Yeast ..... smack pack vs pitchable tube?

Trying to decide on my fist recipe to use.

shotorum in another thread recommended getting a smack pack. So I start looking around and find a recipe for a Fat Tire clone that comes with a smack pack, of course they have one with a "pitchable tube" as well.

What is the difference? Recommendations?

Belgian Ale Wyeast Propagator 1214 smack pack

or

White Labs Belgian Ale 550 pitchable tube

All of my reading so far has been oriented around dry yeast, this is new to me.

Don't let anyone fool you on White Labs vs Wyeast. IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! Its all high quality liquid yeast. Each company offers slightly different lines.

Using any liquid yeast is a step in the right direction. Nothing is specifically wrong with dry, there are just more strains available in liquid form.

Also, no matter what anyone tells you, it is important to make a starter when using liquid yeast. A Wyeast smack pack doesn't count as a starter either. It is just a nutrient pack to "proof" the yeast. Its kind of a bad proof system anyway since some strains don't swell the pack readily.

Wyeast markets two smack packs, the Propagator and Activator. The Propagator is designed to make a starter with, and the Activator is designed to be pitchable without a starter.

So the Wyeast Activator and White Labs Pitchable Tube are similar products, where they can be pitched from packaging into the wort, but with the Wyeast Propagator you must make a starter before pitching into the wort.

Of course, people often recommend that you make a starter regardless of whether or not the product is marketed as pitchable, but that's another thread.

I'm going to second Ed's comments. You should make a starter, no matter what.

There is nothing wrong with pitching the "pitchable vial" or "smack pack", but you will get better results with a starter.

foxual said:

Wyeast markets two smack packs, the Propagator and Activator. The Propagator is designed to make a starter with, and the Activator is designed to be pitchable without a starter.

So the Wyeast Activator and White Labs Pitchable Tube are similar products, where they can be pitched from packaging into the wort, but with the Wyeast Propagator you must make a starter before pitching into the wort.

Of course, people often recommend that you make a starter regardless of whether or not the product is marketed as pitchable, but that's another thread.

Click to expand...

No, it's not really another thread. The fact of the matter is, if you want to make quality beer, then using an activator pack without a starter in anything over about 1.035OG is a bad idea. They lie, like lying stinking liars, when they say that you can use an activator pack on beers up to 1.060. I mean, hell, it's your beer, do what you want, but just know - your beer will not be as good if you don't follow the basic guidelines from Mr. Malty's pitching rate calc.

I have never used a starter because I use activator packs packs and was under the impression they were starters for themselves. My beers always turned out great with them, but if they can be better then great! Now I know
what are some "Using one without a starter" problems? Bad attentuation? Stressed yeast leading to off flavors??

I guess I'm one of those jerks who prefers one (White Labs vs. Wyeast) over the other.

I've just had bad experience with smack packs. It is ENTIRELY possible that it is just my LBHS that has crappy yeast packs or something but probably 90% of the time when I use Wyeast, I have a problem. I honestly don't think I've ever had a yeast problem when using White Labs.

I'm sure everyone else is right though in that there is no difference.... and starters are def. the way to go.

IrregularPulse said:

I have never used a starter because I use activator packs packs and was under the impression they were starters for themselves. My beers always turned out great with them, but if they can be better then great! Now I know
what are some "Using one without a starter" problems? Bad attentuation? Stressed yeast leading to off flavors??

Click to expand...

Yes, both of those. Not saying you can't make perfectly good beer without a starter, but it's not as good as it could be. I would suggest listening to this podcast of Brew Strong.

IrregularPulse said:

I have never used a starter because I use activator packs packs and was under the impression they were starters for themselves. My beers always turned out great with them, but if they can be better then great! Now I know
what are some "Using one without a starter" problems? Bad attentuation? Stressed yeast leading to off flavors??

Click to expand...

Like I said, the activator (smack) pack is not a starter. Its more of a way to proof the yeast, like you do in baking. A swollen pack is "proof" that the yeast inside is good. On the other hand, a pack that doesn't swell DOESNT MEAN THE YEAST IS BAD.

Even smacking a pack, you are underpitching according to Jamil. That can (but won't always) lead to some of the symptoms you mentioned. I really think they market "Pitchable tubes" and Smack Packs to compete with dry yeast. Liquid yeast is a lot more expensive than dry. If they give you the impression that it is as user friendly as dry yeast, people will buy it. If a new brewer hears "hey, liquid yeast costs 3x more than dry AND you have to spend time and money on making a starter", I don't think they would buy it.

Trooper-Orange said:

Trying to decide on my fist recipe to use.

shotorum in another thread recommended getting a smack pack. So I start looking around and find a recipe for a Fat Tire clone that comes with a smack pack, of course they have one with a "pitchable tube" as well.

What is the difference? Recommendations?

Belgian Ale Wyeast Propagator 1214 smack pack

or

White Labs Belgian Ale 550 pitchable tube

All of my reading so far has been oriented around dry yeast, this is new to me.

Click to expand...

What catches my eye is that these are not the same yeast.

Wyeast 1214 Belgian Ale = WLP 500 Trappist Ale
WLP 550 Belgian Ale = Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes

Your LHBS (or was it you?) picked a yeast with the same name, Belgain Ale, but not the same strain.

Ref: Mr Malty

Edit:
And Fat Tire isn't even a Belgian . . .

I like White Labs in the summer and Wyeast in the winter - Wyeast can ferment at lower temps normally then White Labs.

I ALWAYS use a starter - the more yeast the better.

