# Bottling Fermenter Trub



## Nick JD (26/6/10)

Hey folks,

Some people were asking about bottling the trub instead of chucking it down the plug hole last week and I just took a photo so I thought I'd bung it online. 

I know this technique is done by many people and it's common knowledge, but I think it might be useful to those out there who are advancing their brewing but still not buying the perfect yeast for their recipe because of the astounding price of Wyeast packs. This way, you can get 6 brews from one pack of yeast and only ever go to second generation - it's actually cheaper than buying dried yeasts.

Most will know that you can pitch a cup (250ml) of slurry from one brew straight into the next. This gives you a fairly good pitching rate, and your yeast hit the ground running. This method is basically the same, but instead of pitching that cup of slurry ... you bottle it. 

When the last bottle has been filled from the fermenter and there's about 500ml of beer on top of, say 1L of trub the fermenter is gently swirled. This is done until when you lean the fermenter on an angle, the bottom is clean where there's no liquid and the trub/beer is mixed throughly. 

Then 5, 300ml PET bottles (I use cheap supermarket dozens) are meticulously cleaned and sanitized and the fermenter is tilted and each one filled with what looks a lot like baby diarrhea.







The yeast type and the date is written on them and they are stored. I store them in the fridge, but you could store them in a cool, dark place if fridge space is an issue. 

I used them generally within 6 months by simply letting them come up to the temperature of the brew, opening and pouring off the beer (and tasting it just to be sure), then swirling the container and pouring it straight into the new brew. Fermentation usually starts quicker than with dry yeast.

Under $2 per brew for commercial-grade yeast is nice. :icon_cheers: I've made the same recipe two times in a row, the first with virgin yeast and the second with a PET full and back to back there was no difference.


----------



## manticle (26/6/10)

I often do similar (in fact just reserved some ringwood yeast a few minutes ago) although I generally half fill my bottles (have had a lot of pressure build up when I used to fill them and once sprayed 3787 all over the kitchen ceiling).

I prefer top cropped yeast but will reserve slurry as well - mainly to have certain strains on hand. I also reserve a little bit from each WY pack which goes into a couple of test tubes.

Unlike you though I make a starter from mine just to double check the viability of the yeast (and because I like my yeast active when it hits the wort).

Smelling and tasting before use is essential.

I've never washed mine but I am considering giving it a go. I'm curious to know if the low pH in the starter might have the same effect though?


----------



## Nick JD (26/6/10)

I've found they don't get much pressure in them, although usually the beer on top is lightly carbonated, probably from eating up residual carbs maybe? I would be discouraged to use anything that was a gusher just in case it was not yeast activity that made it gush. 

Here's a couple of photos to show the yeast sitting under the beer. It ends up looking just like a bottle with the world's thickest sediment.

This is a 1762.






And here's a US05 ... massive! I'll probably only pitch half of this one.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (26/6/10)

Nick JD said:


> . . . but you could store them in a cool, dark place if fridge space is an issue.



nooo - don't do that. Its only 6 bottles, keep em in the fridge. Temperature is the enemy of yeast slurry. 4C is the temp you want, and that's handily about what your fridge will give you.

Me personally - I wouldn't be keen to use the slurry 6 months later. It will have suffered considerable cell death and vitality degradation in that period of time. I think you'd be much better off only bottling one or two and bottling more from the subsequent fermentations. Nothing wrong with going a few generations in... much better IMHO than using old yeast. No more cost and only a little more effort for a greater likelihood of getting the beer you want.


----------



## bradsbrew (26/6/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> I think you'd be much better off only bottling one or two and bottling more from the subsequent fermentations. Nothing wrong with going a few generations in... much better IMHO than using old yeast. No more cost and only a little more effort for a greater likelihood of getting the beer you want.




Thats the way I do it.

Sometimes I will take a PET of slurry then drop another cube on top of the rest in the fermenter. I know thats not ideal butI have not had an issue with it yet.

Cheers


----------



## manticle (26/6/10)

I get two bottles at most. Apart from trying to leave behind as much non yeast trub as I can, I simply don't have room in the fridge for too many longnecks, plus new yeast packets plus cc brew plus previously made candi sugar plus lactose plus test tube rack and test tubes plus longnecks of slurry


----------



## MitchDudarko (26/6/10)

I'm gonna do this I reckon, as I tried washing yeast, and due to my inexperience, I think I sent alot of yeast down the drain.


