repitching unwashed slurry in appropriate amounts will produce excellent, nay, outstanding beer.

Here's the long and short of it: If the extra step doesn't really do anything, there Is. No. Point. in performing it. Washing yeast has no discernible effect on the product. Ergo, there is no point in performing the act.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Bob]

It also has a lot to do with homebrewers thinking they're doing something worthwhile, but they're not. Here are a couple of simple facts:

1. Hundreds of years of dealing with yeast have taught us that the best place to temporarily store yeast intended for repitching is under beer. Not boiled water - beer. Not any other substance - beer.

2. As others have pointed out, what homebrewers call "yeast washing" is really "yeast rinsing". It's another technique the homebrew community has taken from professional brewers in a half-assed way because they don't fully understand it (like hot-side aeration, ad nauseum). Then - worse! - they over-think the activity, and back-document into all manner of pre-determined justifications and call it "science".

3. Then things take on the proportions of religion. "ALWAYS wash your yeast!" "Just pitch right on to your yeast cake!" "NEVER rack your beer!" "If you splash about in your beer you'll ruin it!" They're all kind of good ideas. There's a kernel of truth at the core of each. Unfortunately, the reasoning behind them is frightful if it exists at all, the mysticism surrounding the kernel of truth at the core is blown out of any semblance of proportion, adherents are more rabid the less they truly understand what they're talking about - you know, just like religion.

Anyway. I need to get back to work.

Bob

 

[mtnagel]

Bob, great info as always. I rinsed yeast for a few months, but have since gone the way of harvesting yeast from my starters. It just takes some more pre-planning, but I always just make about 100 billion more yeast cells than needed for my beer and save that. It has worked great for me so far.

But I do have to ask if I wanted to save some yeast from primary after fermentation, you're saying that I can just take some of the trub at the bottom of the bucket and store that in a sanitized jar for later use, right? No further steps necessary? If so, how long can you save that for?

 

[rustym]

Great topic and information! We get the best for sure!

Since were on this topic, this may or may not be the appropriate time to bring this up but it looks like we have some heavyweights here and this question has been bugging me.

I have always used Jamils calculations to pitch the correct amount of yeast. Then recently, yeastcalc.com added Kai's stirplate options for calculating pitch rates. Kai's contention seems to be that Jamils rates would always have you OVER pitching. It's frustrating to see in one calculater that I could be overpitching or underpitching with the same volume of starter depending on which method you use.

 

[Biobrewer]

Great topic and information! We get the best for sure!

Since were on this topic, this may or may not be the appropriate time to bring this up but it looks like we have some heavyweights here and this question has been bugging me.

I have always used Jamils calculations to pitch the correct amount of yeast. Then recently, yeastcalc.com added Kai's stirplate options for calculating pitch rates. Kai's contention seems to be that Jamils rates would always have you OVER pitching. It's frustrating to see in one calculater that I could be overpitching or underpitching with the same volume of starter depending on which method you use.

Personally, I use Kai's method, because he actually provides a scientific basis for it, where, as he even points out in his write-up, "Jamil never published how he arrived at the model used in his calculator. As a result I have to draw conclusions based on what I can observe when I run data points through his calculator."

 

[Biobrewer]

Preferably, one doesn't want to carry the least flocculent yeast over to the next fermentation. In a pure culture, the least flocculent yeast cells tend to be respiratory-deficient mutants.

I would largely agree with this. You wouldn't want to harvest yeast as it is stratified into a highly flocculant and less flocculant layer.

The photo shown below contains a plate that I streaked from a yeast culture that was harvested from a bottle of bottle-conditioned beer. The small colonies are more than likely respiratory-deficient mutants (a.k.a. petite mutants or simply "petites"). The colonies in the rectangle are the reference culture.

I do quite a bit of plating myself, and I'm not sure you can say all of the small colonies are more then likely petite mutants. There may be some in there, but just as I see on this plate, when I plate a higher cell density like you have on the left side of the plate as opposed to a lower cell density like you have on the right side of the plate, the colonies on the higher density side tend to be smaller and the colonies on the lower density side tend to be larger. I think that this has more to do with space and availability to nutrients and a carbon source.