It's one of those things you do to make a very good beer. You can make good beer without a starter but is "good" good enough? sure but it's like mashing at 153 instead of 152 or fermenting at 70 instead of 68 - not a lot of difference but it all adds up.

And Fat Tire isn't even a Belgian

Click to expand...

Yea - my local "smart" beer supplier seems to think it was a Belgian - it's an Amber!

Thanks for all the replies.

I do intend on making a starter. I figure I may as well start off with good habits.

This was just me looking at the recipe kits on Midwest located here: Belgian Beers :: Midwest Supplies Homebrewing and Winemaking Supplies

Yeah I know Fat Tire isn't a Belgian, I suspect Midwest categories it that way because the brewery name New Belgium.

Grinder12000 said:

I like White Labs in the summer and Wyeast in the winter - Wyeast can ferment at lower temps normally then White Labs.

Click to expand...

Shot who in the what now?

What? Did I miss something - is that backwards?? I have my own yeast now from washing - been a while.

Grinder12000 said:

What? Did I miss something - is that backwards?? I have my own yeast now from washing - been a while.

Click to expand...

No, I just think that you're the first person who has made that stereotype about the different labs. In my experience, each strain, regardless of its parent lab, has a unique temp range...

OH - I see. Well - Last winter was my first winter in a new basement and as I was planning ahead I kept seeing that White Labs had a smaller zone for their fermenting temps.

Seeing that I really can not tell the difference between the two and not wanting one to go out of business because they would lose 2 sales a month from me I decided to be fair and buy Wyeast in the winter and White Labs in the summer.

Of course now I wash my yeast and don't buy from either so I suppose soon both will go out of business.

I have to say Smack Pack. It's very easy to tell if the yeast is active and every batch I've done has been smack on!

Trooper-Orange said:

Trying to decide on my fist recipe to use.
Belgian Ale Wyeast Propagator 1214 smack pack

or

White Labs Belgian Ale 550 pitchable tube

Click to expand...

To address this specific bit, I believe Wyeast 1214 and WLP500 (NOT 550) are the same strain. WLP550 is the same as Wyeast 3522 which I don't think is a regulary wyeast strain.

Cape Brewing said:

I guess I'm one of those jerks who prefers one (White Labs vs. Wyeast) over the other.

I've just had bad experience with smack packs. It is ENTIRELY possible that it is just my LBHS that has crappy yeast packs or something but probably 90% of the time when I use Wyeast, I have a problem. I honestly don't think I've ever had a yeast problem when using White Labs.

I'm sure everyone else is right though in that there is no difference.... and starters are def. the way to go.

Click to expand...

My LHBS orders their smack packs every week or so and I just used my first one on my last batch. I used the Wyeast 9093 and it did great. I did make a starter with it for the first time (no idea what I was doing..boiled a little bit of dme in some water for about 30 minutes, cooled it and dumped the yeast in). And I've always made brewed with dry yeast just rehydrating it in warm water a few minutes before brewing. Just listened the the brewing network's brew strong episode on starters though and from what I'm reading on here etc sounds like without one great brews can be made.. but like someone just mentioned here if it could be BETTER than thats great.. I always went by "well I love my brew and I dont do xyz.." now its "how to make it BETTER?".. Sorry going sort of rambling there lol just excited for the next big brew and using a good starter with some good yeast.

Grinder12000 said:

OH - I see. Well - Last winter was my first winter in a new basement and as I was planning ahead I kept seeing that White Labs had a smaller zone for their fermenting temps.

Seeing that I really can not tell the difference between the two and not wanting one to go out of business because they would lose 2 sales a month from me I decided to be fair and buy Wyeast in the winter and White Labs in the summer.

Of course now I wash my yeast and don't buy from either so I suppose soon both will go out of business.

Click to expand...

I've noticed this on some as well, but haven't done any actual comparison of the whole line-ups. It started with the WLP 029, and Wyeast 2565, IIRC, or at least the 2565 went lower.

AnOldUR said:

What catches my eye is that these are not the same yeast.

Wyeast 1214 Belgian Ale = WLP 500 Trappist Ale
WLP 550 Belgian Ale = Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes

Your LHBS (or was it you?) picked a yeast with the same name, Belgain Ale, but not the same strain.

Ref: Mr Malty

Edit:
And Fat Tire isn't even a Belgian . . .

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the first thing I noticed! Fat Tire isn't a Belgian. I'd use a clean well attenuating American yeast strain in that beer. Fruitiness from Belgian yeast would be out of place in an American Amber, in my opinion.

I suggest always making a starter with liquid yeast. If you don't, you'll still get good results. Maybe even great results. Making a starter ensures consistency, though, so you don't have to "wait and see" if the results will be great.

You say this is your first recipe, I'm assuming you mean your first batch of beer ever. I'm still a relatively new brewer. I've used the Wyeast Activator pack, smacked, swelled, and direct pitched into a 1.045 OG beer. It seemed to work fine, but I probably wouldn't push it on a higher OG beer, despite what their packaging claims. I've also tried White Labs and made a starter. It also worked well. It was a little more work, but nothing difficult.

However, after using all three, I really would recommend dry yeast for your first beer. It's absolutely your call, but dry yeast is EASY. I rehydrate the yeast, but many people sprinkle it dry onto the wort with great success. Most dry yeast is of good quality and I'll probably continue to use it for 80% of my beers unless I need some specific yeast strain that's not offered in a dry form.

Trooper-Orange said:

Recommendations?

Click to expand...

If you don't have any of the Fat Tire VSS strain, Wyeast #1272 is an excellent substitute. I've used them both in my recipe and think the 1272 actually made a better beer.