Yeast Starter or 2 packs question?

I have little patience. (I know, not good in brewing). And I am lazy. But I love brewing beer and have plenty of money to spend on brewing.

So, would it be the same for me to just buy 2 or 3 packages of wyeast activator and pitch it instead of having to wait for a starter?

Or is that going to be not as good because of the activity? Any experience on this?

Thank you for your answers in advanced.

It's not exactly the same, as you won't be ensuring viability, but much better than underpitching. If you have money to blow and really don't want to spend a half hour making a starter, go for it.

my bet is your can make a starter faster than you can pop 3 wyeast packs ...... at least i can

i have an issue poping those things

The wyeast activator packs show viability with CO2 release blowing up the container like a balloon. I am not sure how the viability of a starter is more obvious than a balloon effect. However, I can see that a strong krausen might be the same as the balloon effect in the visual aspect. I appreciate your answers. On the financial side, it costs a few bucks to make a starter. (not including the yeast itself). And only a couple bucks more for a 2nd package of yeast. So by spending only a couple of dollars, I can avoid having to make a starter. Sounds like 2 packages of yeast is as good as a starter of the same number of cells. I will try this method now. Cheers!

KilhavenBrew said:

The wyeast activator packs show viability with CO2 release blowing up the container like a balloon. I am not sure how the viability of a starter is more obvious than a balloon effect. However, I can see that a strong krausen might be the same as the balloon effect in the visual aspect. I appreciate your answers. On the financial side, it costs a few bucks to make a starter. (not including the yeast itself). And only a couple bucks more for a 2nd package of yeast. So by spending only a couple of dollars, I can avoid having to make a starter. Sounds like 2 packages of yeast is as good as a starter of the same number of cells. I will try this method now. Cheers!

Click to expand...

Well, as long as your smack pack isn't already inflated when you get it, which has happened more than once for me, then you are correct about the viability piece.

Carry on!

LOL, I buy mine at the store and would not buy it if it was already blown up. I like to smack it myself.

KilhavenBrew said:

LOL, I buy mine at the store and would not buy it if it was already blown up. I like to smack it myself.

Click to expand...

Ah, I do not have that luxury. No LHBS within 60 miles.

Having a yeast starter is all about yeast health. And in turn, you get a healthy fermentation. If you have a healthy ferm then you get more consistent results. Also, it adds up, for me at least, to buy more than one yeast pack.

But if you have the money, getting two packs will work just fine. Also, there is a lot of info about starters on mrmalty.com. Check that out if you are really interested.

KilhavenBrew said:

The wyeast activator packs show viability with CO2 release . . . And only a couple bucks more for a 2nd package . . .

Click to expand...

Multiple packs of fresh viable yeast are fine if not better than a starter made in a home (non-lab) environment.

The big question here is, where are you getting Wyeast for a couple of bucks?

AnOldUR said:

The big question here is, where are you getting Wyeast for a couple of bucks?

Click to expand...

I think he meant it was just a couple bucks more to buy a second pack vs the cost of a starter. Which is a bit of an exaggeration, but its a valid point that making a starter isn't free.

BrewKnurd said:

. . . but its a valid point that making a starter isn't free.

Click to expand...

hmm . . . and if you place a monetary value on your time, it could be argued that it actually costs more to make a starter.



I know, I know . . . it's a hobby.

AnOldUR said:

hmm . . . and if you place a monetary value on your time, it could be argued that it actually costs more to make a starter.

I know, I know . . . it's a hobby.

Click to expand...

Certainly! if I put a monetary value on my time based on my salary, I'd be ripping myself off to make starters! Of course, I'd also be ripping myself off to brew at all. Good thing it's fun!

The starter isn't only about getting more cells and ensuring viability. It's also about acclimating the yeast to wort. Pitching without is like asking the yeast to run a marathon without training. That being said, I did get away with just double pitching my first few high grav beers. I just believe it gives more reproducible beers with the starter.

