Liquid ale yeast: is the starter useless?

Undead8 · 10-23-2007, 04:54 PM

To my own experience, making starters for liquid yeast is useless. I've always used the Wyeast propagator package (25 billions cells designed to use with a starter) without doing any starter and always had a vigorous fermentation in less than 24 hours. My fermentation temp is 68 deg.

I just did 7 batches with liquid yeast, so I might be wrong. But why should I bother about making a starter when it works without it? I read about people making 3-4 quarts starters and that seems a lot of unecessary work to me, unless you're doing a lager or using washed yeast.

mrkristofo · 10-23-2007, 05:03 PM

Depends on what you're brewing. If you're making a big beer (i.e. OG > 1.070), or the fermentation temp is on the low end of the scale, or you're using less fermentable sugars, or the package is expired, or you want to culture up some extra yeast and save it, then you usually make a starter.

I have just gotten into the habit of making starters for everything. I don't usually make one with smack-packs though, just vials (unless I'm trying to culture the yeast) .The fermentation is just usually more vigorous and ends quicker. In turn, I can get the beer off the yeast cake sooner, and eventually get it into bottles that much quicker.

Edit: J'aime votre signature.

**cubbies** · 10-23-2007, 05:53 PM

To each his own I suppose. I always use starters. The time it takes me to make one is < 15 minutes, + 10 or so seconds of swirling everytime I pass through the kitchen. In my world, this is not a whole lot of work. And my lag times are typically less than 4 hours...I would be worried about something else taking over by hour 24.

jdoiv · 10-23-2007, 06:04 PM

I make starters for many reasons, but the biggest is that I brew 11 gallon batches. Instead of buying 2 packs, I can buy one, make a starter, put it on a stir plate and end up with 4 times the yeast. The yeast is less stressed going into the beer and gives off fewer esters in the adaptive phase. But to each his own. YMMV

**the_bird** · 10-23-2007, 06:08 PM

You are going to get a different flavor profile by pitching without a starter versus with one - lots of esters are formed during the yeast's reproductive phase. Depending on the style, that could be good or bad.

Making a starter also locks me into my brewing schedule; otherwise, I'm apt to let the other parts of life (work, house, family) interfere with the most important thing, brewing!

Ó Flannagáin · 10-23-2007, 06:29 PM

I hear ya, but I do find it necessary for the WLP vials of liquid yeast, those guys take 2 days+ to start if I don't make a starter first.

Rhoobarb · 10-23-2007, 06:29 PM

I do it for any liquid yeast for three reasons. I want to make sure the yeast is viable, I want as high a cell count as possible and I want the fermentation to take off as soon as possible - 3-4 hours after pitching, ideally.

PseudoChef · 10-24-2007, 12:18 AM

You should make starters not to have quick, vigourous fermentation, but to not stress out the yeast leading to off flavours, as bird said.

Ó Flannagáin · 10-24-2007, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhoobarb

I do it for any liquid yeast for three reasons. I want to make sure the yeast is viable, I want as high a cell count as possible and I want the fermentation to take off as soon as possible - 3-4 hours after pitching, ideally.

I do the same. I've seen activity (slow activity) as early as 90 minutes from pitching.

McKBrew · 10-24-2007, 12:49 AM

Every since my one stuck fermentation, I've made a starter. I probably don't always need to, but even though my experience level has went up, I still feel more re-assured when my airlock is bubbling a few hours after I pitch.