Does my yeast packet with built in starter, need a starter?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing that may help people is if someone can better explain how mr malty still tells them to use 2 packs while making a starter. I first thought that was the whole point of making a starter to not to have to use multiple packs of yeast and save some $$$.

Well, there are practical limits to how much growth you can reasonably get from a starter. So if you have a big enough beer, or yeast packets that are low enough vaibility, you may need more than one packet, particularly if you choose a simple starter vs a shaken or stirred starter.
 
One thing that may help people is if someone can better explain how mr malty still tells them to use 2 packs while making a starter. I first thought that was the whole point of making a starter to not to have to use multiple packs of yeast and save some $$$.

Pitching rate is pitching rate. If you have a big beer, one replication step in a single starter won't give you enough cells. That's what matters: how many cells you are pitching. This is why things like washing and reusing yeast are so great. You get TONS of cells.
 
A correction: I did edit my post. I edited a very pompous statement to something far less harsh, because on reflection I really didn't want to be a *********. I still don't. Hence this correction for JustLooking's sake.

Cheers!

Bob
 
Question about fermentation here: So I made a starter for my Wyeast 1728 but kinda rushed things I think... Let the pack swell for 3 hrs, poured into a starter at roughly 65 degrees, let sit for roughly 45min and then pitched into fermenter wort at 60 degrees.... Where these temps a bit too cold??? Also, the next morning I didn't see any bubbles and it was still around 63 degrees so I put the fermenter in front of our heating duct which blows warm/hot air out. This caused immediate bubbling but I think only due to the bucket getting hot/shrinking, not fermentation. Then as I pulled it away the airlock piece floating got sucked down from the bucket probably expanding as it cooled or something. A drop of water fell into the fermenter I think. I know I should have been more patient but will the somewhat rapid increase in temp effect the fermentation/health of the yeast?? The thermometer says its at 69 now....
 
Question about fermentation here: So I made a starter for my Wyeast 1728 but kinda rushed things I think... Let the pack swell for 3 hrs, poured into a starter at roughly 65 degrees, let sit for roughly 45min and then pitched into fermenter wort at 60 degrees....

Yeah, in 45 minutes, you accomplished pretty much nothing with that "starter". You gotta give the yeast time to get started to have a starter. ;)

Where these temps a bit too cold???

nope.

I know I should have been more patient

This x 1000000

In regards to your questions about temperature changes, You are probably not going to have many problems. prior to active fermentation, your yeast are less likely to throw and funky flavors as the result of temperature swings. That said, a consistent temp within the happy range of the yeast is your best bet. So get on some method of consistent temperature control. :D
 
One thing that may help people is if someone can better explain how mr malty still tells them to use 2 packs while making a starter. I first thought that was the whole point of making a starter to not to have to use multiple packs of yeast and save some $$$.

it bases it on age of the yeast, size of the starter and OG of the planned beer. sometimes it says use two packs, you can adjust that little slider for growth factor, and usually that will bring it to one pack.
your bolded statement isn't why most people make starters, if you wanna save $$ with yeast, use dry. it's like $2.50 a pack. the point of making a starter is to ensure viability and to grow enough yeast cells to pitch the appropriate amount.
 
One question please. In making the starter, I use malt extract, yeast and water. Those are the same ingredients in making beer. So would you not be creating the same off flavors during this time as you would if you just let the yeast create itself in the brew? Also, you are risking infection more with a starter cause you are now introducing an extra vessel and process in your beer making. Please tell me I am wrong. Because I agree, the beer simply taste better with a starter but I cannot convince my brother.
 
anything produced in the starter beer should be decanted off for the most part, after that ~250ml or so in a 5 gal batch won't do anything to affect the beer. as far as the infection risk, if a few, or even a few hundred cells got onto the edge of the starter flask after you opened it to pitch, that's nothing compared to the 100s of billions of yeast cells your pitching into the beer. no worries about infarction there is your sanitation is up to par. tell your bro to RDW.... and to make a starter. :mug:
 
There must be a few new threads started each day on this.
If you don't want to make a starter for liquid yeast with 5 gallons/an OG above 1.035-- that is cool...whatevs... I ain't drinking your beer.
This is the internet, I don't know you and I will drink my beer.
The takeaway is if you don't want or like making a starter, just use dry yeast.
 
