Starter Ingredients: Cheap White Sugar + Nutrients?

Can I use plain old white granulated sugar and nutrients instead of more expensive sugars and ingredients for a starter?

No. It needs to be malt sugar. Otherwise the yeast get used to eating simple sugar instead of the more complex maltose.

Thanks. But what is the result/problem of the yeast getting used to simple sugars?

Malt and hops give beer its "beer" flavor. its why hard cider doesn't taste just like beer but has the same kind of alcohol in it.
there are things like oatmeal (flaked oats) barley flour, corn grits, or Bulgar wheat that can be used as adjuncts.
I'd look for less refined or stranger sources for your ferment-ables, your beer will taste better

Natethebrewer said:

Malt and hops give beer its "beer" flavor. its why hard cider doesn't taste just like beer but has the same kind of alcohol in it.
there are things like oatmeal (flaked oats) barley flour, corn grits, or Bulgar wheat that can be used as adjuncts.
I'd look for less refined or stranger sources for your ferment-ables, your beer will taste better

Click to expand...

Wheat beer, barley, and rye beers all taste different. Apples taste different and usually use champagne yeast because those eat more sugar. What about if I used high maltose corn syrup? or high maltose rice syrup?

I guess this is another thing I have to try first hand. I'm not sure if I agree with the rumor that training yeast to simple sugar is making them fat and lazy.

Not a rumor. It's science. The problem is the new yeast cannot as easily metabolize maltose so you end up with an under-attenuated beer. This isn't one of those "homebrewing myths"...university, lab and brewery experiments have shown this to be true. If it weren't, no one would go to the trouble of making a malt-based starter.

There are places to push the rules, but this isn't one of them, IMHO.

If you really want to try it, go for it. But one, or even a few beers, that "turn out fine" is not a robust data set.

"fat and lazy" is just a (rather misleading) analogy. They lose the ability to produce the enzymes necessary for converting maltose.

According to my research (googling), it points to something called the Crabtree effect; something what happens in high concentrations of glucose will cause yeast to stop growing and instead turn attention to producing ethanol. But apparently, if the gravity is low enough, this shouldn't be a problem. Still searching for more information.

iambeer said:

According to my research, it points to something called the Crabtree effect; something what happens in high concentrations of glucose will cause yeast to stop growing and instead they will turn their attention to producing ethanol. But apparently, if the gravity is low enough, this shouldn't be a problem. Still searching for more information.

Click to expand...

That's something completely different and unrelated.

I'm sure you are right emjay. I would like to read something serious detailing the problem instead of analogies. So if you have a link to start me off about how I am wrong about crabtree effect, or summarize what that is instead of dropping a line about how I am wrong, and another serious link about what's wrong with using simple sugar to grow yeast, that would great.

As I started reading this thread, I was thinking it sounded like a bunch of voodoo yeast psychology. Thanks for turning the discussion to the more scientific side.

I'm planning on doing a starter for the first time in the near future. I had never thought about subbing in regular sugar, but this is definitely an interesting thing to think about. Demystifying the world of yeast.

I buy a 1 pound bag of light DME and use 4Oz of that to make my starters. Don't know about simple sugars and all that. Let you guys argue over it.

It smells and tastes like beer when I dump it in and that's good enough for me.

Hope you find the answers your looking for.

Should be a very simple experiment: scrape yeast into 1.030 of granulated sugar and water, wait two days and upscale it to DME starter. If yeast doesn't react then one person here is right. I would still like to see a serious document about it though. Also, based on the folk wisdom that maltose is better for starter, then brown rice sugar is far more cost effective for a starter. Right? (And perfectly fine).

iambeer said:

Should be a very simple experiment: scrape yeast into 1.030 of granulated sugar and water, wait a week and upscale it to DME starter. If yeast doesn't react then one person here is right. I would still like to see a serious document about it though. Also, based on the folk wisdom that maltose is better for starter, then brown rice sugar is far more cost effective for a starter. Right?

Click to expand...

As far as I know, you CAN use high maltose corn/rice syrup.

And as far as documentation goes, I've read it in a number of reliable sources, but the only thing that comes to mind immediately is Chris White's "Yeast".

And actually, the yeast WILL "react". They won't be able to convert maltose, but they can still do some of the simpler sugars.

iambeer said:

I guess this is another thing I have to try first hand. I'm not sure if I agree with the rumor that training yeast to simple sugar is making them fat and lazy.

Click to expand...

I like this thinking. I am all about debunking the mantras that people mindlessly repeat because they heard someone else say them. I am not saying this is one of them, but if you want to try an experiment I'll subscribe

On a hunch I think the effects of simple sugar on yeast health is something you would see over many generations, not a single beer.

