Yeast Starter or 2 packs question?

Thanks! I suppose I hijacked this thread, but I hope those answers are also what the original poster was looking for.

I'm debating whether to make starters or not. I rarely brew beers greater than 1.050 OG. In the grand scheme of things I don't think it is necessary or going to make a discern able difference in the final beer, but I am curious to find out I I can discern the difference between 1st generation and 2nd generation yeast.

Like everything else in home brew, though, it's tough to tell if your beer is better b/c of an intentional change to your process or just the result of unintentional improvement I other steps of your brewing process.

Thanks for the helpful advice. I look forward to testing out these theories through actual experience.

Mostly agree with BrewKnurd, but a couple of points.

First, from what I’ve read those non-viable cells aren’t “dead and rotting away.” They are actually beneficial as a nutrient during the growth phase.

Second, cell growth in a starter is proportional to the amount of viable yeast you started with. Without a scope to count cells before and after you make a starter, it’s all a guessing game. Going to Mr Malty and punching in best guess numbers might make you feel good, but the computer saying, “garbage in / garbage out” holds true here. The assumption that the pack has 90 billion viable cells can be used just as well to determine how many packs you need as it is in deciding how large of a starter you need to reach your cell count goal. One is not more accurate than the other.

For first generation pitches, I’d rather pick up two packs of fresh yeast from a store that I trust, assume 100 billion cells and direct pitch into the appropriate amount of wort. From there, it’s up to me to take good care of the harvested yeast to maintain viability for later batches. From then on, pitch based on the weight and age of slurry needed for the volume and gravity of new wort. Still a guess without a scope, but one that I have more control over.

AnOldUR said:

Mostly agree with BrewKnurd, but a couple of points.

First, from what I’ve read those non-viable cells aren’t “dead and rotting away.” They are actually beneficial as a nutrient during the growth phase.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that to an extent this is true. Some of the nutrients present in those cells can be absorbed by the living yeast. But I would be quite surprised if the majority of the cell mass was consumed as nutrient. Not that I know for sure.

Also not sure of this, but thought that I read somewhere that you could use old packs of dried yeast as a nutrient in the last 10 minutes or so of the boil. Never tried it. Anyone?

AnOldUR said:

Also not sure of this, but thought that I read somewhere that you could use old packs of dried yeast as a nutrient in the last 10 minutes or so of the boil. Never tried it. Anyone?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I imagine you get some benefit from that. Some yeast nutrients contain yeast hulls.

Honestly, the amount of non-viable cells based on pitching a couple packs vs one with a starter is probably a complete non-issue in almost all cases.

AnOldUR said:

For first generation pitches, I’d rather pick up two packs of fresh yeast from a store that I trust, assume 100 billion cells and direct pitch into the appropriate amount of wort. From there, it’s up to me to take good care of the harvested yeast to maintain viability for later batches. From then on, pitch based on the weight and age of slurry needed for the volume and gravity of new wort. Still a guess without a scope, but one that I have more control over.

Click to expand...

There is another attribute, with respect to the health of the yeast, that is often overlooked; that is vitality. Yeast vitality: refers to the activity or metabolism of the cell. Yeast vitality has been linked to fermentation performance. The yeast propagated from a fresh starter will have much more vitality than yeast straight out of a vial or smackpack.

OvaTersley said:

The yeast propagated from a fresh starter will have much more vitality than yeast straight out of a vial or smackpack.

Click to expand...

Chris White stating that, "When pitching a fresh, laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition, a brewer can use up to a 50 percent lower pitch rate."

A starter is essentially a small batch of beer, brewed outside of the original lab environment. For the homebrewer that’s probably your kitchen, which is far from the sterile, controlled original process. For all practical purposes, when pitching a starter, you are using the second generation of the fresh lab culture you hope to get with a new vial or pack that has been handled properly.

If using a starter for the first generation of the yeast means I have to pitch up to twice the cell count, I don’t see too much advantage over using the method I described above.

Apart from the issues I am having with lager yeast described in this thread I have never had any issues whatsoever just pitching one Wyeast pack. Generally, if it is not super fresh or if it's a bigger beer, I might smack it the day before but that is all that I do differently. I let big beers stay in Primary longer as well I suppose.

Now, if I was making a barley wine, or something that I was pushing past the 9% ABV point, I would be asking these questions but I have had all the luck in the world getting beers to the 7-9% point with this single smack pack method.

Am I missing out on something by not making starters or doubling my pitch? Is this just a lager or huge beer dilemma?

