Does my yeast packet with built in starter, need a starter?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope. It's good to go. A starter helps, but is unnecessary.
 
Thats not a starter, just a nutrient pack. Yes, you still should use a starter in the same way you would with a liquid vial.
 
Nope. It's good to go. A starter helps, but is unnecessary.

Not sure I'd say that. We don't know the yeast, the OG of their beer, etc. In almost all cases it is beneficial and in some cases it is completely necessary.
 
It totally depends on the gravity of your brew and what the yeast cell count of the smack pack that you used is. What type of smack pack did you use? If it was a propagator pack you absolutely need to make a starter. In fact, the use of a starter for any brew using liquid yeast can never hurt.

Also, these smack packs, regardless of which type, are not starters. They have a small pouch of yeast nutrients inside that helps activate and wake up the yeast when you burst it open, but the cell counts do not increase by any appreciable amount.
 
That is the pack I have. I see online others use a starter for these but others do not. I am caught in the middle. To start or not to start, that is the question.
 
You should check out MrMalty Mrmalty.com to determine the proper pitching rate for your specific beer. The Smack Packs are designed to be a pitchable quantity for an average 5 gallon batch. However, We're homebrewers, since when do we do average? :mug:
 
The smack pack is less of a starter, and more of a nutrient based proofer. Despite what the video shows, you will likely need to make a starter if your OG is higher than 1.060, but for normal gravity beers, you should be OK. Just to be clear...the smack pack IS NOT A STARTER!!!
 
That is the pack I have. I see online others use a starter for these but others do not. I am caught in the middle. To start or not to start, that is the question.

Follow what the directions say.

+1 for what Kcoby said.
 
the smack pack IS NOT A STARTER!!!

This is correct. What I was trying to convey was that this type of yeast typically does not need a traditional starter. That the activator would in most cases be all that is needed to be used.
 
When I first started brewing Injust smacked the pack and pitched it... Did it make beer? Of course it did. Was it good beer? Yes it was pretty decent. Was it the best beer?

After I started making starters with the smack packs my brews turned out much better.

Do you need a starter? Yes if you want good beer. Look up the Mr. Malty calculator and make a starter of the recommended size and your brews will improve.
 
When I first started brewing Injust smacked the pack and pitched it... Did it make beer? Of course it did. Was it good beer? Yes it was pretty decent. Was it the best beer?

After I started making starters with the smack packs my brews turned out much better.

Do you need a starter? Yes if you want good beer. Look up the Mr. Malty calculator and make a starter of the recommended size and your brews will improve.

Agreed.
 
Starter it is. Thanks everyone!

Good choice! Plus it's good practice for your sanitization process, it's fun, AND you can make sure your yeast are alive and kicking before pitching. Wins all around.
 
Lets not forget it also highly depends on the viability of the yeast.
 
Nope. It's good to go. A starter helps, but is unnecessary.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...

The nutrients in the smack pack is not the same thing as making a starter. It's just enough nutrients to wake the yeast up, it's not enough to cause the yeast to reproduce to the size we need for most beers. That's why it's important to know how much your beer needs and make a starter to that amount.

It's really a good idea to make starters when using ANY liguid yeast for all beers above 1.020 OG...

The biggest reason I suggest folks make a starter is if you make one you'll have peace of mind. It's especially important if you have questionable situation happenning with your yeast, like not being sure the yeast arrived healthy.

And you won't be starting an "is my yeast dead" thread in a couple of days.

Making a starter first insures that your yeast is still alive and viable before you dump it in your beer. You will be less likely to start one of those "is my yeast dead?" threads that are on here every day.

You will also ensure that you have enough yeast usually the tubes and smack packs are a lot less yeast that you really should use for healthy fermentation.

Making a starter also usually means your beer will take off sooner, because the first thing that the little buggers do in the presence of wort (whether in a flask or in a fermenter) is have an orgy to reproduce enough cells to do the job...So it won't take such a long time in the fermenter since they started doing it in the flask.

So making a starter proves your yeast is still healthy, allows you to grow enough yeast to do the job, cuts down on lag time, and ensures that you will not get off flavors or stuck ferementations from stressed out yeast.
 
A smack pack isn't a starter, it's nothing like a starter and doesn't do the job of a starter AT ALL.

Make a starter, people. It's easy and kinda fun and will give you better beer. This "smack pack is sorta kinda like a starter" idea is bad info, plain and simple.
 
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...

The nutrients in the smack pack is not the same thing as making a starter. It's just enough nutrients to wake the yeast up, it's not enough to cause the yeast to reproduce to the size we need for most beers. That's why it's important to know how much your beer needs and make a starter to that amount.

It's really a good idea to make starters when using ANY liguid yeast for all beers above 1.020 OG...

