Starter step up methods

Just curious what kind of yeast production would occur with each of the following step ups:

1) 1000ml starter, ferment it, add another 1000ml of wort to the whole thing and ferment it;

2) 1000ml starter, ferment it, decant the liquid and add 1000ml of wort to the yeast and ferment it;

3) 1000ml starter, ferment it, decant the liquid and add 2000ml of wort to the yeast and ferment it

I know the best scenario would be #3, but would the other scenarios be all that bad?

What about just a 2000ml starter and that's it?

Well, I only have 2 1000ml flasks, so I used one to start it, then I'll dump half in the other one and step both up, or leave it in the one, decant the liquid and add more wort to step up.

1 & 2 would be the same. If there is enough head space in the starter vessel it wouldn't make any difference. 3 would produce a higher cell count only because of the addition of more nutrient.

Perfect, I was hoping I didn't need to decant, it won't leave me with enough time. Adding another 1000ml to it will get me where I need to be.

Throwing in my 2 cents.

I use the Palmer method from how to brew (online version)...16oz water and .5 cup DME (sorry, terrible at unit conversions) for the wort at each step. I start with that volume wort, then add the same volume every 24 hours, no decanting. I use a 1-gallon carboy (real cheap at the LHBS, like $5 each), so there is plenty of room and no need to decant. I'm with you, don't want to spend the time to decant or worry about pouring out too much good yeast by accident.

I've been real pleased with this process. Even did a full gallon starter for a real high gravity beer last year, and that thing started up so fast!

Good luck with any method you choose.

For my two cents

I would go for larger steps, too small a step and the yeast don't get enough time eating complex sugars and they get lazy causing them to flock out before finishing off the last few points (have not witnessed this just the theory behind step sizes I have read). Most brewing schools recommend somewhere in the range x5 to x10 volume increments in starter steps. This also makes the debate of decanting or not a non issue.

Clem

Of course you realize that when you don't decant you are diluting the gravity of the next addition with the volume of the previous? If you aren't upping the gravity of the next addition to compensate for this, then your O.G. on the second addition is almost half of what it should be.

Do you want each subsequent step to be higher gravity? More volume?

Sulli said:

Of course you realize that when you don't decant you are diluting the gravity of the next addition with the volume of the previous? If you aren't upping the gravity of the next addition to compensate for this, then your O.G. on the second addition is almost half of what it should be.

Click to expand...

Ok, now this I didn't really think of. Maybe adding another liter of 1.040 to a fermented liter of 1.010 isn't the best bet since you'd end up at 1.025. So the next batch should be around 1.070 added to 1.010 would give 1.040 again and more sugars to eat. This would essentially turn the spent liquid back into fermentable wort.

Should this become my "non-decanted step-up method"?

All the steps should be with 1030-1040 wort a bit less if stepping up a very small culture. Higher just stresses the yeast.

MonkeyWrench said:

Ok, now this I didn't really think of. Maybe adding another liter of 1.040 to a fermented liter of 1.010 isn't the best bet since you'd end up at 1.025. So the next batch should be around 1.070 added to 1.010 would give 1.040 again and more sugars to eat. This would essentially turn the spent liquid back into fermentable wort.

Should this become my "non-decanted step-up method"?

Click to expand...

Yep, as long as you know the final gravity of the previous step, I think this method would work fine.

I think we're splitting hairs here, but I've done it both ways and didn't see any difference what so ever except for the time factor. Granted, when you don't decant it does end up being a different gravity than the original starter. But, the nutrient addition remians the same. Depending on the yeast strain, you will probably have to cold crash to retain the majority of the yeast for the next step. This takes time. Plus, the yeast have to adapt to the temperature changes which puts you even further behind. Waste of time IMO.

BBL_Brewer said:

I think we're splitting hairs here, but I've done it both ways and didn't see any difference what so ever except for the time factor. Granted, when you don't decant it does end up being a different gravity than the original starter. But, the nutrient addition remians the same. Depending on the yeast strain, you will probably have to cold crash to retain the majority of the yeast for the next step. This takes time. Plus, the yeast have to adapt to the temperature changes which puts you even further behind. Waste of time IMO.

Click to expand...

Didn't see any difference in what? The amount of yeast or the health of the yeast?