Sugar starter vs no starter?

I'm doing a brew day tomorrow on short notice. Unfortunately, I have no DME on hand. I plan on brewing a 1.050 beer with WLP001. The question is, should I do a starter with priming sugar or skip the starter?

Do you have any dry yeast? It's good to keep a pack in the fridge for situations like this.

All knowledgeable brewers I know advise avoiding simple sugar starters. I've heard of using cans of Goya malt in a pinch. Guess that's a possibility

I'd go direct pitch before doing a sugar starter. Just be sure to use nutrient and aerate extra well since you'll be under pitching..

Boil your wort, cool it and pull out a quart for your starter. Give the starter 12 hours and pitch.

Direct pitch, especially with a 1.050 brew, you'll be fine.

LLBeanJ said:

Boil your wort, cool it and pull out a quart for your starter. Give the starter 12 hours and pitch.

Click to expand...

Sorry but this option accomplishes nothing. 12 hours isn't enough time to increase the pitch rate. The "starter" may take off quicker than the full batch would, but will quit once it hits the main wort anyway...

Demus said:

Sorry but this option accomplishes nothing. 12 hours isn't enough time to increase the pitch rate. The "starter" may take off quicker than the full batch would, but will quit once it hits the main wort anyway...

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. 12 hours is plenty of time to get the cell count up to a safe level and then pitching at high krausen. Not only that, but what we're talking about here is a "real wort starter" or RWS, which is the holy grail of starters, so to speak, since the yeast are being conditioned on the actual wort they'll be going to town on just a little while later. They are popular with the no-chill folks since the have time to make their starters while waiting for their wort to cool.

llbeanj said:

i couldn't disagree more. 12 hours is plenty of time to get the cell count up to a safe level and then pitching at high krausen. Not only that, but what we're talking about here is a "real wort starter" or rws, which is the holy grail of starters, so to speak, since the yeast are being conditioned on the actual wort they'll be going to town on just a little while later. They are popular with the no-chill folks since the have time to make their starters while waiting for their wort to cool.

Click to expand...

+1

Agreed. Cell count can double in 12 hours.

See here for details:
http://woodlandbrew.blogspot.com/2013/02/side-by-side-starters-part-1-of-4.html

However, I would recommend pitching into a portion of the wort suitable for your cell count and adding the remaining wort after a day or two. More details in my book and my blog.

Or pitch into 1/10th of the wort. (Details on how this works in my book)

Also, a sugar starters in your case is fine. If you want peace of mind add some yeast nutrients as well. Continued propagation using only sugar will result in yeast that is not good at fermenting maltose and matotriose. It that takes several passages for there to be that significant of a mutation or selection.

According to Jamil in "yeast" starters over 1.040 SG do produce more cells but can stress them leading to flavor and attenuation issues. He also states "brewers should not believe the myth that yeast become acclimated to a high-gravity fermentation from a high-gravity starter".

That said, I concede your point on the 12 hour high krausen thing, assuming your yeast has peaked and just started slowing in 12 hours. At this point the cell count is done increasing and they are just chewing up the remaining sugars.

Perhaps the best way to use your wort for a starter would be to dilute the starter to 1.030-1.040 with boiled water. Then perform as normal using the high krausen (not necessarily 12 hours) as the gauge for when to pitch...

Demus said:

Perhaps the best way to use your wort for a starter would be to dilute the starter to 1.030-1.040 with boiled water.

Click to expand...

Or just use your second runnings.


But in my opinion you're over thinking it. If the yeast is reasonably fresh, I'd just pitch it.

Mitch Steele on direct pitching:

. . . though the yeast itself has been grown on oxygen-rich media and fed on glucose, which gives the cells an enhanced capacity for growth.

Click to expand...

I did a sugar starter once. It worked fine and didn't do anything weird to the beer.

I would just pitch the yeast for the sake of simplicity. If you really want to do a starter, do a mini-mash with the grain you already have. I think a sugar starter would work, but you are self-selecting the yeast that prefer sucrose. Having said that, you will still have the full spectrum to viable yeast available.

I don't think you get any advantage from waiting 12-hours and using a starter. You are risking infection and you will still get the same yeast growth in the actual wort.

