maiden voyage white labs pure pitch

[wort-h.o.g]

@Philbrew

Update on experiment 1.050 Brew:

my conclusion is at least for wlp001 fresh pure pitch, I can produce a high quality beer up to my standards (im very critical) with pitching 1 pouch directly into wort without starter.

For anyone looking to replicate , I will point out the following base line to level set:

• yeast was around 2 weeks old
• proper mash PH and temp managed (5.4PH and mash temp 150F)
• wyeast yeast nutrient added end of boil
• 3 minutes of O2 added with red O2 canister wand
• sterilization with alcohol of pure pitch pouch and scissors
• yeast pitched into 65F wort and held around 67F for 3 days, then slow rise to 70 over days 4-10 to finish

looking forward to trying other pure pitch strains to see if similar performance is achieved. will also report back on the 1.060 brew currently in progress.

Perhaps I missed it earlier in the thread, but these are 5 gal. in the fermenter, yes?

about 5.25gal

[69franx]

And as a point of reference, this is the new White labs packaging, correct? What I mean is if you plan on using WLP001 un the nearish future, this is the only way to obtain a fresh potch, correct? The time is now to experiment and compare because soon it will only come one way IIRC

[wort-h.o.g]

@69franx

And as a point of reference, this is the new White labs packaging, correct? What I mean is if you plan on using WLP001 un the nearish future, this is the only way to obtain a fresh potch, correct? The time is now to experiment and compare because soon it will only come one way IIRC

yes its the new pure pitch pouch, and correct that the white lab vials and yeast are replaced by pure pitch.

[system]

@a10t2

For fresh yeast, I would say yes. If the culture was older, then CO₂ toxicity could come into play.

CO₂ build up can be a problem with cultures in storage. That’s why I recommend against storing cropped yeast in closed canning jars.  I always use an airlock that is filled just high enough to cover the holes on the piston.

[pete_baker (pete b)]

@a10t2

For fresh yeast, I would say yes. If the culture was older, then CO₂ toxicity could come into play.

CO₂ build up can be a problem with cultures in storage. That’s why I recommend against storing cropped yeast in closed canning jars.  I always use an airlock that is filled just high enough to cover the holes on the piston.

I use mason jars with the rings not tightly screwed to allow the cover to float up and burp CO2 (in theory). This might not be best practice but I just don’t have the space in my fridge on the shelf that would be high enough for airlocks.

[system]

I use 500ml Erlenmeyer flasks for my crops.

[pete_baker (pete b)]

I use 500ml Erlenmeyer flasks for my crops.

How tall are they with an airlock?

[system]

How tall are they with an airlock?

11"

[Philbrew]

@a10t2

For fresh yeast, I would say yes. If the culture was older, then CO₂ toxicity could come into play.

CO₂ build up can be a problem with cultures in storage. That’s why I recommend against storing cropped yeast in closed canning jars.  I always use an airlock that is filled just high enough to cover the holes on the piston.

Mark,
I’d say your method is the safest and I try to do it that way.  But to play devil’s advocate here, I’ve read on this forum that the Macro brewers ferment at 1-2 atmospheres.  Wouldn’t that introduce a CO2 toxicity problem?  Or is that just a yeast storage thing?  Confused  :-[

[wort-h.o.g]

Update on experiment 1.050 Brew:

Day 10 and gravity has been stable for 2 days at 1.010- right on target. pulled a sample and chilled and forced carbed. This APA has great head retention, with the hops dominating both aroma and taste and finishes dry. will be dry hopping next weekend when i keg.

There are no faults detected in this brew. Compared to other APA’s I’ve made, and similar to ones others on this forum have tasted, this beer stands tall and may even rate a tad higher in my opinion.

My previous methodology would have been to make a starter and target around 180B cells. As noted, my pure pitch wlp001 was only 2 weeks old when used-freshest yeast Ive ever used. Based upon White labs specs and others comments, the pure pitch pouch would have had around 100B cells, ± 25B I would suspect is fair.

my conclusion is at least for wlp001 fresh pure pitch, I can produce a high quality beer up to my standards (im very critical) with pitching 1 pouch directly into wort without starter.

For anyone looking to replicate , I will point out the following base line to level set:

• yeast was around 2 weeks old
• proper mash PH and temp managed (5.4PH and mash temp 150F)
• wyeast yeast nutrient added end of boil
• 3 minutes of O2 added with red O2 canister wand
• sterilization with alcohol of pure pitch pouch and scissors
• yeast pitched into 65F wort and held around 67F for 3 days, then slow rise to 70 over days 4-10 to finish

looking forward to trying other pure pitch strains to see if similar performance is achieved. will also report back on the 1.060 brew currently in progress.

day 6 on 1.060 and drew first sample. gravity 1.010. same procedures as above on 1.050 beer. again, nothing off detected at all. very hop forward and finished dry. will just let this one ride out another week and dry hop and keg.  fresh wlp001 pure pitch up to 1.060 for me is going to be no starter.