Yep, the enzymes that metabolize maltose to get it on its way to fermentation are inducible. That is, the yeast only make significant amounts of it when they grow on maltose as a source of "food". The idea is that you want to optimize your culture for yeast that are producing the right enzymes and have them ready to go. Yeast will always choose glucose over just about anything else. If they get sucrose, they make the enzymes they need to metabolize that but not the enzymes to metabolize another sugar. It an extreme case they can actually lose the ability to metabolize maltose and then by not demanding that they do so you encourage the growth of the "mutant" yeast that have lost that ability. This is evolution in a bottle folks! Biology at work.

Short story, use maltose. Your yeast will be happier when you pitch them.

I think I missed the point earlier when I replied.
Yeast seem to be kinda funny little guys. I have had batches where I sanitize my ladle and scoop maybe 1/2 cup from the bottom of a freshly emptied primary and just drop that mass into the new batch, and it has worked (every time).
If I do make a starter I use DME (because it's what I have) and I add yeast nutrient (just to play it safe).
Brew science aside my logic is as follows; if I am making a malt based beer that is the environment I want my yeast to get comfortable in. If I were making cider, I'd want higher levels of cider sugars in my starter. seems to make sense to me.
I am going to stick to my guns and previous post and say use strange an uncommon sugars, just because it's different.

I haven't used white sugar, but I did use corn sugar and yeast nutrient for three starters of two different yeast (WLP001, WLP830) when I didn't have any DME on hand. I didn't see any problems with lag time or under attenuation.

I've used corn sugar myself. I actually once mixed a starter of 50/50 DME and corn sugar and yeast nutrient. I added it to a growler with some residual yeast from the beer inside and was able to culture that yeast to a pitch-able size.
I was once told you only need one yeast cell to inoculate wort, but I find that hard to believe.

I wish this was a myth. Every time I put DME in a starter I get a little sad knowing that DME will never grow up to be beer.

I think to get measurable results you need side-by-side comparisons; say 5x1 gallon batches made with a DME starter and 5x1 gallon batches made with cane sugar starter, then compare their FG to see if there is any difference.

A pound of light DME costs what, 5 bucks?

MetalMatt said:

A pound of light DME costs what, 5 bucks?

Click to expand...

I buy it by the 50lb bag for much cheaper.

emjay said:

I buy it by the 50lb bag for much cheaper.

Click to expand...

How do you keep that kind of quantity fresh and dry?

@ bleme
Am I missing something? You pour your starter into your wort DME yeast and all dont you? So why won't that DME be beer?

bottlebomber said:

How do you keep that kind of quantity fresh and dry?

Click to expand...

Gamma seal lid.

grem135 said:

Am I missing something? You pour your starter into your wort DME yeast and all dont you? So why won't that DME be beer?

Click to expand...

Some people crash the starter and decant most of the liquid - depending on the style of beer, hops, etc. Also starters that are unhopped will often go sour - so something else starts growing in there. Decanting helps reduce the amount of other bugs that can be transferred to your wort.

Here's a quick link: http://www.mrmalty.com/starter_faq.php

You'll find a short explanation on the "How to make a starter" section. You should read the entire article, because you will get a better sense of the whole purpose of a starter. The point of a starter is not to find shortcuts, but to optimize your yeast's potential for a healthy fermentation.

cshamilton said:

Some people crash the starter and decant most of the liquid - depending on the style of beer, hops, etc. Also starters that are unhopped will often go sour - so something else starts growing in there. Decanting helps reduce the amount of other bugs that can be transferred to your wort.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. As my sig says.... n00b brewer and first batch is 16 days in the bottle (with 1 bottle in the fridge... you know, for testing )

Maybe my comments were stated too strongly. Yes, sugar will work, sucrose, fructose, glucose, etc. but as beirleibhaber said, the point is to optimize. My point about mutations was, as I sain, a rare case but, believe me, it happens. When you grow yeast up without maltose then you stand a chance of having a non-maltose fermenting yeast when you get done.

Also, natethebrewer's comments about a single yeast cell starting a wort is absolutely correct. It will take days to get started and risk contamination. Starting with a single cell you get a single colony of pure yeast and that can be grown to a starter and then you are safe. however, this is another case where you really want to grow under the proper conditions for the reasons above.

I thought the single cell thing was myth, go figure.
I prefer to just use a portion of the yeast cake from my primary (2nd generation yeast and all) instead of starting starters

Natethebrewer said:

I thought the single cell thing was myth, go figure.
I prefer to just use a portion of the yeast cake from my primary (2nd generation yeast and all) instead of starting starters

Click to expand...

Good Call! High density of yeast, pre grown on maltose with all the right conditions.

A single cell of yeast CAN lead to it being fermented out eventually, but not usually. Same reason we don't need to sterilize everything, and just sanitize - a few lacto cells aren't going to turn our beers sour.

So much easier and cheaper that way

"Problems arise only if the nitrogen composition is low. This occurs only if a cheap or poor quality malt extract is used or if there are a large amount of adjuncts added. In terms of propagation, the closer the starter media is to the fermentation wort the better."