----------



## levin_ae92 (3/7/10)

I started doing this a while ago, but like Manticle only fill half way as I also had a few issues with yeast flying everywhere in front of a very unimpressed girlfriend! I also only take one or two long necks (half full) and store in the fridge, but since I havent used many different yeasts all I have on hand atm is US05 and ringwood


----------



## bigfridge (3/7/10)

Nick JD said:


> I've found they don't get much pressure in them, although usually the beer on top is lightly carbonated, probably from eating up residual carbs maybe? I would be discouraged to use anything that was a gusher just in case it was not yeast activity that made it gush.
> 
> Here's a couple of photos to show the yeast sitting under the beer. It ends up looking just like a bottle with the world's thickest sediment.
> 
> This is a 1762.



Personally I think that you are heading for some infected beer as storing yeast using this method is not recommended. But you don't have to take my word for it (even though I used to do this about 15 years ago and did get bad infections) George Fix in Analysis of Brewing Techniques states that you should only store slurry at 1 deg c for a max of 72 hours.

From your pic there does not seem to be much health yeast - this is the thin white band in the middle. The rest is dead yeast and hop debris. During extended storage, yeast can suffer 'shock excretion' where selected Amino acids leak out of the yeast cell and this is an ideal food for bacteria.

By storing the trub this way you get a situation where the yeast is dying and the bacteria present is growing on the ideal food being provided - end result is bad beer.

Far better to store it under sterile tap water from the original smack pack - much as like Tony has shown elsewhere.

HTH,
David


----------



## Mickydp1979 (3/7/10)

Do you guys have any problems with the non-yeast leftovers? My brews usually have quite a lot of hop material still in the trub, so do you leave it in or strain that out?


----------



## Nick JD (3/7/10)

bigfridge said:


> Personally I think that you are heading for some infected beer as storing yeast using this method is not recommended. But you don't have to take my word for it (even though I used to do this about 15 years ago and did get bad infections) George Fix in Analysis of Brewing Techniques states that you should only store slurry at 1 deg c for a max of 72 hours.
> 
> From your pic there does not seem to be much health yeast - this is the thin white band in the middle. The rest is dead yeast and hop debris. During extended storage, yeast can suffer 'shock excretion' where selected Amino acids leak out of the yeast cell and this is an ideal food for bacteria.
> 
> ...



So it's impossible to reculture Coopers bottle yeasts and weizen yeasts and get a great beer? That's what you're saying, right? You're also saying (contrary to what many, many people do here) that reusing yeast older than 72 hours old is a bad practice? Mate, there's some very reputable brewers in the comments above who do this ... why would you say it doesn't work if you want to retain your standing here as someone who knows their stuff?

BTW - no hop debris in there. I've never had an infection using yeast this way. Please provide references to your quotes - especially the part about bacteria being able to live in the environment you say they are thriving in. I call a big BULLSHIT on that one.

Retailers = reusing is bad. _Gee, I wonder why?_


----------



## manticle (3/7/10)

bigfridge said:


> Personally I think that you are heading for some infected beer as storing yeast using this method is not recommended. But you don't have to take my word for it (even though I used to do this about 15 years ago and did get bad infections) George Fix in Analysis of Brewing Techniques states that you should only store slurry at 1 deg c for a max of 72 hours.
> 
> From your pic there does not seem to be much health yeast - this is the thin white band in the middle. The rest is dead yeast and hop debris. During extended storage, yeast can suffer 'shock excretion' where selected Amino acids leak out of the yeast cell and this is an ideal food for bacteria.
> 
> ...



Do you mean slurry on its own? I store mine with boiled, cooled water (and make starters so infections should reveal themselves). Seems to be OK so far although I also have sterile water + virgin yeast in test tubes which I'm slowly developing each time I buy a new yeast.

@Nick: How much extra money per financial year do you think he stands to make from convincing you not to do this?


----------



## Wolfy (3/7/10)

MitchDudarko said:


> I'm gonna do this I reckon, as I tried washing yeast, and due to my inexperience, I think I sent alot of yeast down the drain.