One question please. In making the starter, I use malt extract, yeast and water. Those are the same ingredients in making beer. So would you not be creating the same off flavors during this time as you would if you just let the yeast create itself in the brew? Also, you are risking infection more with a starter cause you are now introducing an extra vessel and process in your beer making. Please tell me I am wrong. Because I agree, the beer simply taste better with a starter but I cannot convince my brother.

yeast have a few modes of operation. Dormancy, reproduction, fermentation, etc.

when yeast are reproducing, they are generating byproducts that are flavor components. many of those are considered off-flavors, but some of them are considered subtle but key flavor components of any beer.

yeast have a swarming like behavior that determines whether they're going to reproduce, or just eat. sort of like grasshoppers. you get enough grasshoppers on top of one another, they feel it in their bones that there are too many of them around... and instinctively they metamorphosis into locusts.

if yeast feel lonely in a sugar rich environment, they're going to feel the need to reproduce. if they don't feel lonely in a sugar rich environment, they're just going to eat, pee and fart till the sugar runs out. then they'll go into a different mode where they start looking for lower quality food to eat, like acetaldehyde and other stuff. and when everything runs out, they go dormant.

so, you throw 1 yeast cell into 5 gallons of 1.100 wort, that cell is going to reproduce, and it's going to keep reproducing geometrically until the colony doesn't feel lonely given the food available. but that was a crap-ton of growth, which threw off a ton of off flavors in the process.

the idea is to get just a hint of that yeast reproduction character, but not too much, and then the yeast shifts into 5th gear and just ferments clean and nice and then goes to sleep.

the way yeast reproduces dictates how you grow them. the mrmalty.com yeast calculator is really geared toward the 5 gallon homebrew system where you're buying packets or vials of yeast. but if you needed to grow more cells for a bigger system, or starting from a smaller amount of cells than comes in a typical wyeast or white labs package, then you need to grow yeast in steps, in order to use your time and your starter wort economically. you can see that on the margins, the mrmalty calculator kind of breaks down and stops making much sense, but that's because in the nonsensical situation that calls for 2 packets pitched into 4 gallons of starter wort, what you REALLY should be doing is a multi-step starter of 1 packet into 1L, then decant, then pitch into 1 gallon. or something like that.

concern about infection given an extra vessel:
brewing is a sanitary process, not a sterile one. there will be bacteria, it's just a matter of keeping them at bay long enough that you don't notice them. if you underpitch, in addition to excess yeast reproduction causing noticeable off flavors, the slow initial growth gives whatever other fauna in your wort more opportunity to take a hold and gives them a better chance at creating a noticeable impact on your beer (infection). not having an infected beer doesn't mean you don't have bacteria, it just means you haven't yet noticed their impact. so this is why it's a worthy tradeoff to use the extra step and vessel to create starters.
 
I personally accept that starters are a good idea, I simply reject that they are required. I've made plenty of tasty brews without them. The few I've used starters for were good, but I didn't see some drastic improvement like this thread would suggest. I smack my pack the night before to make sure it's alive, and wouldn't start my brew day the next morning if it was flat. I know making a starter a day two in advance is better; I'm just a busy guy and choose not to. Does that make me a bad person??