Also, by "reference culture", are you saying you streaked 3 cells of another culture on that plate, or are you calling them "reference" because they are larger?

 

[brewski09]

If you make good beer using Jamil's calculations, why worry about it?

 

[Biobrewer]

If you make good beer using Jamil's calculations, why worry about it?

It probably isn't worth worrying about. I simply like the Kai method because there is an actual scientific rationale to it. I'm sure Jamil has one too, I'm just not sure what it is.

Cheers!

 

[rustym]

If you make good beer using Jamil's calculations, why worry about it?

For myself, I don't want to make good beer, I want to make great beer. I can through some extract, hops and yeast together and make good beer but when you know why and how things work, I think even on a basic homebrewer level, we can make great beer.

The fact that we can have this kind of discussion (especially how this thread started) is what helps us all learn how to make the best beer we can.

 

[Bob]

But I do have to ask if I wanted to save some yeast from primary after fermentation, you're saying that I can just take some of the trub at the bottom of the bucket and store that in a sanitized jar for later use, right? No further steps necessary? If so, how long can you save that for?

All those questions are answered up-thread if not in my OP. Thanks for the kind words!

Bob

 

[Bob]

Speaking to the sources of Jamil's method, he at least used to list all his sources at MrMalty. IIRC they include such luminaries as Fix, Davis, et al. Plus there's the ol' brewery rule of thumb which I describe in my OP which coincides with Jamil's rate and has been proved to make outstanding beer in hundreds if not thousands of breweries for generations.

Fermentation science is fascinating!

 

[Biobrewer]

Fermentation science is fascinating!

For me, the science is why I use Kai's method, because it's clearly stated and he shows a scientific basis for the underlying assumptions behind the calculation. I have used Mr. Malty though in the past though, and it did work well. I don't think anyone has stated in this tread that it won't work or won't produce good/great beer.

I think it's just a matter of personal preference.

 

[grndslm]

Bob, you should try reading the last few posts of that thread I linked you to . You'll see that there most certainly is science to back up the conclusions of the beneficial purposes of yeast washing.

EAZ says there's NO BENEFIT in the face of scientific evidence. Then you say there are benefits, but the negatives outweigh them for you. Then you reverse stance and say there is NO POINT. Whose stance is really the one of a religious faith? I am acknowledging the pros and cons of these two methods, and there is scientific evidence to back up my reasoning. Where is YOUR scientific evidence?

 

[grndslm]

I do quite a bit of plating myself, and I'm not sure you can say all of the small colonies are more then likely petite mutants. There may be some in there, but just as I see on this plate, when I plate a higher cell density like you have on the left side of the plate as opposed to a lower cell density like you have on the right side of the plate, the colonies on the higher density side tend to be smaller and the colonies on the lower density side tend to be larger. I think that this has more to do with space and availability to nutrients and a carbon source.

I was curious about this myself.

Is there any evidence for this claim other than a belief?

 

[Denny]

Bob, you should try reading the last few posts of that thread I linked you to . You'll see that there most certainly is science to back up the conclusions of the beneficial purposes of yeast washing.

EAZ says there's NO BENEFIT in the face of scientific evidence. Then you say there are benefits, but the negatives outweigh them for you. Then you reverse stance and say there is NO POINT. Whose stance is really the one of a religious faith? I am acknowledging the pros and cons of these two methods, and there is scientific evidence to back up my reasoning. Where is YOUR scientific evidence?

Science is great, but it's what's in the glass that really matters. My own experience guides me.

 

[Biobrewer]

I was curious about this myself.

Is there any evidence for this claim other than a belief?

Yup. The fact that, once I isolate a colony and make cells stocks, and replate it from cell stock, I select a ton of colonies for my starter, including the ones you are claiming are petit mutants. In fact, some of the plates I accidentally overplated, and many look like that and I have no choice but to select them when propagating. I have never had a poor attenuator like I have seen with ACTUAL petit colonies I have come across in my isolation efforts, which typically exhibit ~ 25% attenuation.

 

[Bob]

Bob, you should try reading the last few posts of that thread I linked you to . You'll see that there most certainly is science to back up the conclusions of the beneficial purposes of yeast washing.