While there are many ways to achieve the same end result, my personal preference (and it seems a few other people's also) is to save a smaller sample of clean washed yeast with the expectation that there will be enough viable cells after a period of time to make a starter rather than pitch directly.


Nick JD said:


> So it's impossible to reculture Coopers bottle yeasts and weizen yeasts and get a great beer? That's what you're saying, right? You're also saying (contrary to what many, many people do here) that reusing yeast older than 72 hours old is a bad practice?


The way I read it he's simply suggesting that alternate methods are generally more accepted, such as washing yeast, storing it clean and under water and then building a starter before pitching.
Obviously, nobody pitches the yeast directly from a coopers bottle.
And the standard, conventional and sometimes published wisdom is that approaching saved yeast slurry with the same expectations is logical and sensible:
1) You save enough viable yeast either from slurry, a slant, a vial stored from a smack pack or any similar method, 
2) After storing it for a period of time (which to me is the half the point of saving yeast) you make a starter to build up the number of viable cells and increase the health of the yeast before pitching.

There are many ways to reuse yeast and I don't doubt that this method works for you, it is certainly easier and more convenient than washing slurry or saving from a smack pack and then building a starter - and I'm sure that convenience is attractive to many people.


----------



## Nick JD (3/7/10)

manticle said:


> @Nick: How much extra money per financial year do you think he stands to make from convincing you not to do this?



Me? $0.00c 

Convincing brewers of Newcastle that trub older than 72 hours is useless and will result in bad brews - maybe enough to buy his pink Hyundai new Playboy bunny seat covers  .


----------



## manticle (3/7/10)

You haven't been talking to Darren have you?


----------



## Nick JD (3/7/10)

Wolfy said:


> ...and I'm sure that convenience is attractive to many people.



Cheers, Wolfy - that's why I put this thread in this subforum, in an attempt to show that those who do not buy Wyeast because it's $11, can - and improve their beers in both quality and variety. 

If someone starts using great yeasts that they thought too expensive because of this thread then I suppose it's worth the hassle of people saying it doesn't work and it's not best practice. None of my brewing methods are best practice ... yet my beer is delicious. Go figure.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (3/7/10)

People want to use liquid yeast generally, because they think it will result in better beer. That's the whole point.

Bigfridge points out - rightly in my opinion - that storing the yeast the way you suggest will very possibly result in worse beer rather than better beer. Nothing wrong with storing slurry in the shorter term under a bit of beer - but in the longer term, with all the trub in there, not so much. You are asking for an increased chance of infection and certainly for a batch of unhealthy yeast.

People can start using great yeast for less expense, there are about 20 other threads devoted to telling them how, including several on how to do exactly what you have suggested (not that you'd bother acknowledging it) - and if people take Bigfridge's advice and do it by storing under sterile water (and how is advising people to do that trying to sell them more yeast??) and then growing a starter, they avoid the potential issues of your method. So they get less expense and a greater chance of better beer.

I don't see why Bigfridge should, and I am certainly not going to provide you with quotes and references - your the one that's so quickly gone from never having brewed an AG beer to knowing more about it than people who have been brewing and studying brewing science for years... I'm sure your super powers will enable you to find and repudiate all those brewing scientists in no time flat.

As you say - none of your brewing methods is best practise... so if your beers are in fact delicious - then its in spite of that rather than because of it. I think that any but the newest and most naive of brewers will be able to see, that while bigfridge might perhaps have some yeast to sell - what you have to sell is in fact mostly bullshit.


----------



## boobiedazzler (3/7/10)

<B>your the one that's so quickly gone from never having brewed an AG beer to knowing more about it than people who have been brewing and studying brewing science for years... I'm sure your super powers will enable you to find and repudiate all those brewing scientists in no time flat.</B>

Exactly, Nick. Regardless of how often you brewed prior to AG, and no matter how closely you have read and understood the few fundamental principals of grain preparation, mash day, hop usage, yeast processes, temperature control and sanitisation, you can never hope to excel by comparison to the old hats. You have to earn your stripes first, son. You may also think that your beer is lovely, but that's an illusion as well. One can never be a true judge of a beer's profile until they have had many, many AG beers worth of experience under their belt. 