Randy_Bugger said:

I did a sugar starter once. It worked fine and didn't do anything weird to the beer.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean it's not true that sugar only starters reduce the yeasts production of enzymes that are needed to ferment maltose. The "I did something and it worked" argument doesn't make brewing experts wrong, it just means you got away with it. If I forgot to sanitize a carboy and the beer was fine would that prove bacteria and infected beer was a myth?

Demus said:

That doesn't mean it's not true that sugar only starters reduce the yeasts production of enzymes that are needed to ferment maltose. The "I did something and it worked" argument doesn't make brewing experts wrong, it just means you *** away with it. If I for*** to sanitize a carboy and the beer was fine would that prove bacteria and infected beer was a myth?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it disproves anything. I'm saying I did it once because I ran out of DME and there was no penalty.

The yeast must have produced enough enzymes to ferment maltose because the batch finished at 1.008.

Randy_Bugger said:

I'm not saying it disproves anything. I'm saying I did it once because I ran out of DME and there was no penalty.

The yeast must have produced enough enzymes to ferment maltose because the batch finished at 1.008.

Click to expand...

Maybe not but you're posting it on a thread where the poster was looking for advice on that. You are implying that he wouldn't have any issues. All I'm saying is he might have issues as suggested by many brewing experts. Your one off batch isn't a reason he shouldn't worry about an all sugar starter...

I'm not implying he wouldn't have any issues with a guarantee. I'm saying I did it once and it worked fine.

I remember this site, back in the day, when threads didn't involve getting someones panties in a wad. Just sayin.. On that note, I would either use the second runnings for a starter if you really feel you need a starter. I myself would direct pitch.

No wadded panties here, just want to steer folks in the right direction...

This may cause some controversy but... I would direct pitch it with a tiny drop of olive oil (like off the end of a toothpick).

I have heard of people using olive oil, but haven't looked into it? What is the benefit? Btw, I skipped the starter. Better to go with an under pitching variable instead of an unknown sugar starter.

I think the long and the short of it is that yeast normally uses oxygen to create specific fatty acids needed to reproduce. The fatty acid it creates is present in olive oil. Basically, your yeast reproduce faster. I've also heard it helps the yeast reach full attenuation.

I just brewed a Belgian Dark Strong, 1.082 OG. I had a 1 liter Wyeast 1214 starter (cold crashed, decanted and brought to room temp) that I pitched with a tiny drop of olive oil. Fermentation started within 30 minutes and was vigorous for 4 days.

stevo4361 said:

Direct pitch, especially with a 1.050 brew, you'll be fine.

Click to expand...

Exactly this. At 1.050, assuming a fresh vial, you'll be just fine (and I'm a huge starter advocate). Don't make a sugar starter.

Oh - If you do go the olive oil route, seriously... the tiniest drop you can. I literally did a drop off the end of a toothpick. Too much and I've heard you can end up with head retention issues.

Interesting. Thanks all.

Shred said:

Fermentation started within 30 minutes and was vigorous for 4 days.

Click to expand...

Though I read somewhere that this was not a good thing and even worse with a Belgian.

JustLooking said:

Though I read somewhere that this was not a good thing and even worse with a Belgian.

Click to expand...

Really? Belgian yeasts like higher temps and higher temps tend to result in more vigorous fermentations. Do you recall why they called a vigorous fermentation detrimental to a Belgian?

I suspect the short lag time was the concern, not the vigor of the fermentation.

The lag time is generally where yeast reproduction occurs. I suspect visible signs of fermentation may mean to some that yeast are not reproducing enough in the early stage. Of course,that is only applicable if you didn't pitch sufficient amounts.

Malric said:

The lag time is generally where yeast reproduction occurs. I suspect visible signs of fermentation may mean to some that yeast are not reproducing enough in the early stage. Of course,that is only applicable if you didn't pitch sufficient amounts.

Click to expand...

I should have had plenty of cells (it was a 1 liter, 1.030 starter) and I attribute the quick start-up to the olive oil. That's sort of the purpose. It's speeds any remaining reproduction that may be necessary by providing immediate access to those fatty acids.

I've also heard some people purposely under-pitch some Belgians to try and get some of that "stressed yeast" taste. I'm not sure that's what I was going for but all the different interesting (and sometimes undesirable in other beers) yeast nuances are what make Belgians so different.