Also, I think there's a lot of new brewers out there looking here for advice. Leading them to believe they'll make bad, undrinkable brew without a starter is not a very good way to welcome new folks the hobby, plus it just ain't true. They need to keep it simple to get the kinks of a basic brew day worked out. Case in point, a few postes ago decaf111 said he made a starter and then pitched it 45 minutes later. That was a complete waste of his time and demonstrated that he doesn't really understand yet what's going on. I've read no less than 5 books on homebrewing and brewed about 30 batches. My Non-use of starters is a calculated risk, and one that I've had success with. I mitigate that risk by smacking the pack the night before, the addition of yeast nutrients in my worts, and oxygen injection before pitching. It seems to work for me. I'm not trying to insult anyone or say that starters can't improve my brew, just that in my experience they are not always necessary...

:mug:
 
I personally accept that starters are a good idea, I simply reject that they are required. I've made plenty of tasty brews without them. The few I've used starters for were good, but I didn't see some drastic improvement like this thread would suggest. I smack my pack the night before to make sure it's alive, and wouldn't start my brew day the next morning if it was flat. I know making a starter a day two in advance is better; I'm just a busy guy and choose not to. Does that make me a bad person??

Also, I think there's a lot of new brewers out there looking here for advice. Leading them to believe they'll make bad, undrinkable brew without a starter is not a very good way to welcome new folks the hobby, plus it just ain't true. They need to keep it simple to get the kinks of a basic brew day worked out. Case in point, a few postes ago decaf111 said he made a starter and then pitched it 45 minutes later. That was a complete waste of his time and demonstrated that he doesn't really understand yet what's going on. I've read no less than 5 books on homebrewing and brewed about 30 batches. My Non-use of starters is a calculated risk, and one that I've had success with. I mitigate that risk by smacking the pack the night before, the addition of yeast nutrients in my worts, and oxygen injection before pitching. It seems to work for me. I'm not trying to insult anyone or say that starters can't improve my brew, just that in my experience they are not always necessary...

:mug:

I haven't seen a single person on here suggest that people will make bad, undrinkable brew without a starter. People are trying to offer suggestions as to what the "best" practices are. It is up to the individual to determine what they will follow and what they will ignore.
 
Seriously.

Look, "My beers taste good to me" is not something anyone should take seriously as support for an argument. It is is exactly the same as the stuff from a decade ago spouted by guys who thought good beer was a tin of Blue Ribbon syrup, some sugar and a packet of "yeast". They said exactly the same thing. Please note I'm not saying your beer is cidery junk; I'm saying the arguments are word for word identical: "My beer tastes fine, so don't you try to tell anyone my way isn't just fine." Eventually those brewers were dragged kicking and screaming out of the 1930s and into modern brewery practice.

Here's an interesting thought: Where does the "this outdated practice works fine for me" argument end? Blokes made perfectly drinkable - they'd even call it excellent - beer with hopped extract topped off with sugar. Yet only a fool would tell a new brewer that was acceptable today. Hell, we tell them to forego Amber and Dark extracts and sub in Pale extract and specialty grains, and nobody bats an eye; certainly nobody gets their panties in a knot. Why? Because the state of the art in the hobby has gone beyond that place. Today it's easy to construct your own recipes with the most abundant range of ingredients in brewing history. Posters here on HBT will obsess over the impact of an ounce of a certain specialty grain, or 1-2% AA differences in their hops. Why is that kind of obsession acceptable, but not yeast management? I strongly suspect it's because the people who complain about yeast management don't practice yeast management, and feel comments suggesting yeast management threaten their methodology and thus their self-worth.

The state of the hobby has gone beyond "just dump in a vial or smack pack and RDWHAHB". If you still use the old techniques and are happy with the result, FINE! Keep on truckin'! Keep doing what makes you happy! Suggesting something more than what you do is not a personal attack on you. Please don't try to hold the state of the art back to where you are, or worse drag it back after it's already passed you by. Don't turn HBT into a crab bucket.

Brewers should always strive to at least know what constitutes best practices, so they can make informed decisions - as you have with starters, Demus - as to whether or not they wish to follow them or use some other practice.

