Bottling Yeast Cake?

[studio1]

The last couple of batched I have bottled (using a bottle filler of the tap of the fermenter), once I am down to the yeast cake, I have swirled up the contents and filled into a sterilised bottled which I have capped off and popped in the fridge. Would this be a good storage method for the yeast? I have read that the best storage for yeast is under beer, so thought this would be a great way of saving some yeast after each batch.
.
I plan on pitching to a starter after pouring off the beer from the settled yeast

[MrC]

Here's a link that denimglen posted ages ago. I've used this technique successfully. It's not too much different to what you've been doing. The technique in this article may allow you to get more yeast per batch and maybe a healthier yeast.

http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/yeast-washing-illustrated-41768/

Having said that, as long and you keep everything sterile and make decent starter, your technique should work OK too.

[Reviled]

Water is much better than beer for the yeast to sit under, but make sure its boiled and cool...

[denimglen]

Beer is ok to let the yeast sit under but not the best IMO, remember the alcohol in there is the 'waste' the yeast created. I'd go with boiled and cooled water.

Also make sure they're stored in plastic bottles as they may still build up some pressure.

[JoKing]

I been doing what you've been doing studio1 for the last few years. Infact - I sparked up some dodgy looking wlp001 from about a year ago to make some IPA. It took about 3 days to start, then I brewed and pitched it. I was a bit worried, because the beer smelled pretty good during fermentation (@16 C) but once I finished dry hopping it and went to go keg it, it smelled like shit. I thought about tipping it down the sink. Anyway - cut a long story short... after about 2 months of conditioning, the beer was kick ass. No one else around New Plymouth could drink it (90IBU) but it was kick ass... honestly!

[Nick]

Dude, just throw the stuff away and use fresh yeast :-)
It costs stuff all compared to the wort you just spent hours preparing and are about to contaminate, I mean innoculate.
If it's gone mad max on you, you wont know until bottling time too.

Yeast reproduces pretty quickly and hence mutates quickly. You will find that any flavour profiles the yeast has initially changes over time with each generation until it is so funky that all you can do is hide the taste with hops.

I reckon half the bad home brew I've tasted can be traced to yeast. The other half is cleanliness.

[denimglen]

Cheap at $25 a piece? Almost doubles the cost of my brews.

Now buying the yeast, propagating and farming, there's cheap.

[JoKing]

I know plenty of professional brewers who have reused their yeast up to 10 generations: and their beer tastes fine. Coopers in Australia have been reusing the same strain for 90 years. The supposed "cost save" argument doesn't com into play.

I have reused yeast 5 generations or so with some pretty casual sterilisation reigemes and have won Gold medals in brew comps. The re-used yeast cant have been that bad - unless the qualified judges cant taste for sh!t.

[Nick]

Well for most home brewers who can't seem to keep their gear clean enough to keep out off flavours I think fresh is best.

Last time I bought one it was $12.50 and I always start it 24 hrs in advance to get the cell count up.

That said I have reused it once or twice for a few generations without much of an issue. But only if I'm brewing a heavy beer. Certainly not a pilsner.

The way I see it is that I brew for pleasure. I didn't move to all grain brewing for economics just like I don't add sugar to keep the price down.

I have always brewed for quality and that means using the best ingredients. If you can win competitions on a 5th generation yeast then you're a much better brewer than me LOL! Maybe you're onto something. It wasn't a trappist beer??

edit: I'm not taking the piss. I sincerely mean it. Good job with the brewing!

[Stu McKinlay]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Nick. 50% of the average-to-suck homebrew beer I taste is bad yeast. Loads of people talk about commercial breweries re-using yeast but they're pitching massive quantities of the stuff. You could dip your dirty balls in 1,000L and not taste the effects but in 20L you're going to end up with a decidedly dicky tasting "cock and ball" ale.

Please, no take down requests.

[Greig McGill]

"Average-to-suck"? I'm worried you've been contaminated by Kempicus! ;)

I agree also, in principle. In practice, I'll harvest and repitch. I've done this through a max of three generations, and had no problem.

Another possible method would be to make three starters from one pack, propagate all three, and store two for next time. Then you have three "first generation-ish" starters to use.

While I agree with Nick about economics not being the driving factor, it's still a factor for most people, myself included. If I can save money AND not compromise the quality of my beer AND not spend too much time (equals more money), you can bet I'll do it. But yes, 21L of $25 beer that tastes nasty is worth way less than half of 21L of $50 beer that tastes amazing.

Moderator: Please take down Stu's post. I am now having nightmares about Golden Boy...

[Reviled]

I split my smack pack off in the first starter, harvest a heap of Gen 1, then get 3-5 runs off of each gen 1, works out to like, 10-20 brews per smack pack :o)

[JoKing]

I've heard very positive things from a number of different people about your beer too mate, so there is obviously nothing wrong with the way you handle and process you yeast / equipment.

I still can't see a valid argument against re-using your yeast when your practices are up to standard.

P.S I might consider dunking my balls in my wort for my next brew to save on having to buy yeast at all, and save even more money. I can see it now... Joking Pale Ale brewed exclusively with our own house strain "Saccharomyces Testyvisiae"