Okay. Fair enough.

EAZ says there's NO BENEFIT in the face of scientific evidence. Then you say there are benefits, but the negatives outweigh them for you. Then you reverse stance and say there is NO POINT. Whose stance is really the one of a religious faith? I am acknowledging the pros and cons of these two methods, and there is scientific evidence to back up my reasoning. Where is YOUR scientific evidence?

Okay, un-knot your panties and breathe, dude.

I did not reverse my stance. I said nothing contradictory. I disagreed with your assertions. Let me take them one by one:

PROS:
- Long-term yeast viability, particularly past one month or so.

This one I'll give you. However, I am compelled to point out that storing yeast that long without stabilizing the sample - which is NOT included in basic yeast-washing tutorials - is a Bad Idea, washed or not.

- Ability to remove ALL prior beer flavors, trub, dead yeast from the prior recipe [particularly useful when making a new recipe].

This is one of those bugbear homebrewer myths I was talking about earlier. Unless you're proposing to pitch yeast from a Stout to American Wheat (and even then in most circumstances), there is simply an insufficient amount of anything in a properly-sized slurry pitch to impact the subsequent batch in the slightest way. Years of professional experience, confirmed by discussing with other professional brewers their observations, confirm this. Further, merely rinsing the slurry with water is no guarantee at all of removing dead yeast. Finally, it has been shown by Fix, Bamforth, et al. that a certain amount of trub is harmless to the sample and may even assist the slurry from starving itself.

If you're that concerned with how yeast will impact a new recipe, pitch a fresh generation. Really, you're worrying over non-existent bogeymen.

- Better estimates as to yeast count for next pitch.

Okay, I can see that, but only to an extent. Unless you have a baseline for active cells per mL of rinsed slurry per strain, you really don't have a better count. Making those observations requires a haemocytometer and the knowledge of how to use it. You may have noticed in the OP that I have actually done cell counts. LOTS of them. Very probably more than you, because when I was a professional brewer it was part of my JOB. That's how I confirmed - with science! - that the good ol' brewery Rule of Thumb for pitching, set into tradition by decades, generations, of observed results, were actually accurate.

Listen, if adding an extra step or modification to my process will help me toward a better beer more consistently, I'm all for it. I maintain that yeast rinsing is a needless complication in the context of harvesting yeast for re-pitching. I find insufficient evidence of benefit in your citations or testimony to offset the PITA of rinsing yeast. Thus I can only conclude there is no point in the exercise.

 

[brewski09]

For myself, I don't want to make good beer, I want to make great beer. I can through some extract, hops and yeast together and make good beer but when you know why and how things work, I think even on a basic homebrewer level, we can make great beer.

The fact that we can have this kind of discussion (especially how this thread started) is what helps us all learn how to make the best beer we can.

Let me rephrase. If you can make good beer and Jamil can make great beer with the Mr malty calculator, why worry about it. I figure I am using one of many proven processes and it's working for them and for me. I'm not going to be changing until I fix the other things I am inconsistent at (mash temps and sparging come to mind).

I just don't see any reason to complicate it more than it already is unless you are going pro, in which case I hope you are far more advanced than myself. I would love to try some of your beer regardless of your yeast calculator as it sounds like you are being at a high level.

 

[rustym]

Let me rephrase. If you can make good beer and Jamil can make great beer with the Mr malty calculator, why worry about it. I figure I am using one of many proven processes and it's working for them and for me. I'm not going to be changing until I fix the other things I am inconsistent at (mash temps and sparging come to mind).

I just don't see any reason to complicate it more than it already is unless you are going pro, in which case I hope you are far more advanced than myself. I would love to try some of your beer regardless of your yeast calculator as it sounds like you are being at a high level.

Cheers Brewski!

I agree with your point. I am in no way brewing at a high level. I guess it's like any other "hobby", I like to learn and perform as best that "I" can.

One of the things that I have heard frequently is that you can make better beer by learning your yeast. I'm just trying to do the best I can with what I have so when I see these contradictory "calculaters" by experts that we all take advice from it makes me frustrated (not in a negative way!). I'll stay with JZ'z method for now because it works for me and I have been consistant. I'm not opposed to making any changes if I need to but I trust the work that he has done by himself and Chris White.