Cheers! :mug:

Bob
 
Hey Bob, I completely agree with your argument that we should not be promoting old techniques, but I don’t know if that is the case here. We could be confusing making a starter with pitching the proper cell count. Isn’t it possible to have the right cell count without a starter?

Do you disagree with White / Zainasheff in YEAST when they say “when pitching a fresh, laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition, a brewer can use up to 50 percent lower pitching rate?” That would mean that a 1.048 ale wort that needed 180 billion cells for their recommended .75 million count, now would be fine with a fresh vial of 100 billion cells.

I’m reading that when Chris White says “a fresh laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition” he means one of his vials, but this could be a bad assumption.

(sorry for repeating this from the other starter thread, but I seriously want to hear your opinion)
 
I’m reading that when Chris White says “a fresh laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition” he means one of his vials, but this could be a bad assumption.

If I picked a vial up from white labs, then I would call it a fresh, laboratory grown culture. Anything short of that, where i have zero idea how it was handle in between the lab and me, I personally would not call a fresh, laboratory grown culture. But that's just me. Not sure exactly what Chris White meant.
 
if i picked a vial up from white labs, then i would call it a fresh, laboratory grown culture. Anything short of that, where i have zero idea how it was handle in between the lab and me, i personally would not call a fresh, laboratory grown culture. But that's just me. Not sure exactly what chris white meant.

+1
 
If I picked a vial up from white labs, then I would call it a fresh, laboratory grown culture. Anything short of that, where i have zero idea how it was handle in between the lab and me, I personally would not call a fresh, laboratory grown culture. But that's just me. Not sure exactly what Chris White meant.
I would tend to agree, but I wonder if anyone has a link to a thread where random vials were purchased from stores and tested for cell count. You'd think that White Labs and Wyeast would be doing this to assure there products were being handled properly by thier distributers.
 
Hey Bob, I completely agree with your argument that we should not be promoting old techniques, but I don’t know if that is the case here. We could be confusing making a starter with pitching the proper cell count. Isn’t it possible to have the right cell count without a starter?

While possible, the concatenation of circumstances is so rare as to be worthy of dismissal. In the first place the fresh wort must be of a sufficiently low gravity - which homebrewers as a rule don't do! ;) . In the second, the wort must be very well aerated - and in my experience brewers who don't make starters are also completely unequipped to aerate. In the third, read below.

Do you disagree with White / Zainasheff in YEAST when they say “when pitching a fresh, laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition, a brewer can use up to 50 percent lower pitching rate?” That would mean that a 1.048 ale wort that needed 180 billion cells for their recommended .75 million count, now would be fine with a fresh vial of 100 billion cells.

While I don't disagree on the face of it, because the numbers are fine in a test ferment, those numbers are dependent on something no homebrewer is likely to ever see - a truly fresh sample. By fresh, we're talking shipped from the yeast bank yesterday afternoon on dry ice. You just don't get that - or at least I don't - from a LHBS, much less a mail-order supplier.

Second, I find the 0.75 million number too low. If that number is already too low, trending the pitch concentration even lower is unwise. Of course, that's my opinion, but it's one with a lot of backup - the 1M/1ml/1°P is one that been in use for decades, works with both ales and lagers, and is proved by literally millions of barrels of beer to work. There was no reason for JZ et al to fiddle with that number other than "because it is there". ;) I don't fault them for that, because clearly their numbers are functional for their purposes, but I don't see a reason for it in the first place, other than to manufacture something they can hang their names on. Which never happens in academia! ;)

There are also situations where it's a good idea to underpitch, like if you wish to brew an estery ale but your house yeast is a low ester producer. Again, that's a place homebrewers very seldom go, because very, very few of us could be said to have a "house" yeast. When we want a higher ester producer, we don't need to trick a strain like 1056 into tasting English; we just buy a sample of Ringwood or some other English strain.

I’m reading that when Chris White says “a fresh laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition” he means one of his vials, but this could be a bad assumption.