AG a dark art ? Without a doubt. Regular practice can instantly turn a brickies labouror into a SCIENTIST in a few short years AND biologically alter one's sense of taste. Unless you behold super powers like Thirsty said and somehow, unreasonable as it is, READ A LOT about the subject of brewing. I doubt your super-powers, Nick. Nobody, NOBODY (repeated for effect) with so few all-grain notches in their belt could hope to be considered a contender. Not yet, but one day, so long as you keep that cauldron aflame with happy juice. 

I'm presently about to chug down one my horse-piss New-AG'er Ales and continue to read your posts, for as long as I can stand it. The beer and your posts. If only so I can get back on and tell you how much of your practices can be broken down into a hundred subpoints of incorrect brewing behaviour. 

Now, where did I put John J.'s book ?


----------



## Wolfy (3/7/10)

Nick JD said:


> Cheers, Wolfy - that's why I put this thread in this subforum, in an attempt to show that those who do not buy Wyeast because it's $11, can - and improve their beers in both quality and variety.


I think the are closer to $15 or more around here, so maybe you're lucky. 
There are many ways to obtain, propagate, store and save yeast, and I hope that - if nothing else - forum topics and discussion like this, give others the chance to consider exploring, saving and experimenting with various yeasts - even if they do not use the exact method outlined above. 
One thing I find almost painful on the popular UK forums is their almost zealot-like passion for using dried yeast almost exclusively, so if topics like this can help people brew better beer and experiment with various yeasts and ways to save and store them ... great!
However, like most things on the magical-inter-web there are 1000 experts, 1000 different ways to do things and everyone thinks they are right, so it's a matter reading, understanding the concepts and then trying and experimenting to work out what is best for your situation and for your purposes.


----------



## manticle (3/7/10)

I'm right.


----------



## Wolfy (3/7/10)

manticle said:


> I'm right.


I said it first!


----------



## haysie (3/7/10)

Great thing about yeast threads is there are so many of them. A quick search and one can find what their looking for, and generally pick up some great tips, i.e I split my packs via a method TidalPete was/is using, just refined it to suit me. This is just another one them threads. Given the last couple of AHB yeast threads and Nick`s posts, I could see him sticking his head up and starting _another_ thread, was always going to be shot down pretty quickly.
We all know slurries work and "beer of show" many times have been won this way, the score is on the board so to speak. Best practice? to be giving advice? Why not, its just beer! Its his method among dozens or 1000`s as Wolfy mentions.


----------



## boobiedazzler (3/7/10)

manticle said:


> I'm right.



I'll bet you are. But to within how many degrees?


----------



## Murcluf (3/7/10)

I've done this in the past but every now and again you'll get one going paear shaped and I've ditched the starter a starter or two. So I've gotten it the practice of smaking a pack at least 3 days in advance building a starter and taking 4 samples prior pitching. If I do want to save any yeast from a brew I harvest some of the krausen off the top. This practice has saved me the real heartache of pitching shitty yeast


----------



## Nick JD (3/7/10)

manticle said:


> I'm right.



I'm never right ... but if I want to brew beer anally I'll fart in a schooner.

This method works like a treat, and produces great beer. I never said this is the only way to do it, not once - but short of dribbling in your bottles before you fill them it works perfectly - which brings me to those people who:

A. Couldn't make this method work

and

B. Have never used this method, but through reading every book known to brewing have disclaimed it theoretically and not empirically.

Both A and B are knobs.


----------



## brett mccluskey (3/7/10)

Whoa! what a thread! How about this for a method of yeast storage.Simply bottle 6 stubbies of a batch that you want to propagate yeast from,allow to condition,then store in the fridge.you now have 6 2nd generation cultures to make a starter from.I"ve used this method for over 20 years of a/g brewing with no issues,as long as proper sanatation procedures are adhered to. Personally i wouldnt use the slurry without washing(dead cells,trub,hop residue,etc) but thats just me.As an added bonus, you also get to drink the "yeast preserving medium".ie:the beer.! I also make sure that the stubbies are the first ones from the fermenter....so manymethods,so many opinions... :drinks:


----------



## beerbog (3/7/10)

Nick JD said:


> I'm never right ... but if I want to brew beer anally I'll fart in a schooner.