The biggest reason I suggest folks make a starter is if you make one you'll have peace of mind. It's especially important if you have questionable situation happenning with your yeast, like not being sure the yeast arrived healthy.

And you won't be starting an "is my yeast dead" thread in a couple of days.

Making a starter first insures that your yeast is still alive and viable before you dump it in your beer. You will be less likely to start one of those "is my yeast dead?" threads that are on here every day.

You will also ensure that you have enough yeast usually the tubes and smack packs are a lot less yeast that you really should use for healthy fermentation.

Making a starter also usually means your beer will take off sooner, because the first thing that the little buggers do in the presence of wort (whether in a flask or in a fermenter) is have an orgy to reproduce enough cells to do the job...So it won't take such a long time in the fermenter since they started doing it in the flask.

So making a starter proves your yeast is still healthy, allows you to grow enough yeast to do the job, cuts down on lag time, and ensures that you will not get off flavors or stuck ferementations from stressed out yeast.

Sorry, Revvy, but I resent your dismissal of my answer. Nothing in your response refutes my statement: A starter is a good idea, but it is not NECESSARY.

I have made many very good beers pitching only a Wyeast smack pack, including the smaller propagator sizes. At no time did I say the Wyeast was a starter. At no time did I say a starter was a bad idea.

I merely said it was not necessary.
 
I'd say OP's question was answered awhile ago.

dead horse.gif
 
When I went to that yeast class I could definitely taste a difference in the differently pitched beers. While I've teased revvy about his long answers, he's right on this.
 
WTF is that supposed to mean?

I don't think he was being rude. I think he was being playful.

It's up to you...do you just want "good" beer, or do you want Great beer?

*shrug*

Exactly! Are starters required? NO. Do they make better beer? Yes, most will agree with that. But the biggest mistakes people make dry pitching or rehydrating is to under pitch. (LOL I say all of this as I am putting together my stir plate! **I **** you not!**) :p
 
I can make a very long list of things that a not necessary to make beer. But who cares? If all you wanna do is make booze, go make toilet wine and have a party. If you want to make better beer, then make a starter and pitch the appropriate cell count. Why people come to a forum about beer and discourage people from doing one of the most effective techniques towards making better beer boggles me.

People decide for themselves whether certain techniques are worth their time for the corresponding increase in quality of their beer. You're entitled to your own compromises, but you're not entitled to assert that you are not in fact making a compromise when the technique is THOROUGHLY proven.
 
I can make a very long list of things that a not necessary to make beer. But who cares? If all you wanna do is make booze, go make toilet wine and have a party. If you want to make better beer, then make a starter and pitch the appropriate cell count. Why people come to a forum about beer and discourage people from doing one of the most effective techniques towards making better beer boggles me.

People decide for themselves whether certain techniques are worth their time for the corresponding increase in quality of their beer. You're entitled to your own compromises, but you're not entitled to assert that you are not in fact making a compromise when the technique is THOROUGHLY proven.

yup.

i sure didn't spend hundreds of dollars on equipment and take hours/days/weeks out of my life, brewing, reading and surfing forums to make "ok" beer. i LIKE brewing and i want to make the best beer possible. part of this is liking to do brewing related things...like making a starter. makes me feel cool! so...i just can't see a reason to not do it. it's fun, easy and is proven with no doubt to give you a better beer. you've gotta be real lazy or making a very small beer to not want to do this.
 
As an FYI, a Wyeast propagator pack is designed to inoculate 5 gallons of standard ale wort with slightly less than 6 million cells per milliliter of wort. This is consistent with rates indicated by Hough, Briggs et al., Malting and Brewing Science, volume 2.

I stand by my original statement of a starter being helpful, but not necessary.
 
As an FYI, a Wyeast propagator pack is designed to inoculate 5 gallons of standard ale wort with slightly less than 6 million cells per milliliter of wort. This is consistent with rates indicated by Hough, Briggs et al., Malting and Brewing Science, volume 2.

I stand by my original statement of a starter being helpful, but not necessary.

1) He never said anything about what kind of beer he was brewing
2) That is if the yeast are completely healthy, within a certain range of their production date, etc.
 
As an FYI, a Wyeast propagator pack is designed to inoculate 5 gallons of standard ale wort with slightly less than 6 million cells per milliliter of wort. This is consistent with rates indicated by Hough, Briggs et al., Malting and Brewing Science, volume 2.

I stand by my original statement of a starter being helpful, but not necessary.

this is true, but each one is only giving you around 100b cells. to make a beer small enough to only need 100b cells, your OG needs to be 1.027, according to mrmalty. i don't know that many of us are making beers that small.

i know this conversation is getting old, but....
 