I don't think that's a bad assumption at all. Though I like to think the best of people, he is a man with a product to sell, employees to pay, etc. Don't take that to mean I think he's trying to bilk people! On the contrary, no sane business owner would do something like that. However, I do believe he's talking about a situation which A. few homebrewers experience, and B. one which though functional is suboptimal, because a brewer who lacks the time and/or equipment to brew a starter will 99% of the time also lack the time and/or equipment to properly aerate and manage yeast nutrients. It's one thing to maximize the yeast's environment in a lab. It's another for a guy in his kitchen.

(sorry for repeating this from the other starter thread, but I seriously want to hear your opinion)

No worries! I hadn't seen this other thread, and I have no problem listening to my own voice. :D

Cheers! :mug:

Bob
 
No worries! I hadn't seen this other thread, and I have no problem listening to my own voice. :D
Thanks for the thorough response. Helps clear things up.

Hope that I’m OK. I use a 20 cu ft oxygen tank, always use yeast nutrient and hold wort temperature within a one degree range, but seldom use a starter even though I have a stir plate and several Erlenmeyer flasks. :cross:
 
Bob, the info you have provided throughout this thread has been great and helps validate my belief in making a starter for all of my brews when using liquid or washed yeast. :rockin:
 
Hope that I’m OK. I use a 20 cu ft oxygen tank, always use yeast nutrient and hold wort temperature within a one degree range, but seldom use a starter even though I have a stir plate and several Erlenmeyer flasks. :cross:

Oh, yeah. You're fine, I should think. Read up on O2 levels dissolved in wort; there's some very interesting research been done in the past few years.

Cheers! :mug:

Bob
 
Here's an interesting thought: Where does the "this outdated practice works fine for me" argument end? Blokes made perfectly drinkable - they'd even call it excellent - beer with hopped extract topped off with sugar. Yet only a fool would tell a new brewer that was acceptable today.

IRONICALLY... on a relatively recent brewstrong podcast, jamil zainasheff demonstrated that you can indeed make very good beer with nothing more than hopped extract(fresh), given that you PITCH THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF YEAST, oxygenate and control fermentation temperature properly.
 
I haven't seen a single person on here suggest that people will make bad, undrinkable brew without a starter. People are trying to offer suggestions as to what the "best" practices are. It is up to the individual to determine what they will follow and what they will ignore.

How about this:
If it's good enough for Jamil and John Palmer to make a starter for every batch, then it's good enough for me. I'm sure that you could ferment in an old shoe and get beer, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea!

It would seem I've really touched a nerve here. Would you rather drink from an old shoe or beer that's "underpitched"? I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone who makes a starter. I was just trying to say that for a new, novice brewer the process is daunting enough without having to think about propagating billions of extra cells. In my reading of these posts there's definitely a strong suggestion that beer made without a starter is significantly worse than beer brewed with one. I think if a beginner sticks with a lower gravity, simple brew and direclty pitches, he'll make a brew that will inspire him to learn and brew more. If he reads all this and thinks that's not possible and tries something like pitching a "starter" 45 minutes after making it, he won't likely stick with this wonderful hobby. I'm sure your beers are great and got even better when you used starters, but that doesn't mean every beer tastes better with a starter. And it definitely doesn't mean you can't make a tasty brew without one. That's all I was saying....
 
How about this:


It would seem I've really touched a nerve here. Would you rather drink from an old shoe or beer that's "underpitched"? I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone who makes a starter. I was just trying to say that for a new, novice brewer the process is daunting enough without having to think about propagating billions of extra cells. In my reading of these posts there's definitely a strong suggestion that beer made without a starter is significantly worse than beer brewed with one. I think if a beginner sticks with a lower gravity, simple brew and direclty pitches, he'll make a brew that will inspire him to learn and brew more. If he reads all this and thinks that's not possible and tries something like pitching a "starter" 45 minutes after making it, he won't likely stick with this wonderful hobby. I'm sure your beers are great and got even better when you used starters, but that doesn't mean every beer tastes better with a starter. And it definitely doesn't mean you can't make a tasty brew without one. That's all I was saying....


