Reclaiming Trub Yeast.

[ChristinaS1]

Also, over-pitching will make most ale yeast taste pretty clean, as not much cell reproduction is required. If you only save one or two times, probably not an issue. If you repeatedly save slurry from over-pitched batches, the cells get old, and that could lead to issues.

Because I don't do full wort boils, I never go out more than three generations when I save slurry , to reduce the risk of infection. The risk of infection goes up with each generation. Had a contaminated batch (the first in ages) earlier this year. That was a batch I used fresh (dry) yeast in, so was not expecting contamination. I did not realize it was contaminated on bottling day and saved slurry from that batch; pitched it the next day into another batch. When the first batch was carbonated, it was clear it was contaminated. By then it was too late for the second batch. 

Cheers,

[Worthog]

5 hours ago, ChristinaS1 said:

Not sure where you are getting your attenuations numbers from Worthog, but as far as I know US-05 has 81% attenuation (according to Fermentis), and Nottingham 77%.....

Cheers,

Christina.

I was using the numbers from Ianh ss. 

Cheers.

[Otto Von Blotto]

The spreadsheet has a default 75% attenuation on all yeast strains I think but I stand corrected. 

[Worthog]

6 minutes ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

The spreadsheet has a default 75% attenuation on all yeast strains I think but I stand corrected. 

WB06 74,  WIN 70, S33 70, 1469PC 69, WLP001 77, etc.

I  guess the point I was making is that my slurry mix was all high attenuation., but mostly I was making the point that these cobbled together slurries still make beers I like. 

I  am not into the science of such things

Cheers 

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

Thanks mate. He might have updated it. It's been over 6 years since I used it last with any regularity

And there's nothing wrong with blending yeasts. If it makes a nice beer why not. The only thing that may happen is if you reuse it a bit, one might start dominating over the other. 

 

[Worthog]

10 hours ago, ChristinaS1 said:

Also, over-pitching will make most ale yeast taste pretty clean, as not much cell reproduction is required.....

Cheers,

I like that because I always tend to overpitch my slurries because some can be 4-6 weeks since harvest.  Also when I label my slurries I mark the date & generation. I go 3 times max, then use a new sachet.

Cheers

[Scooby 1525229719]

On 8/28/2018 at 10:34 AM, Fergy1987 said:

I think I am going to have to get into this reclaiming of yeast - $5.60 for a packet of US-05 is just knocking up the price of a brew. My only problem is I am rarely brewing the same type of brews each time - Ill do am Amber than a Pale Ale or something so not sure on how bad it would be to be "mixing" those yeasts. The other thing I've been doing is chucking in the kit yeast along with the US-05 or Nottingham because I am basically like "wtf am I going to do with this extra packet"......probably not best practice lol and reclaiming two strains seems like it could result in bad news! My only other fear is doing a whole brew only for it to get infected or taste weird from a reclaimed yeast.

I usually boil water and let it sit in a cup for a few minutes, sprinkle the kit yeast in the HOT water, it acts as yeast nutrient to your US-05 or which ever yeast your using. Here's a shop I'm going to be using from now on...... 

 

https://cheapyeast.com.au/

[Greenyinthewestofsydney]

3 hours ago, Worthog said:

I like that because I always tend to overpitch my slurries because some can be 4-6 weeks since harvest.  Also when I label my slurries I mark the date & generation. I go 3 times max, then use a new sachet.

Cheers

In my experience you have to be a little careful pitching ale slurrys. I did it a few times with US05 and it was hit and miss. It does make a difference if you go crazy with the pitch amount. 

With the lager yeasts i do it regularly. Make a batch and pitch either most of the slurry or even a few times pitch onto the slurry if its the same recipe. Hasn't made one iota of difference to my taste buds. Plus building a 3L starter costs 3 or 4 bucks for LDME so why spend if it doesn't give an advantage.

Thats my 2 cents.

[Otto Von Blotto]

Depends on brewing schedules I guess. I never do two lagers in a row (currently anyway) so don't have the option to pitch onto the cake or take the slurry straight to the next batch. 

But I suppose everyone has a system that works for them with reusing yeast and as long as it's producing decent beer it doesn't really matter which method you use. 

[Potatoes]

 

On 8/28/2018 at 8:15 PM, Potatoes said:

In about 2 weeks, after the bathroom is fixed.