Another bottler. +2 :beerbang:


----------



## Wolfy (3/7/10)

Nick JD said:


> B. Have never used this method, but through reading every book known to brewing have disclaimed it theoretically and not empirically.
> 
> Both A and B are knobs.


If published science has proved a point, if it's been covered by several published experts, and if there is extensive empirical evidence in favor of a specific point, I see no reason why I need to experiment in the hope that it might work differently for me. If that makes me a 'knob' so be it, but it's also the basis of nearly much learning and knowledge transfer.


----------



## boobiedazzler (3/7/10)

Wolfy said:


> If published science has proved a point, if it's been covered by several published experts, and if there is extensive empirical evidence in favor of a specific point, I see no reason why I need to experiment in the hope that it might work differently for me.



Sure, take it as rote learning and disregard your own personal observations. Read... and repeat. 

There's an element of "Your Experiences May Vary" in most home brew-houses. Hands up how many members are looking at cell count, and not just assuming the best ? I dare say that there would be wide variances if examined through a scopic eye. It would probably surprise the 'assumists' how low (or high) their reproduction process was. 

Starters are good, yes. Starters are ******* awesome, if I may share with you boys my opinion. But it is more about the large and active biological growth cycle becoming a fast-acting key to a wort's future. A good, vibrant plan of action. 

If I were to do Nick's method of crude samples (and I have), then these days I would make a starter from a portion of the bottled trub. But in the past, I have pitched room temperaturised yeasty trub after three months in the fridge, and the results have been favourable. 

IMHO of course. Our experiences may vary in tasting. 




Wolfy said:


> If that makes me a 'knob' so be it



You make it sound so final. 



.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (4/7/10)

choose if you will

*Method A:* Method A has a number of disadvantages that are recorded in the professional text books, there are good theoretical reasons why it isn't the best choice, lots of experienced brewers suggest that while its OK to an extent, there are inherent issues. But - Brewer X who you have never met, who's beers you have never tasted, says that Method X works for them, therefore any suggestion that method X might be sub optimal is obviously bullshit, people who dont use it are knobs and they have ulterior motives for expressing their concerns with method A.

OR

*Method B:* Works just as well as method A, has few of the purported disadvantages of Method A, is a little harder to do.

You pick - my choice is sullied by the fact that I am a knob, so you wouldn't want to listen to me.

Oh and Nick... you left out a category of potential knob.

A: Couldn't make this method work

B: Have never used this method, but through reading every book known to brewing have disclaimed it theoretically and not empirically

C: People who _have_ tried it, _have_ made it work, _have_ realised that there are potential issues with it, tried other methods that work as well or better that don't have those issues, _have_ moved on.

That's three kind of knobs that disagree with you not just two - I actually suspect there are quite a few more categories of knobs that disagree with you. But I'll settle for being categorised into the 3rd group until a more suitable category comes up.


----------



## boobiedazzler (4/7/10)

Is there a BJCP Style Guideline reference to 'types' of knob?

When people build their 'knowledge', and apply the theories, thus making a better beer, it would be rare for any "respected" home brewer to regress into the so called 'don't do's' for the sake of experimentation. A richer understanding of the five key elements does work, but once we are caught in that quest for completeness of understanding, often the assumptions are made that perceived academic crudeness is many fathoms inferior to an educated zymologist's approach to the next batch. 

There are ranges in which the process of brewing can operate. 

And there are assumptions often polished up as 'fact'. Which fast become unswayable habit. 

Anyone checking the cell count of their yeast ? Who here even has the equipment to do so ?


----------



## haysie (4/7/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Oh and Nick... you left out a category of potential knob.
> 
> A: Couldn't make this method work
> 
> ...



kNoB C


----------



## bigfridge (6/7/10)

Nick JD said:


> So it's impossible to reculture Coopers bottle yeasts and weizen yeasts and get a great beer? That's what you're saying, right? You're also saying (contrary to what many, many people do here) that reusing yeast older than 72 hours old is a bad practice? Mate, there's some very reputable brewers in the comments above who do this ... why would you say it doesn't work if you want to retain your standing here as someone who knows their stuff?
> 
> BTW - no hop debris in there. I've never had an infection using yeast this way. Please provide references to your quotes - especially the part about bacteria being able to live in the environment you say they are thriving in. I call a big BULLSHIT on that one.
> 
> Retailers = reusing is bad. _Gee, I wonder why?_



Dear Mr Nick,

I thank the other posters who have backed up what I actually said with their knowledge and experience, rather than what you seem to have wanted me to say so that you can pursue your agenda of personal abuse.