I think that's a stretch. I get your point, but this whole argument is just silly. If people want to ignore the "make a starter" advice, they can.
 
How about this:


It would seem I've really touched a nerve here. Would you rather drink from an old shoe or beer that's "underpitched"? I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone who makes a starter. I was just trying to say that for a new, novice brewer the process is daunting enough without having to think about propagating billions of extra cells. In my reading of these posts there's definitely a strong suggestion that beer made without a starter is significantly worse than beer brewed with one. I think if a beginner sticks with a lower gravity, simple brew and direclty pitches, he'll make a brew that will inspire him to learn and brew more. If he reads all this and thinks that's not possible and tries something like pitching a "starter" 45 minutes after making it, he won't likely stick with this wonderful hobby. I'm sure your beers are great and got even better when you used starters, but that doesn't mean every beer tastes better with a starter. And it definitely doesn't mean you can't make a tasty brew without one. That's all I was saying....

if a new brewer isn't yet prepared to make starters, that new brewer should use dry yeast, if they're making anything other than a very low OG session ale. no compromise needed in pitching rate.
 
the smack packs are def designed for a 5 gallon batch, correct? you read the pack and it says when to smack it and when to pitch it. all for a 5 gallon batch, unless i'm mistaken.
 
bitlumpkin said:
the smack packs are def designed for a 5 gallon batch, correct? you read the pack and it says when to smack it and when to pitch it. all for a 5 gallon batch, unless i'm mistaken.

I give up
 
the smack packs are def designed for a 5 gallon batch, correct? you read the pack and it says when to smack it and when to pitch it. all for a 5 gallon batch, unless i'm mistaken.

Okay, you get a pass because you're new (welcome, by the way!).

No. They are not a sufficient pitch for five gallons, except in very narrow circumstances which few brewers will experience or are equipped to handle.

Read up for my reasoning. Next time, kindly read the entire thread before asking a question that's already been answered in it.

Cheers!

Bob
 
Okay, you get a pass because you're new (welcome, by the way!).

No. They are not a sufficient pitch for five gallons, except in very narrow circumstances which few brewers will experience or are equipped to handle.

Read up for my reasoning. Next time, kindly read the entire thread before asking a question that's already been answered in it.

Cheers!

Bob

my bad. i know on my softball msg board how this feels.
 
Okay, you get a pass because you're new (welcome, by the way!).

No. They are not a sufficient pitch for five gallons, except in very narrow circumstances which few brewers will experience or are equipped to handle.

Read up for my reasoning. Next time, kindly read the entire thread before asking a question that's already been answered in it.

Cheers!

Bob

Umm....that question wasn't answered...especially when it is given in a simple "No" format. How can you even say that a smack pack isn't sufficient for a 5 gal batch....the volume is complete irrelevant. What if he was doing a 5 gal batch of 1.030 OG (I know, very sessionable). Are you really telling me that a smack pack would not be able to do the job. In my experience, a smack pack will work just fine on 5 gallon batches with OG 1.060 or lower, but anything higher and you run the risk of stalled/stuck fermentations or other issues related to underpitching. All that being said, the SMACK PACK IS NOT A STARTER....BUT....and a BIG BUT....it CAN BE DIRECTLY PITCHED depending on the OG of the wort. Sheesh people. :mug::mug:
 
Umm....that question wasn't answered...especially when it is given in a simple "No" format.

It was. I refer you to my post dated 1/16 in response to Hercher, and the discussion which then ensued, in which cell counts, pitch rates and all manner of relevant data were discussed.

Read the thread before posting.

How can you even say that a smack pack isn't sufficient for a 5 gal batch....the volume is complete [sic] irrelevant.

You are misinformed. The brew length is crucially relevant, because one third of the formula by which pitch rate is determined is volume to be pitched.