With regards to other parts of the process, I am constantly trying to improve on those as well. I think this is all part of the things we do for a hobby that we all are very passionate about. Some of this is way over my head but so was "all-grain" at one point.

Bob, I have really enjoyed your responses and passion on these topics and I have learned a few things in the process. I actually ran across this blog yesterday and when I read it I thought this made your point that you were trying to make originally (almost 3 years ago ). It's by Mitch Steele of Stone Brewery.

Granted he is a commercial, professional brewer that has to produce a consistant product, but I think his point is parallel to yours. We SHOULD strive to make the best beer we can make. I hope it's OK to post this without his permission...


"To The Stone Brew Crew:

Whenever we put out a new beer, I’m always asked “who came up with the recipe?”, and I am uncomfortable answering that question, because it is a simple answer that really doesn’t accurately convey why the beer is successful and tastes delicious.

I think far too much credit is given to the formulation/recipe for a beer’s success. I honestly believe that recipe formulation is one of the easiest parts of making a great beer, and accounts for about 5-10% of its potential success. In my opinion, anyone with some understanding of ingredients and styles can create a great recipe, but actually working with that recipe to brew a great beer is the hard part.

Think about it:

1. Without having sufficient supply of the highest quality ingredients, the beer will fail. This means formulating the beer knowing what ingredients are of the highest quality and their availability. Nothing ruins a good beer quicker than having to make inadequate ingredient substitutions.
2. Without having a robust brewhouse that produces consistent wort, and without having a pure yeast strain and carefully monitored fermentations, the beer will fail. Fermentation provides most of the “Beer” flavor you get in beer. Poor yeast health, improper temperature control, or insufficient oxygen addition will cause a poor fermentation with off-flavors.
3. Without having well designed, high quality, reliable production equipment that is maintained and optimized on a regular basis, the beer will fail. You need equipment that will allow you to produce consistent, high quality beer.
4. Without a great team of brewers, who understand craft beer, the beer they are brewing, and the best practices and procedures needed to make that beer, the beer will fail. Our brewers need to be equipped with the education and experience to make smart decisions that are in the best interest of beer quality.
5. Without having 100% focus on sanitation and cleanliness in the brewery, the beer will fail. This has killed many, many small brewers in the past 25 years.
6. It’s often stated that nothing “good” can happen to a beer when it is packaged. Without a great team who bottle and keg the beer, who understand the quality that needs to go into every single package, and who know how to respond when quality issues start to appear, the beer will fail.
7. Without a QA team that accurately measures the progress of the beer and reports it to the team, and looks for ways to improve our understanding of what is happening in the brewing, fermentation, finishing, and packaging processes, the beer will fail.
8. Without proper scheduling of the brewing and packaging of the beer, the beer will either sit too long, or not long enough in the tank, or will be shorted in supply to our sales team, who can then lose valuable handles and shelf space. Ultimately, without proper planning, the beer will fail.
9. Without having a sales and media team that understands the industry and our beers, and works tirelessly to ensure awareness, and deliver our message and vision, the beer will fail.
10. Without having company leadership that encourages risk taking, focuses on taste and quality, supports innovation in everything the company does, listens and supports creative ideas from the team, and supports all of the above items, the beer will fail.

My point is that while it’s great to get accolades about creating a beer recipe, not enough credit is given to the other critical parts of brewing a great beer, some of which are listed above. There are plenty more components that go into making a great beer, and everyone on our team plays a very important role in our success."

 

[Bob]

Thanks, Rusty, for posting that! We can do far worse than take a page from Mr Steele.

That really is my overall point - we homebrewers tend to focus so hard on ingredients, or process, or one tiny part of process, or some other discrete point in brewing space-time and act as though that datum is the One True Key to outstanding beer. It's not, it cannot be. Excellence is a spectrum. It is mastery of every part of the brewing process. That's why I encourage every brewer, n00b or veteran, to stop brewing a new recipe every single time you enter the brewhouse and instead brew a few - like four or fewer - basic recipes over and over and over until you get the process nailed, until you understand ingredients and their impact, until you get to know your yeast (pick one and use it until you KNOW it), until you understand how every single step in the brewing process impacts the beer, etc. Unless and until you've done that, you haven't achieved mastery.