I simply said that I have previously used this method and got consistently poor results and infected beers. I also referenced a recognised author as advising against it. I offered my experience that I have found that storing clean yeast under sterile water gives perfect results over a number of years. Also, commercially bottled beers will have a higher level of sanitation that we can ever hope to acheive in our home breweries. I did not say what anyone should do or not do - I just said what was recommended based on my experience of 30 years of brewing and a published author. I placed it out there in the forum so that people could 'take it or leave it' and make up their own mind.

As for references - you only need to open the book that I refered to and look up 'Yeast Storage' in the index - you will easy find the words that I quoted.

Reusing yeast = good. Reusing infected or unhealthy yeast is bad for the reputation of liquid yeasts.

I am on the record as requesting to the website administrators as not being tagged as a Retailer as I do not sell any retail products. I am actually a professional brewer, consulatant and wholesale supplier to the brewing trade - we do not sell anything retail.


----------



## bigfridge (6/7/10)

manticle said:


> Do you mean slurry on its own? I store mine with boiled, cooled water (and make starters so infections should reveal themselves). Seems to be OK so far although I also have sterile water + virgin yeast in test tubes which I'm slowly developing each time I buy a new yeast.



Yes it should be slurry with boiled water as this puts the yeast into a dormant state. If beer or wort is present then the yeast continues to metabolise its glycogen reserves and can also suffer autolysis. It is also important that the yeast is sterile as any bacteria present will continue to multiply by using the dead yeast as nutrients and when you step up the quantity of yeast the bacteria is also increased.

What I do is have boiled water in small glass bottles (ie only a few ML in size) and when I pitch the smack pack I leave a small amount of liquid behind. I then rinse out the pack by pouring the water in, swirling around and re-bottling it again. This gives me a thin layer of pure yeast under the sterile water.

I have regularly recultured yeast stored this way after a year or two, but I have also has some failures.

HTH,
Dave


----------



## WSC (6/7/10)

bigfridge said:


> Personally I think that you are heading for some infected beer as storing yeast using this method is not recommended. But you don't have to take my word for it (even though I used to do this about 15 years ago and did get bad infections) George Fix in Analysis of Brewing Techniques states that you should only store slurry at 1 deg c for a max of 72 hours.
> 
> From your pic there does not seem to be much health yeast - this is the thin white band in the middle. The rest is dead yeast and hop debris. During extended storage, yeast can suffer 'shock excretion' where selected Amino acids leak out of the yeast cell and this is an ideal food for bacteria.
> 
> ...



I agree with the don't store more than 72 hours guidelines.

I have treid keeping it for a week and although sometimes there were no issue's I did get infections, only mild ones but they were there none the less.

Now I bottle a brew, and repitch a cup/stubby into a new brew within 2 hours of bottling. This works for me as I have 2 fermenters and bottle and brew on the same night usually. 

I usually only repeat the yeast harvesting for 3 brews. Eg did a saison with 3711, then a english mild saison and then a stout saison version......3 brews from 1 smack pack is good enough economy for me.


----------



## Benniee (6/7/10)

bigfridge said:


> What I do is have boiled water in small glass bottles (ie only a few ML in size) and when I pitch the smack pack I leave a small amount of liquid behind. I then rinse out the pack by pouring the water in, swirling around and re-bottling it again. This gives me a thin layer of pure yeast under the sterile water.



What a good idea - I've only ever tried to get the last dregs out of the pack directly rather than tipping in a bit of sanitised or sterile water to swirl around.

I'll be giving this a try next time I open a pack. 

Thanks Dave.