[brewinhard]

Update on experiment 1.050 Brew:

Day 10 and gravity has been stable for 2 days at 1.010- right on target. pulled a sample and chilled and forced carbed. This APA has great head retention, with the hops dominating both aroma and taste and finishes dry. will be dry hopping next weekend when i keg.

There are no faults detected in this brew. Compared to other APA’s I’ve made, and similar to ones others on this forum have tasted, this beer stands tall and may even rate a tad higher in my opinion.

My previous methodology would have been to make a starter and target around 180B cells. As noted, my pure pitch wlp001 was only 2 weeks old when used-freshest yeast Ive ever used. Based upon White labs specs and others comments, the pure pitch pouch would have had around 100B cells, ± 25B I would suspect is fair.

my conclusion is at least for wlp001 fresh pure pitch, I can produce a high quality beer up to my standards (im very critical) with pitching 1 pouch directly into wort without starter.

For anyone looking to replicate , I will point out the following base line to level set:

• yeast was around 2 weeks old
• proper mash PH and temp managed (5.4PH and mash temp 150F)
• wyeast yeast nutrient added end of boil
• 3 minutes of O2 added with red O2 canister wand
• sterilization with alcohol of pure pitch pouch and scissors
• yeast pitched into 65F wort and held around 67F for 3 days, then slow rise to 70 over days 4-10 to finish

looking forward to trying other pure pitch strains to see if similar performance is achieved. will also report back on the 1.060 brew currently in progress.

day 6 on 1.060 and drew first sample. gravity 1.010. same procedures as above on 1.050 beer. again, nothing off detected at all. very hop forward and finished dry. will just let this one ride out another week and dry hop and keg.  fresh wlp001 pure pitch up to 1.060 for me is going to be no starter.

That is very cool to hear.  I wondering when my LHBS will get these in.  Hopefully fresher than the vials.

[wort-h.o.g]

The wlp001 pure pitch was the first to arrive on the scene at my lhbs and I picked up at about 2 weeks old. Fresher than any vials I ever saw.

[skatz (Stevie)]

I may be crazy, but I can’t recall ever seeing wlp001 or wy1056 more than a month old. That stuff should turn over like mad.

[wort-h.o.g]

I may be crazy, but I can’t recall ever seeing wlp001 or wy1056 more than a month old. That stuff should turn over like mad.

agreed. depends a bit on your demand at LHBS though.  WL vials being a month old were already at 75% viability (4-month -1 month = 75%), compared to the 6 month - 1 month = 84%( life span listed on pure pitch)…if calc remains the same. my pure pitch was 2 weeks, and at my LHBS that is rare/unseen as far as WL vials are concerned.

[a10t2]

WL vials being a month old were already at 75% viability

That is for slurry stored after a fermentation, though. Stored properly, a lab propagation won’t degrade that quickly.

[wort-h.o.g]

@a10t2

WL vials being a month old were already at 75% viability

That is for slurry stored after a fermentation, though. Stored properly, a lab propagation won’t degrade that quickly.

ok understood, thanks for that.  its just all the yeast calcs Ive used seem to account for yeast in vial or pouch that way when determining viability…using the manufacture date and 4-month scale.

EDIT: doesnt quite equate to 25% viability reduction for 30 day old yeast in the calc…its 21%

[system]

@Philbrew

But to play devil’s advocate here, I’ve read on this forum that the Macro brewers ferment at 1-2 atmospheres.  Wouldn’t that introduce a CO2 toxicity problem?  Or is that just a yeast storage thing?  Confused  :-[

Fermenting under pressure also takes its toll on yeast cells.

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/215/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00253-004-1648-9.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs00253-004-1648-9&token2=exp=1438290464~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F215%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs00253-004-1648-9.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs00253-004-1648-9*~hmac=9befdb57201b17ed0d720c6cbed0cad9dd70f0309adbb2335d19bb13a190c369

[system]

@a10t2

That is for slurry stored after a fermentation, though. Stored properly, a lab propagation won’t degrade that quickly.

+1

Lab grown yeast contains mostly young cells whereas the average age of a cell in a cropped culture is highly dependent upon cropping/repitching technique.  I have heard Garrett Oliver state on more than one occasion that the Brooklyn Brewery underpitches periodically in order to reduce the average age of the cells in the culture.

[wort-h.o.g]

@a10t2

That is for slurry stored after a fermentation, though. Stored properly, a lab propagation won’t degrade that quickly.

+1

Lab grown yeast contains mostly young cells whereas the average age of a cell in a cropped culture is highly dependent upon cropping/repitching technique.  I have heard Garrett Oliver state on more than one occasion that the Brooklyn Brewery underpitches periodically in order to reduce the average age of the cells in the culture.

And so would a lab culture in a vessel that  allows co2 to escape encourage slower degradation? Curious because of the stated longer viability of 6 months stated on pure pitch.

[Brewday]

I just picked up the 001 & 002 pure pitches dated July 13th for $5 each - couldn’t pass that up.  I think I’ll take a leap of faith and give the 002 a go for my BrewUnited Brown Porter.