Kindly refrain from scattering bad information.

What if he was doing a 5 gal batch of 1.030 OG (I know, very sessionable)?

As I wrote above - which you apparently didn't see because you didn't read the thread either - there very well may be sufficient yeast in an XL smack pack or vial for a gravity that low. Provided of course that the sample is very, very fresh, was handled perfectly, and is pitched into 5 US gallons of low-OG wort with plenty of nutrients and aeration.

Are you really telling me that a smack pack would not be able to do the job.

Yes. Read up for discussion of cell counts ad infinitum.

In my experience, a smack pack will work just fine on 5 gallon batches with OG 1.060 or lower, but anything higher and you run the risk of stalled/stuck fermentations or other issues related to underpitching. All that being said, the SMACK PACK IS NOT A STARTER....BUT....and a BIG BUT....it CAN BE DIRECTLY PITCHED depending on the OG of the wort. Sheesh people. :mug::mug:

Your experience is immaterial. Science says otherwise (see my post about cell counts and the discussion about pitch rates).

Next time, read the entire thread before you click "Submit", then compare what you've written to what's already been said. You can then avoid situations like this, where this entire post was unnecessary and factually incorrect.

Sincerely,

Bob
 
my bad. i know on my softball msg board how this feels.

No worries! Happens all the time. It just happens to be one of the things that can make some of us have an aneurysm. :D

writing_process.gif


Bob
 
To all the brewers out there who actually care about creating a better product than you can buy off the shelf, forget about, and completely ignore those who choose to take the easy road. This hobby isn't about saving time, or "it's good enough", it's about being part of a rich history of innovation, accepted scientific principals and attempting to make each batch we brew better than the last. At least it is for me.

Also, don't feel like you have to have the naysayers agree with you to justify your position. I couldn't care less about the hard head who wants to pitch a propagator pack into his 5 gallons of wort any more than I care if he wants to save a buck by fermenting in an old boot he found on the side of the road.

I love to answer questions from genuine people learning to improve their processes, but once the contrarians poke their heads in to say that they've been "doing it this way, or that way" for years with good results I turn a deaf ear and move on. Any monkey can make beer, but only those who desire to learn from those who came before us will ever truly create great beers!
 
When I went to that yeast class I could definitely taste a difference in the differently pitched beers. While I've teased revvy about his long answers, he's right on this.

I'm not denying that this is true, but it is far from settled in the science world. There are actually a few studies that suggest that pitch rate ultimately has a negligbile effect on flavor, like here and here. There's also some studies that claim that high pitch rates negatively effect flavor.

It was dogma for awhile that you didn't want your yeast to divide, and as a result, you made a starter and pitched the number of yeast needed to ferment the wort without requiring division. However, others have argued that a majority of the flavor profiles associated with particular yeasts result from the release of esters and other metabolites during the division process. I'll also mention that the producers of two world class beers, Duvel and Westmalle Tripel, both pitch well under the dogma of 1 x 10^6 cells/mL/°P.
 
I guess "relax, don't worry. Have a homebrew" is now "you must do it this way every time because science and experts agree that I am right and my way is superior". Try a batch without a starter and a batch with a starter and see what works better for YOU for that particular BATCH.
 
I'm not denying that this is true, but it is far from settled in the science world. There are actually a few studies that suggest that pitch rate ultimately has a negligbile effect on flavor, like here and here. There's also some studies that claim that high pitch rates negatively effect flavor.

It was dogma for awhile that you didn't want your yeast to divide, and as a result, you made a starter and pitched the number of yeast needed to ferment the wort without requiring division. However, others have argued that a majority of the flavor profiles associated with particular yeasts result from the release of esters and other metabolites during the division process. I'll also mention that the producers of two world class beers, Duvel and Westmalle Tripel, both pitch well under the dogma of 1 x 10^6 cells/mL/°P.