So I just put down this Brew tonight, was about 3 weeks later than anticipated.... opps. I used my reclaimed yeast and the kit yeast, as I got a little worried about leaving it in the fridge for so long. Thought that the yeast might have started to die off.... Hopefully it’ll still be ok. I really need this beer to be good! 

[Otto Von Blotto]

The yeast will have started to die off but how quickly isn't exactly known. If it's yeast that has been stored for 5 weeks then its viability is still probably somewhere around 85%.

[Worthog]

I have rotation of a maximum of 8 PET bottles of slurry in the beer fridge currently. These are various slurries of Nottingham, US-05, Kit Int, W34/70, and mixes of some of the above. 

The oldest get dumped as I harvest a new one, although I keep W34/70 longer because I do lagers less often.

I have pitched 300ml of slurry as old as 2 months which usually show activity by 8hrs.

They work well and save money.

Cheers

[Greenyinthewestofsydney]

2 hours ago, Worthog said:

I have rotation of a maximum of 8 PET bottles of slurry in the beer fridge currently. These are various slurries of Nottingham, US-05, Kit Int, W34/70, and mixes of some of the above. 

The oldest get dumped as I harvest a new one, although I keep W34/70 longer because I do lagers less often.

I have pitched 300ml of slurry as old as 2 months which usually show activity by 8hrs.

They work well and save money.

Cheers

Im a big fan of pitching slurry but I am a bit wary of pitching anything older than a month now to be honest. Went on a 2 month holiday about 4 months back and when I came back pitched yeast I had stored in the fridge. It should have been enough even if it lost close to 50% of its viability. It started slowly and took a long time to finish which told me it was underpitched. I'm very wary now for anything older than a month.

[Beerlust]

1 hour ago, Greeny1525229549 said:

Im a big fan of pitching slurry but I am a bit wary of pitching anything older than a month now to be honest. Went on a 2 month holiday about 4 months back and when I came back pitched yeast I had stored in the fridge. It should have been enough even if it lost close to 50% of its viability. It started slowly and took a long time to finish which told me it was underpitched. I'm very wary now for anything older than a month.

Yeast slurry consistencies & volumes collected vary from person to person & technique to technique, so harvest amounts would vary also I would think. I think it's a wise move to pitch your stored harvested yeast into a starter first. One to test viability, two to likely increase numbers, & three (if you time it right) you can pitch "active" yeast into your main brew wort that will reduce lag times.

I'm still learning a bit on this front myself, but look at this as a good way to approach re-using yeast. I'm still on the lookout for a decent stir-plate to improve on the shaker method I currently have to adopt.

Cheers,

Lusty.

[Potatoes]

Thanks for input worthog, greeny and beer lust. I think I must have been pushing this one. It didn’t start off like a rocket but was showing signs 24 hours later. Going very strong 36 hours later. I hope it tastes good! 

 

Will have to try the starter someday too. Someday....

[ChristinaS1]

On 9/6/2018 at 2:35 AM, Greeny1525229549 said:

In my experience you have to be a little careful pitching ale slurrys. I did it a few times with US05 and it was hit and miss. It does make a difference if you go crazy with the pitch amount. 

With the lager yeasts i do it regularly. Make a batch and pitch either most of the slurry or even a few times pitch onto the slurry if its the same recipe. Hasn't made one iota of difference to my taste buds. Plus building a 3L starter costs 3 or 4 bucks for LDME so why spend if it doesn't give an advantage.

Thats my 2 cents.

Have you tried other ale yeast besides US-05 and also found them hit and miss?

I have never tried re-pitching US-05, because I banned it from my brewery long before I began using slurries. I found US-05 inconsistent even when using a fresh pack. 

Cheers,

Christina.

[Greenyinthewestofsydney]

Yeah christina. Not just US05. My issue with pitching ale slurry is getting a consistent pitch. Pitch amount does make a big difference in ale fermentations and getting a repeatable number of cells pitched is a lucky dip to some degree. Im not against it at all just its hard to get repeatable with different viability rates and cells per ml of slurry.

Lagers on the other hand i have no problem with. I have pitched a whole slurry and got the same result as measuring out slurry and also making a starter to a optimal pitch rate. For me for lagers it just doesn't make a taste  difference pitching an optimal pitch rate v pitching 2 or even 3 times that.

[BlackSands]

2 hours ago, Greeny1525229549 said:

 Pitch amount does make a big difference in ale fermentations and getting a repeatable number of cells pitched is a lucky dip to some degree.