TheFightingC said:

The starter isn't only about getting more cells and ensuring viability. It's also about acclimating the yeast to wort. Pitching without is like asking the yeast to run a marathon without training. That being said, I did get away with just double pitching my first few high grav beers. I just believe it gives more reproducible beers with the starter.

Click to expand...

do you have reason to believe the labs don't use wort for propagation? I was under the impression they do, which means the yeast are already acclimated to wort, as it's all they've known.

I could be wrong, tho.

BrewKnurd said:

do you have reason to believe the labs don't use wort for propagation? I was under the impression they do, which means the yeast are already acclimated to wort, as it's all they've known.

I could be wrong, tho.

Click to expand...

I believe it was Neva Parker from White Labs that said, on The Brewing Network, that they use a malt base for their beer yeast. (I don't know what else they'd use anyways.)

afr0byte said:

I believe it was Neva Parker from White Labs that said, on The Brewing Network, that they use a malt base for their beer yeast. (I don't know what else they'd use anyways.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was definitely a white labs interview where I think i remember hearing it. I seem to remember them saying they just have to dump all the resulting beer since they're not a licensed brewery.

Cool! Thanks again for the replies.. Yes, I meant that a starter costs about 3 bucks in DME to make. While a yeast pack cost about 7. I dont have the luxory of predicting when I can make beer. So I have to hit the store and make it the same day I find out I have a day to do it. So making a starter does not fit my life. Agreed on the hobby part. Why brew at all if you are only worried about cost and per hour salary. So far I tried activator packs on 5 gallon batches and 2.5 gallon batches of beer to experiement. The 2 gallon batches came out excellent. The 5 gallon came out decent. But I want excellent beer. I am a beer snob, thus the reason for the question.

1lb bag DME = $4.99 + tax = $5.29
1 liter starter needs 3.5 oz of DME = $1.15 per 1 liter of starter
I'd say that's a pretty significant savings.
Time-wise it takes about 10 minutes to bring it to a boil.
5 minutes of boiling to kill the nasties.
And about 20 minutes to cool. (During which time you can go do something else.)
5 seconds to place it on the stir plate.
So you really only have to dedicate about 15-20 minutes to making a starter.
Besides the fact that it is immensely satisfying.

But I completely understand your situation. It's unfortunate that you don't have the luxury of knowing which day you are going to brew.

Don't I need a 2 Liter starter for 5 gallons of brew at 1.050 gravity?

My local brew shop is 6 bucks a pound for DME. But I see your point.

KilhavenBrew said:

Don't I need a 2 Liter starter for 5 gallons of brew at 1.050 gravity?

My local brew shop is 6 bucks a pound for DME. But I see your point.

Click to expand...

Also, it probably costs something to go to the store, but I don't know how far you far from your LHBS.

plus a stir plate is an intitial $75-150 investment

Almost created this topic myself, glad I decided to look first!

Thanks for the info everyone. I think I will try double-pitching once or twice more before I try pitching a starter.

DrPhunk said:

plus a stir plate is an intitial $75-150 investment

Click to expand...

Well sure, but you don't need a stir plate to make starters. You could chunk an erlenmeyer flask and an O2 injection system if you want to make it more expensive. Or you can use a growler or bottle from an $8 jug of wine and shake the thing every time you walk by.

Agreed that stir plate is optimal, but you can make very efective starters without one.

DrPhunk said:

plus a stir plate is an intitial $75-150 investment

Click to expand...

WRONG. My diy stir plate cost a total of $7.40 + scrounged parts.

Total time was about 1 hour.

KilhavenBrew said:

Don't I need a 2 Liter starter for 5 gallons of brew at 1.050 gravity?

My local brew shop is 6 bucks a pound for DME. But I see your point.

Click to expand...

One pound = 453 grams can make 4.5 liters of starter.
Lme = $5/lb
1.050 needs 2 packs at $7 = $14 total.
1.050 needs 1L starter on a stirplate. 5/4.5 = $1.11 dme + $7 Yeast = $8.11 total

$14-8.11 = $5.89 savings. Times my 15 brews with starters so far = $88.35 saved.