Can a "junior member" chime in here? I've read debates on this matter on other forums, and you guys certainly seem like dedicated proficient brewers. In my brewing, I haven't seen any of the problems ascociated with "under pitching". I do however use yeast nutrient and O2 injection in all my brews after being rapidly chilled. They kick off quickly and ferment down to the expected attenuation with "smack packs". They taste great; I know I know, subjective and you'll argue they'd be even better with a starter! My point is a properly prepared wort IS A STARTER! The little critters do their thing in the presence of well aerated, nutrition rich wort. This is underemphasized in discussions about starters in my opinion. Pitch a giant starter into a wort that's just beeen shaken in the carboy for a few minutes for aeration with no nutrients added and you'll still have fermentation issues. Fascinating hobby aside, brewing is a pretty time consuming thing. My brew days can easily exceed 5 hours which isn't popular with the wife and kids. If I can save some time and hastle, I'm all for it. Sorry if that's some sort of blasphemy!!

Peace...
 
As an FYI, a Wyeast propagator pack is designed to inoculate 5 gallons of standard ale wort with slightly less than 6 million cells per milliliter of wort. This is consistent with rates indicated by Hough, Briggs et al., Malting and Brewing Science, volume 2.

I stand by my original statement of a starter being helpful, but not necessary.

The Wyeast Propagator packs were designed to be made into starters, but the point is moot because Wyeast has discontinued them due to the fact that there were too many people mistakenly pitching them directly in their wort. Most people stopped buying them because of the need to make a starter with them and went with the Activator Packs instead.

I no longer use Wyeast products and switched to White Labs liquid yeast some time ago. I make a starter for every batch if I'm using liquid yeast. Is it necessary? Don't care! I do it because I enjoy the process, and I'm always trying to improve my processes.

If it's good enough for Jamil and John Palmer to make a starter for every batch, then it's good enough for me. I'm sure that you could ferment in an old shoe and get beer, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea!
 
johnsma22 said:
The Wyeast Propagator packs were designed to be made into starters, but the point is moot because Wyeast has discontinued them due to the fact that there were too many people mistakenly pitching them directly in their wort. Most people stopped buying them because of the need to make a starter with them and went with the Activator Packs instead.

I no longer use Wyeast products and switched to White Labs liquid yeast some time ago. I make a starter for every batch if I'm using liquid yeast. Is it necessary? Don't care! I do it because I enjoy the process, and I'm always trying to improve my processes.

If it's good enough for Jamil and John Palmer to make a starter for every batch, then it's good enough for me. I'm sure that you could ferment in an old shoe and get beer, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea!

The only time I've heard JZ advocate not making a starter and just pitching a single vial or smackpack is for milds, ordinary bitters and 60 shillings. And even that was with the caveat that the yeast pack was fresh.
 
thegerm said:
The only time I've heard JZ advocate not making a starter and just pitching a single vial or smackpack is for milds, ordinary bitters and 60 shillings. And even that was with the caveat that the yeast pack was fresh.

Even for those low alcohol beers I usually get a starter going right before I brew to give it a 8 hour head start.

Eric
 
Can a "junior member" chime in here? I've read debates on this matter on other forums, and you guys certainly seem like dedicated proficient brewers. In my brewing, I haven't seen any of the problems ascociated with "under pitching". I do however use yeast nutrient and O2 injection in all my brews after being rapidly chilled. They kick off quickly and ferment down to the expected attenuation with "smack packs". They taste great; I know I know, subjective and you'll argue they'd be even better with a starter! My point is a properly prepared wort IS A STARTER! The little critters do their thing in the presence of well aerated, nutrition rich wort. This is underemphasized in discussions about starters in my opinion. Pitch a giant starter into a wort that's just beeen shaken in the carboy for a few minutes for aeration with no nutrients added and you'll still have fermentation issues. Fascinating hobby aside, brewing is a pretty time consuming thing. My brew days can easily exceed 5 hours which isn't popular with the wife and kids. If I can save some time and hastle, I'm all for it. Sorry if that's some sort of blasphemy!!



Peace...

I think you have some more studying to do. A beer is NOT A STARTER. (Unless you are going to decant it and pitch the yeast in a fresh batch) If you underpitch the yeast have to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy reproducing to increase the cell counts to what is sufficient to ferment the wort. This stresses the yeast and may lead to off flavors.

To restate what has been said ad nauseum (sp.) You can ferment a good beer with a smackpack/vial. You most likely will make a BETTER beer by making a starter.

"My brew days can easily exceed 5 hours which isn't popular with the wife and kids. If I can save some time and hastle, I'm all for it."

Making a starter will not increase the time of brew day at all! The starter would be made prior to brew day. It takes an hour or so a couple of days before brew day.
 
Making a starter will not increase the time of brew day at all! The starter would be made prior to brew day. It takes an hour or so a couple of days before brew day.

And really can be faster than that if you go with the whole process of pressure canning a bunch of wort at one time. Then the actual process of making any individual starter takes minutes.
 