I'm wondering specifically what the difference in fermentation is that you refer to?   And, in particular if these differences are actually experienced where it counts - at the glass? 

I re-pitch Nottingham slurry regularly - around about 200ml of yeasty sludge each time. I initially used online calcs to give a rough idea of how much slurry to use but it's guessing really.   Either way though, lag times are always quite short and the subsequent fermentation exhibits a good amount of vigour.  I'm also encouraged by Brulosophy findings, who has done quite a few pitch rate trials now: under vs over, and it seems any differences are not so apparent at the glass.  

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

If brulosophy is to be believed then no brewing process, good or bad, makes any difference to any beer ever. You are probably pitching similar amounts each time if the timeframe is similar between harvest and next pitch, which would obviously result in more or less the same outcome every time. Nottingham is a beast of a yeast as well, results may be different with other strains.

Underpitching usually results in an increase in lag time and risks inconsistent quality of product; it can potentially result in sluggish fermentation, off flavors and stalling in more severe cases. It's not really advisable if you want decent beer every time. 

It's not so much about brewing the best beer ever each batch, it's about consistent quality. The two things that made the biggest improvement to the quality of my beers and kept it consistent were temperature control and paying closer attention to yeast pitching rates. Obviously it's not precise at home but it's in the ballpark which is good enough. The fermentation behaves as expected every time and the beers turn out as expected every time with no off flavors or any other problems. It's definitely worth the small effort it takes. I'd rather do that than tip a keg down the drain because it tastes shit.

[Greenyinthewestofsydney]

@BlackSands. I have found it different for different strains. US05 for me you dont want to underpitch as it will throw funny flavours. A higher pitch and it will be clean. Same with Nottingham which i used to use but haven't used for a while. K97 is another i don't want to underpitch either. Belgian strains ( belle saison, WY1214, WY1388 and WY3787 ) is where i refrain from using a slurry. They react totally different. I try to slightly underpitch in these strains to deliberately stress the yeast to give the belgian flavour. A high pitch rate just gives a bad beer for these IMO. A full lack of the belgian character. 

Anyway in a nutshell i think pitching slurry works best for cleaner ale types but i would always go on the side of a slight overpitch. I work/guess on 1.5bn per ml so your 200ml i would rate at 300bn cells which for a normal 23L 1050 batch is about spot on for me.

[BlackSands]

30 minutes ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

If brulosophy is to be believed then no brewing process, good or bad, makes any difference to any beer ever.

I suspect an important distinction is the brewing scale.  What may be relevant and crucial on a commercial scale may not necessarily translate down to a 23 litre batch and I wonder if that's why many of the Brulosophy findings are seemingly contrary to what is generally considered common practice, practices which have been inherited from the the big breweries.    It would be reasonable to question a result if it was a one-off trial but with so many of their trials now there's been quite a number of repeats and the results are becoming a little harder to refute.  

For knowing the difference between "best practice" and "pointless practice" is something I'm always interested in.

@Greeny1525229549  Addmitedly my slurry pitching experience is very limited in terms of yeast strain variety.  Aside from Notty and the kit ale'lager blend I once did it with BE-256 without issue.  

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

I'd think there'd be some things that don't necessarily translate to our scale but not everything, I remember reading that Coopers pale ale is fermented at 17 degrees commercially but to achieve the same influence from the yeast at home it has to be fermented a few degrees warmer.

However given the reports seen around the place of fermentation failing or being slow etc. I still think it's worth pitching a decent amount of yeast to achieve consistently good results. 

[Greenyinthewestofsydney]

Yeah Brulusophy always seems to come up with "no statistical difference" between the samples. I just wonder how many beers the tasters have had under there belt by the time they taste the samples. 

[Potatoes]

1 hour ago, Greeny1525229549 said:

Yeah Brulusophy always seems to come up with "no statistical difference" between the samples. I just wonder how many beers the tasters have had under there belt by the time they taste the samples. 

I think the sample size is not big enough for brulusophy. It’s a continuing problem with how they interpret their results. They seem guilty of rejecting a true finding due to insignificance caused by small sample sizes. It would be better not to do a significance test in my opinion.

[Otto Von Blotto]

It would definitely be interesting to see if the results changed if they repeated all these experiments but had 80-100 tasters on each one, and made sure none of them had been drinking prior to the taste testing. 15-20 people is too small, to me the chances of an "insignificant" result are greater with a smaller sample size.