Add to that reusing yeast cost just time and $1.11/liter. I have brewed 20 times but have only bought 8 packs of yeast, 2 of which were dry.

So 20 x $14 = $280
My costs - yeast = >$56 + DME about $15 My savings so far about $210 in about 7 months.

As far as time it takes about 20 minutes total. I would not be doing anything during those 20 minutes so I don't give that a value.

Seriously, If you can't find 20 minutes to make a starter you have to reevaluate your life.

and i started collecting wort for starters during brewing, from 10galon batch i can get 3-6L of wort for starters depends on OG (overshoot 2nd batch sparge volume, collect extra running in separate container then freeze), for small beers i may add extra lb of grain so my cost is <$1 for 1gal of 1.040 wort

kh54s10 said:

Seriously, If you can't find 20 minutes to make a starter you have to reevaluate your life.

Click to expand...

Well that's entirely unnecessary.

kh54s10 said:

As far as time it takes about 20 minutes total. I would not be doing anything during those 20 minutes so I don't give that a value.

Seriously, If you can't find 20 minutes to make a starter you have to reevaluate your life.

Click to expand...

Oh, since you have nothing to do during that time it means nobody else does either. The word for the day people is narcissist.

Just my opinion, but I think the OP can safely direct pitch “2 or 3 packages of Wyeast activator” and use his time elsewhere without the need for a life evaluation.

Yeah, and most of us don’t live in a bizarro time warp where the time of the entire starter process is 20 minutes.

There’s an element here who feels that a starter is the holy grail of homebrew when what should be being stressed is count and viability. It doesn’t matter how you get it and the act of making a starter is not a guarantee that you got there. Sure, there’s a time and a place for making a starter. Just as there are times when you may choose not to use one and still make beer equally as good.

kh54s10 said:

Seriously, If you can't find 20 minutes to make a starter you have to reevaluate your life.

Click to expand...

BrewKnurd said:

Well that's entirely unnecessary.

Click to expand...

AnOldUR said:

Oh, since you have nothing to do during that time it means nobody else does either. The word for the day people is narcissist.

Just my opinion, but I think the OP can safely direct pitch “2 or 3 packages of Wyeast activator” and use his time elsewhere without the need for a life evaluation.

Yeah, and most of us don’t live in a bizarro time warp where the time of the entire starter process is 20 minutes.

There’s an element here who feels that a starter is the holy grail of homebrew when what should be being stressed is count and viability. It doesn’t matter how you get it and the act of making a starter is not a guarantee that you got there. Sure, there’s a time and a place for making a starter. Just as there are times when you may choose not to use one and still make beer equally as good.

Click to expand...

My intent was not to berate anyone. What I did intend was that starters do not take very much time to make and anyone who cannot find the time because of work is working too hard, IMO.

And yes it only takes me about 20 minutes. Weigh DME about 2 minutes. stir in and boil wort. 15 minutes. Add yeast and set on stirplate. Ok, if it takes a little longer to get the water to boil...

If you do not want to take the time to make a starter you can certainly take the option of pitching more packs. I like this hobby including the time it takes for all the processes. I also need to save money where possible. Reusing yeast and making starters is an easy way for me to do this.

kh54s10 said:

Seriously, If you can't find 20 minutes to make a starter you have to reevaluate your life.

Click to expand...

BrewKnurd said:

Well that's entirely unnecessary.

Click to expand...

AnOldUR said:

Oh, since you have nothing to do during that time it means nobody else does either. The word for the day people is narcissist.

Just my opinion, but I think the OP can safely direct pitch “2 or 3 packages of Wyeast activator” and use his time elsewhere without the need for a life evaluation.

Yeah, and most of us don’t live in a bizarro time warp where the time of the entire starter process is 20 minutes.

There’s an element here who feels that a starter is the holy grail of homebrew when what should be being stressed is count and viability. It doesn’t matter how you get it and the act of making a starter is not a guarantee that you got there. Sure, there’s a time and a place for making a starter. Just as there are times when you may choose not to use one and still make beer equally as good.

Click to expand...