Those two studies that you cite only use a 4 fold range of yeast concentration with the lowest pitching rate being .63 million cells/mL per degree Plato. That is not woefully underpitched. I wouldn't expect a drastic difference with those numbers. Basically they use Two slightly underpitched and two slightly overpitched. With regards to overpitching, it is pretty well established that severe overpitching also produces off flavors and changes the character of the beer. That is why people are advocating pitching the correct amount, not more, not less. With regards to Duvel and Westmalle, it is also not surprising that some Belgian producers underpitch since stressing the yeast gets them to throw more esters and other compounds desirable in a Belgian beer.
 
I guess "relax, don't worry. Have a homebrew" is now "you must do it this way every time because science and experts agree that I am right and my way is superior". Try a batch without a starter and a batch with a starter and see what works better for YOU for that particular BATCH.

Yeah, excellent advice. :rolleyes:

In the first place, yeah, I'm right. I describe best practices at the state of the modern art of brewing. Tough. You don't want to do that, fine. You want to use methods that have been out of date and ridiculously oversimplified for the entire period of the modern homebrewing "revolution", fine. If you want to make the best beer you possibly can, stop fighting! Just do it, already!

I mean for pete's sake. Do you just toss any old amount of grain in the mash tun? Do you just toss in a couple ounces of "hops"? Of course not! You carefully measure the type and amount of ingredients you add. Please, PLEASE explain to me why you shouldn't do that with yeast. PLEASE explain to me why that's a bad idea. PLEASE explain to me why I shouldn't advise other brewers to follow yeast management. Because someone might not RDWHAHB?

Please.

I could strangle Uncle Charlie for ever making that mantra. It's been the excuse for so much shoddy practice and crappy beer that I wish he'd never written it. Brewing excellent beer consistently from batch to batch requires attention to detail that RDWHAHB actively prevents. And if you don't want to brew excellent beer consistently from batch to batch, if you're perfectly okay with having every other batch (or whatever percentage) be "meh" or worse undrinkable, tell you what: Figure out how much you'll spend on the ingredients for the batch that turned out "meh" because you were too busy RDWHAHBing to pay attention to actually being a freaking brewer, and you just send me the money. Seriously, cut me a check. Because I guarantee you I have a better use for it than literally pissing it away on beer that could have been excellent if only you'd paid attention to a few simple things.

I invest too much time, money and emotional commitment to the craft of brewing to blithely dismiss commonly-held, widely-known best practices. If you're all right with doing that, fine. Good for you. It's the standard you've set for yourself, your beer and your brewery. But don't you dare try to poke holes in brewing practices because you can't be bothered to follow them. They exist whether you agree with them or not.

God, this attitude frustrates me.

Bob
 
Relax bro, It's not worth getting your BP high for, people still smoke, or pick up hookers and have sex with them without condoms to....You've given plenty of info, that's all we can do.

I just don't get why folks resist it so much...it's either laziness, or ignorance of how simple it is. It's not like you have to preform brain surgery or anything. It takes 10 maybe 15 minutes to do....do it a couple of days ahead if you're building a big one up, or do it the night before a brew day for a lower grav beer.

How hard is it, that this picture is the sum total of the process?

YeastStarterChart.jpg


Except now we don't even add an airlock just a bit of sanitized tinfoil....

It's not like you gotta tear apart an engine or anything.
 
I could strangle Uncle Charlie for ever making that mantra. It's been the excuse for so much shoddy practice and crappy beer that I wish he'd never written it.

Gotta agree with that. The "relax don't worry" mantra really should be reserved for the occasion when things to go quite according to textbook. For example, one time I discovered too late that my immersion chiller had a hole in it, and I had no other means of cooling the beer than to just wait several hours. After a few choice curse words, I covered it up, went inside, had a couple beers and watched some football. The beer was fine, albeit not as strong as I had hoped.

I think some of the mantra is due to the fact that most of us aren't selling our beer. So if each batch of my pale ale isn't exactly the same, that's fine as long as it's really good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top