That's hard to do in an amateur, hobbyist setting. But it's still necessary!

Cheers,

Bob

 

[jwalker1140]

Bob, I promised myself I wouldn't post to this thread anymore but I feel compelled to thank you directly for your invaluable contributions on HBT. The first post here easily ranks within my all-time top five, and is the one that helped me break free from the cult of rinsing (or washing, or whatever we want to call it). Your recent contributions over last couple days have been icing on the cake.

Personally, I don't give a rip how many pages the "Yeast Washing Illustrated' thread has or how many times it's been "REVISITED!!" I don't care whether someone transfers once, twice or five times. I don't care whether they use a siphon or not. All I know is the only time I've ever dumped a batch was the last time I pitched rinsed yeast. Since then I've followed the approach outlined in the first post of this thread and I've made better beer more consistently.

I also appreciate that these general ideas have been echoed by homebrewing royalty like Denny. For both of you who aren't aware, Wyeast named a freakin' yeast strain after the dude. And if you batch sparge, there's a good chance you're doing it because of him. If you're serious about becoming a better brewer, pay attention to what he writes. I point this out mainly for the benefit of newer brewers who may be struggling to see through the static or who are unsure of to whom to give credence. It's tempting to conclude that the number of posts on a technique is a measure of it's value, or that visual appearances and abstract reasoning can assuredly lead to best practices. I get it; the yeast in the bottom of those rinsed jars sure looks a lot like what's in a fresh WL vial.

I've read every single post in the 'washing illustrated' thread. I've tried rinsing many times and I've used all the novel tweaks I can think of. At the end of the day, my own experience leads me to draw the same conclusion that Bob, Denny, EAZ et al. have drawn: on net balance, rinsing is a waste of time and effort. That said, for most of us, brewing is still just a hobby. If rinsing makes you happy, get up on that happy horse and ride it till the sun goes down. I won't tell anyone.

 

[Bob]

Thanks for the kind words, my friend!

I'm in the same place. If it makes someone happy, who am I to tell them not to do it? As I told my other correspondent up the thread a bit, "get down with yo' bad self."

At the same time, however, when it's presented as "best" or even "good" practice when that practice is demonstrably not good practice or a waste of time - whether it's self-congratulatory or based on poor understanding of brewing practice - I can be expected to kick like a mule. (And construct convoluted sentences.)

The moral of the story is this: Enjoy your beer.

Bob

 

[tjash]

Mods: end thread here.

(Isn't three years of butthurt over yeast enough?)

Seriously tho, thanks to Bob, Denny, and all the other contributors to this thread over the years. I stumbled over it the other day when trying to decide how best to handle a cake of WL013 I'm growing under a hopefully tasty Christmas ale in the other room. I'm convinced now that measuring out a cup or so for the next batch is the way to go.

I've learned a lot and gotten a kick out of some of some of the righteous indignation when certain practices are questioned. Who knew we could get so fired up about beige goo that just makes most people fart?!

Brew it like you stole it,

Tjash

 

[Silentnoiz]

I feel accomplished for having read through all 448 posts over the past couple days. :rockin:

In my mind, at each "step" of the brewing process, there are many options for how to do it, and also MANY variables within each option. I would surmise that if all of us employed the same method, because of the vast number of variables, we would all arrive at a slightly different output/result.

What I appreciate most, is everyone's contribution on how they do things and the results they've obtained, because that helps me think through my process, and things I can modify. I am on my 6th batch of an IIPA I formulated not long ago. Every time I brew it, I 'attempt' to identify the one thing I could change to have the greatest positive impact on the beer. When it is ready to drink, I assess that change. It is a ton of fun, and thankfully I love that brew. Every batch has turned out different, but great. The fun for me is in the search for that sweet spot (second to the consumption).

Anyways, enough of my binary cents...thanks to Bob for a great post to get gears turning, and to everyone who has chimed in with additional thoughts.
What a great resource. Thanks!

 

[bdf]

So what's the non-yeast washing method of repitching yeast, for someone who doesn't want to read all 5,000 pages of this thread?