My intent was not to berate anyone. My wording was too harsh. What I did intend was that starters do not take very much time to make and anyone who cannot find the time because of work is working too hard, IMO.

And yes it only takes me about 20 minutes. Weigh DME about 2 minutes. stir in and boil wort. 15 minutes. Add yeast and set on stirplate. Ok, if it takes a little longer to get the water to boil...

If you do not want to take the time to make a starter you can certainly take the option of pitching more packs. I like this hobby including the time it takes for all the processes. I also need to save money where possible. Reusing yeast and making starters is an easy way for me to do this.

OOPS! sorry for the double post. Don't know how that happened.:cross:

So you don't even bother to chill your wort down, eh. I'm surprised the yeast survive your technique.

OvaTersley said:

So you don't even bother to chill your wort down, eh. I'm surprised the yeast survive your technique.

Click to expand...

I just chuck my yeast in the boil. It culls out the weak. I don't want any yeast that can't stand a little heat.

And my Mom gets all my starter supplies out and cleans up after me. She'll even monitors the starter, cold crashes, decants and then scrubs the krausen off the flask after I pitch to my wort. In my house none of that time counts.

I think people are missing the point of this thread. The question was if two packs of yeast are as effective as a starter. Time and money were not meant to be factors in the equation . . . only beer quality was.

Every brewer has a different trade off for time and money, but we all have the same requirement for good beer.

Dang, just when the thread starts to get interesting, someone has to get it back on topic.

dermotstratton said:

I think people are missing the point of this thread. The question was if two packs of yeast are as effective as a starter.

Click to expand...

So, you didn't read any of this . . . ?

BrewKnurd said:

If you have money to blow and really don't want to spend a half hour making a starter, go for it.

Click to expand...

Rake_Rocko said:

But if you have the money, getting two packs will work just fine.

Click to expand...

AnOldUR said:

Multiple packs of fresh viable yeast are fine if not better than a starter made in a home (non-lab) environment.

Click to expand...

. . . and then from the OP

KilhavenBrew said:

Cool! Thanks again for the replies..

Click to expand...

Nobody is missing anything.
The rest is just having fun with typical interwebs nonsense.

Yeah I read the whole thread as it was of interest to me. I guess I just find it amusing how people spin topics in different directions on these forums.

I just wish there was more substance with regards to the technical question and less bickering about other factors.

For example, it would be nice if someone could help us understand difference in cell count between pitching two packs and making a starter. Or difference in lag time between those two options.

I, for one, am shocked and appalled that a thread would run slightly off topic. Especially on HBT.

To be somewhat on topic, i've heard from a few sources on podcasts that the when it comes to vial/smackpack + starter vs two vials/smackpacks, if you want the best beer the answer is... neither! The claim is that repitched yeast has gotten into its groove and that by the 3rd-4th batch in a series of repitched yeast, it really hits its stride. Of course, if you don't plan on brewing multiple beers in a row with the same strain, this advice is less helpful.

dermotstratton said:

For example, it would be nice if someone could help us understand difference in cell count between pitching two packs and making a starter. Or difference in lag time between those two options.

Click to expand...

Well, no one asked those specific questions, so that's why they weren't answered.

Difference in cell count:
Depends entirely on the viable cell count in your initial packs and the size of the starter, otherwise there's no way to answer. No reason you can't make a starter of appropriate size to very closely match the number of cells you would have in the two packs.

You are quite possibly pitching more non-viable cells with pitching two packs. For instance, say you have two packs of yeast with 20 billion nonviable cells and 80 billion viable cells. If you pitch them both, you would have 200 billion cells, of which 40 billion are nonviable cells just laying at the bottom of your fermenter, being all dead and rotting away. If you make a starter, you could have 200 billion cells, of which 180 are viable, and only the initial 20 are dead.

Lag time:
Depends on how long you let your starter sit. If you pitch an active starter, i would expect a shorter lag time with a starter vs a fresh yeast pitch, even one that has been smack and woken up that way, although the difference probably isn't a lot.

On the topic of lag times, a very short lag time isn't always optimal. It may be a sign of nutrient/O2 deficient wort.