Benniee


----------



## Fourstar (6/7/10)

Benniee said:


> What a good idea - I've only ever tried to get the last dregs out of the pack directly rather than tipping in a bit of sanitised or sterile water to swirl around.
> I'll be giving this a try next time I open a pack.
> Thanks Dave.
> Benniee



Or simply wipe an innoculation loop onto the dregs in the pack and streak 4-5 slants! :icon_cheers: 

On topic: Nick, I commend your effort for the thread and the intent. However, the process of doing this should not be for extended storage. As it has been clearly laid out by yourself, the reasons for doing this is obviously to cut costs and save time without having to build starters. However you may have missed the point being made by bigfridge and thirsty. You should not be performing this process (extended storage) at the sacrifice of _better _beer. Which is the whole reason why we are in this HB community.

Also, my understanding is Coopers reseed their bottles with fresh healthy yeast. Much like alot of German Breweries do with their weizens. It's a big difference to reculturing trub.


----------



## Nick JD (6/7/10)

Fourstar said:


> Or simply wipe an innoculation loop onto the dregs in the pack and streak 4-5 slants! :icon_cheers:
> 
> On topic: Nick, I commend your effort for the thread and the intent. However, the process of doing this should not be for extended storage. As it has been clearly laid out by yourself, the reasons for doing this is obviously to cut costs and save time without having to build starters. However you may have missed the point being made by bigfridge and thirsty. You should not be performing this process (extended storage) at the sacrifice of _better _beer. Which is the whole reason why we are in this HB community.
> 
> Also, my understanding is Coopers reseed their bottles with fresh healthy yeast. Much like alot of German Breweries do with their weizens. It's a big difference to reculturing trub.



I hear ya Fourstar, but I simply haven't found this process to affect the beer to a point where it's an issue. As I said earlier in the thread _I have brewed the same recipe and used old stored yeast and virgin yeast, tasted them back to back and found no difference. _ Perhaps I might find issues with certain strains and not others, but I'm yet to use this method with a strain that produces detrimental results. If you are entering your beer in competitions, perhaps this method isn't for you - but I know winning beers have been made from much, much older than 72 hour trub. 

This is more than 3 month old trub-stored yeast. I took this picture today after cleaning up the airlock and lid and replacing it with gladwrap. Escaping the airlock < 36 hours after pitching with no starter. 







Yup - the "dead" yeast actually managed to escape the airlock with a 17L brew in a 27L fermenter. The beer is tasting freakin' fantastic. A monk would be proud of it.






So, for sure, this method isn't for everyone - but it makes great beer and saves me money.


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt (6/7/10)

Knob C. And, for the record, mine is the smallest in the room.

Whilst it is true that I have never got an infection that I couldn't grow to like the taste of, I think this plays to the fact that brewing is a numbers game and if you play to the numbers, you are more likely to win.

It is entirely possible that Home Brewer A (as opposed to Knob A, although they *could* be the same person) has deployed a technique that is not entirely according to Hoyle and happened onto a decent (enough) beer. But, I reckon that Home Brewer B (could also be...) who always follows the rules around sanitation and other stuff that affects very small animals will more likely consistently brew very decent beer.

Edit: Attempt at clarification.


----------



## Pete2501 (6/7/10)

manticle said:


> I'm right.



I'm Pete, nice to meet you. 
h34r: 


Couldn't help myself. The dad jokes have been too many lately.

To bring this thread to epic status it need only include info on how to separate yeast from trub.


----------



## Wolfy (6/7/10)

Nick JD said:


> Yup - the "dead" yeast actually managed to escape the airlock with a 17L brew in a 27L fermenter. The beer is tasting freakin' fantastic. A monk would be proud of it.
> 
> So, for sure, this method isn't for everyone - but it makes great beer and saves me money.


One could argue that the airlock-escaping-yeast may not actually be a good thing, that it may actually be an infection or wild yeast - much like 'gushers' when you open a bottle of infected bottle conditioned beer. 

But you're right, whatever method works for you and if you save some money brewing beer you enjoy then all the better, nothing wrong with sharing those procedures at all.


----------



## Nick JD (6/7/10)

Wolfy said:


> One could argue that the airlock-escaping-yeast may not actually be a good thing, that it may actually be an infection or wild yeast...



One could, but one would be then bringing up the issue of a tiny population of wild yeast (less than a hundred cells) being able to foam out an airlock in 36 hours being something the biofuel industry would be interested in. Or the brewing industry, since the beer tastes like an eighteen year old blonde Belgian beer-wench's nipples.


----------