Here we go.:cross:

AnOldUR said:

Chris White stating that, "When pitching a fresh, laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition, a brewer can use up to a 50 percent lower pitch rate."

Click to expand...

For the sake of understanding, what is he comparing to? 50% lower than if you used... what? Leftover yeast from another batch that's been sitting under beer for 3 weeks? Stuff that was sitting in a fridge for a month? Without knowing what he's comparing to, its hard to assess the meaning of this statement.

The other thing is that unless you picked the yeast up at the lab, you don't really have fresh, laboratory grown yeast.

BrewKnurd said:

For the sake of understanding, what is he comparing to? 50% lower than if you used... what?

Click to expand...

In the piece he consistently uses "brewer" referring to professionals and "homebrewer" when referring to us. So when he say," Keep in mind that these suggested rates are for repitching harvested yeast, because that is what brewers are doing most of the time." I took that to mean a fresh slurry drawn from a conical once fermentation had stopped. Probably a few days to a week old.

Oh, and I've often gotten yeast dated less than a week old. And I've heard that Wyeast goes to great lengths to be sure the yeast gets to there suppliers fresh and healthy.

BrewKnurd said:

Leftover yeast from another batch that's been sitting under beer for 3 weeks.

Click to expand...

And while I’m at bucking self proclaimed HBT wisdom, this is exactly why I transfer most of my beers in less than two weeks, just a few days after fermentation has stopped. Plenty of time for the yeast to clean up while maintaining their health and vitality for the next few batches.

AnOldUR said:

In the piece he consistently uses "brewer" referring to professionals and "homebrewer" when referring to us. So when he say," Keep in mind that these suggested rates are for repitching harvested yeast, because that is what brewers are doing most of the time." I took that to mean a fresh slurry drawn from a conical once fermentation had stopped. Probably a few days to a week old.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. Well, I would argue that the conditions of a starter probably more closely match lab propagation conditions than they do brewery fermentation conditions, so the fact that fresh yeast can be pitched at half the rate of re-pitched slurry does not necessarily mean the same is true when comparing fresh yeast to yeast fresh out of a starter. But I surely don't know for sure, and its honestly probably purely academic at this point. I'm ok with accepting that we may not agree on this specific detail.

AnOldUR said:

Oh, and I've often gotten yeast dated less than a week old. And I've heard that Wyeast goes to great lengths to be sure the yeast gets to there suppliers fresh and healthy.

Click to expand...

I was mostly just giving you a hard time on that one. But, in seriousness, it is possible to get yeast which is in close to "lab fresh" conditions. But the honest reality is that you have no way whatsoever to ensure that you have that, regardless of the date on the package. You really know nothing about what happened to that yeast after it left the lab. That said, I will fgladly grant you that there are much bigger things to worry about in homebrewing.

Yeah. A lot of this is a vague and open to interpretation. I’m signed up for a seminar with Owen Lingley from Wyeast in a few weeks. Hope to be able to pick his brain and get answers to some of these questions.

It’s been interesting talking it through with you. This gives me more fuel for what to ask at the seminar.

AnOldUR said:

Yeah. A lot of this is a vague and open to interpretation. I’m signed up for a seminar with Owen Lingley from Wyeast in a few weeks. Hope to be able to pick his brain and get answers to some of these questions.

Click to expand...

Sweet.

AnOldUR said:

It’s been interesting talking it through with you. This gives me more fuel for what to ask at the seminar.

Click to expand...

Its amazing what interesting conversations can be had when no one gets all preachy. Not that that ever happens here. :cross:

Awww

OvaTersley said:

Awww

Click to expand...

Hahhahaha, frickin hilarious!! I am so stealing that for future use

GrizBrew said:

Hahhahaha, frickin hilarious!! I am so stealing that for future use

Click to expand...

That's the same thing Ovary said when he saw someone else post that picture.

Too bad he couldn't wait until it actually made sense.




But what the heck, any excuse to look at oily man ass is worth it. Right?

Just having a little fun, man. No reason to get all butt hurt about it.

I feel a little guilty because I'm so lazy that I'll pay for four wyeast packs for my lagers just because I don't want to mess with making a starter.

Just had a question for everyone.... I've had my starter on the stir plate for 12 hours now and there really hasn't been much krausen at all in the flask. I was just wondering if this was normal? Here's a picture of it..






..I'm assuming it's actually done fermenting. I plan to chill and decant before pitching. What do you think?

You might miss krausen but doesn't mean that it wasn't there.
I would check SG to be sure, 12 hours is on bottom line.

Yea I figured I missed it.. I left it for about 20 hours and is now chilling. Thanks