A quote from this excellent and informative article: http://www.maltosefalcons.com/tech/yeast-propagation-and-maintenance-principles-and-practices

iambeer said:

I guess this is another thing I have to try first hand. I'm not sure if I agree with the rumor that training yeast to simple sugar is making them fat and lazy.

Click to expand...

In order to break down polysaccharides like sucrose, maltose, etc. microorganisms synthesize enzymes. If yeast are grown in a medium that does not include a particular sugar, they won't synthesize the enzymes required for metabolizing those sugars. It has nothing to do with yeast growing fat and lazy - it's related to the regulation of gene transcription and protein synthesis.

There are a lot of things in the homebrewing community which are taken as gospel without any evidence but proper yeast pitching rates and yeast cultivation are pretty well understood at this point. That's a big part of what makes homebrewing a lot easier today than it would have been 15-20 years ago.

Also, considering that DME is about the same price as sucrose, I don't see the reason for wanting to make a yeast starter without extract.

Edit: An analogous example can be found in E. coli. There are several proteins which are required for E. coli to metabolize lactose, another simple disaccharide. The production of those enzymes is regulated by lactose itself. The presence of lactose signals the cell to begin transcription of the transporter which actually allows lactose into the cell as well as the enzyme which cleaves the ether linkage holding the two sugars together. This particular system is very well understood and shows up all over the place in microbiology - look up the "lac operon" and you can read some fairly basic stuff on how it all works.

Now lets talk mutations - there are about a billion yeast cells in a vial. Their genomes are not all identical and regulation of the biochemical machinery needed for fermentation is not the same. Some are more / less capable than others of metabolizing the sugars present in wort. Some may not even have the capacity to digest maltose (this happens in humans with lactose - lactose intolerant folks still have the genetic information to synthesize the lactase enzyme, but the cells in their intestine have down regulated the production of it). So, if you grow up a yeast culture that only has maltose as a substrate (e.g., a starter with DME or a low-gravity wort), you are automatically selecting for the ones which are ultimately best suited to ferment your wort. Only cells which can metabolize maltose will be able to proliferate and make it into your wort.

iambeer said:

According to my research (googling), it points to something called the Crabtree effect; something what happens in high concentrations of glucose will cause yeast to stop growing and instead turn attention to producing ethanol. But apparently, if the gravity is low enough, this shouldn't be a problem. Still searching for more information.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely true, which is why, even for a high gravity beer, the starter wort is kept at a low gravity. I wasn't aware it was called the Crabtree effect, but it makes sense if you look at it from the standpoint of natural selection.

gmcastil said:

Edit: An analogous example can be found in E. coli. There are several proteins which are required for E. coli to metabolize lactose, another simple disaccharide. The production of those enzymes is regulated by lactose itself. The presence of lactose signals the cell to begin transcription of the transporter which actually allows lactose into the cell as well as the enzyme which cleaves the ether linkage holding the two sugars together. This particular system is very well understood and shows up all over the place in microbiology - look up the "lac operon" and you can read some fairly basic stuff on how it all works.

Now lets talk mutations - there are about a billion yeast cells in a vial. Their genomes are not all identical and regulation of the biochemical machinery needed for fermentation is not the same. Some are more / less capable than others of metabolizing the sugars present in wort. Some may not even have the capacity to digest maltose (this happens in humans with lactose - lactose intolerant folks still have the genetic information to synthesize the lactase enzyme, but the cells in their intestine have down regulated the production of it). So, if you grow up a yeast culture that only has maltose as a substrate (e.g., a starter with DME or a low-gravity wort), you are automatically selecting for the ones which are ultimately best suited to ferment your wort. Only cells which can metabolize maltose will be able to proliferate and make it into your wort.

Click to expand...

This explanation is awesome. Thanks. So this makes it seem to be much more of a "survival of the fittest" type thing. Basically, the yeast that aren't fit for the desired job (fermenting beer) aren't given an opportunity to propogate if the starter is malt-based. Do I kind of have that right?

signpost said:

This explanation is awesome. Thanks. So this makes it seem to be much more of a "survival of the fittest" type thing. Basically, the yeast that aren't fit for the desired job (fermenting beer) aren't given an opportunity to propogate if the starter is malt-based. Do I kind of have that right?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's more or less it. To be sure, there is more to it and I don't claim to be an expert on yeast, but you basically have it right.

signpost said:

This explanation is awesome. Thanks. So this makes it seem to be much more of a "survival of the fittest" type thing. Basically, the yeast that aren't fit for the desired job (fermenting beer) aren't given an opportunity to propogate if the starter is malt-based. Do I kind of have that right?

Click to expand...

That's half the story. At one point that was how I understood it too, as it's easy enough to come to this conclusion simply with a bit of reasoning. But there's more going on... even the original cells that are pitched into the maltose-lacking medium (as opposed to being a "descendant" of these cells) can LOSE the ability to produce the necessary enzymes (as he actually touched on above), so it's more than simply a result of natural selection, though that does indeed happen as well.