As an FYI, a Wyeast propagator pack is designed to inoculate 5 gallons of standard ale wort with slightly less than 6 million cells per milliliter of wort. This is consistent with rates indicated by Hough, Briggs et al., Malting and Brewing Science, volume 2.

I'm afraid that is well known to be an over-simplification. It is certainly inconsistent with the findings of Bamforth and other, more modern brewing scientists (don't forget that resource is 20+ years old), as well as decades of practical brewing experience.

"6 million cells per milliliter of wort" might be perfectly all right in a narrow set of circumstances, but not as a standard. The brewery standard "rule of thumb" is one million cells per ml of wort per degree Plato. 6M/ml is appropriate for a beer of 6°P, or SG 1.024. I think no one can argue that 1.024 is an appropriate OG for "standard ale".

JZ and other well-known brewing luminaries have proved, and I have also found, through instrumental observation and experimentation that the yeast companies' claims of "pitchable" are at best optimistic. If you're not going to believe brewing scientists, brewing luminaries, or me - a professional brewer and brewery consultant - I don't blame you, though I'll argue you're taking an "appeal to authority" denial a bit too far. ;) All you need to prove it yourself is a microscope, a haemocytometer and some methylene blue stain, which will permit you to do your own cell counts on random samples of yeast packets. Then you can analyze test ferments based on the manufacturer-recommended technique of direct pitching, as compared to a control of ferments inoculated with "rule of thumb" cell-count samples. You'll arrive at the same important observation as we did: No package of liquid yeast presently available to the homebrew market contains enough viable, active yeast to properly inoculate a reasonable-strength wort in a standard 5 US gallon brew length.

As you note, one can achieve a ferment if you just pitch a smack-pack. However, that's so far from best brewing practice as to be laughably naive. It is exactly equivalent to the old advice of just pitching "brewer's yeast"; it is advice/technique that's years out of date.

It's impossible for me to fathom that the same people who obsess over ounces of grain, water chemistry and the potential AA% IBU calculations of hops will just chuck in a smack-pack and think they're doing something not half-arsed. We are engaged in a hobby with the intent of making the best possible product; deliberately engaging in practices which prevent us from reliably achieving that goal can be politely described as self-defeating. If one is going to spend hours and lots of money on this hobby, one is an idiot if he doesn't make every possible effort to maximize the result of that work and expenditure.

The only way to RDWHAHB is to follow best practices whenever possible. :D :mug:

Bob
 
I must admit that I just tossed in a smack pack for years… this was honestly just a step I overlooked in the beginning. I wasn’t brewing what one would consider “big beers”, and because I never made a “bad beer” I never really gave it much thought. My beers always turned out good and my friends seemed to enjoy them well enough to drain my kegs at a rapid rate. But then as I started to grow as a brewer and concerned myself more with controlling all the controllables I learned that making a starter simply produced a superior product even in the “small beers”. As my friends have become interested in brewing it’s one of the first things I teach them about because the benefit to the end product far outweighs the process of learning how to do it; its one of the simplest yet most effective ways to make your beer better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob
This message has been deleted by Yooper. Reason: nothing of value added
I think that "point taken" would have been a better reason. Bob changing the language in his post shows that there was value.

Now you can delete this too. :cross:
 
I? I've changed nothing. Except perhaps to add a thought; I can't remember if I've edited it or not.

I certainly didn't see whatever it was you added, whether it was of value or not, and if I had seen it, I sincerely doubt it would have made me scamper off to change something I've written.
 
I think that "point taken" would have been a better reason. Bob changing the language in his post shows that there was value.

Now you can delete this too. :cross:

Any edited posts show "edited at (time)" under them. That is not an edited post.

But anytime someone just posts to be sarcastic or posts inane banter in the technical forums, they will be deleted.
 
If you want to make better beer, then make a starter and pitch the appropriate cell count. Why people come to a forum about beer and discourage people from doing one of the most effective techniques towards making better beer boggles me.

i couldn't agree more. making a starter is common practice, and many of us who make starters for every beer do it because we noticed a marked improvement in our beers when pitching appropriate amounts of yeast (i.e. mrmalty's or others pitch rate calcs) when i first started brewing i'd simply pitch a smack pack (or two for bigger beers) and i made good beer. as i learned more about yeast, i started making starters and paying attention to pitch rates, and my beer showed it. it went from good beer to great beer with that simple change in how i viewed the use of yeast.
to make a batch of beer, no, it's not necessary to make a starter. but if you really want to make great beer, pitch rates and fermentation temps are as crucial as a solid recipe, if not more so, IMO.
 
One thing that may help people is if someone can better explain how mr malty still tells them to use 2 packs while making a starter. I first thought that was the whole point of making a starter to not to have to use multiple packs of yeast and save some $$$.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top