OG and necessity of yeast starter

I'm sure this has been talked about before, but I've got a buddy who's been brewing for a long time, he got me into it. His theory on yeast starters is that you really only need a yeast starter if your OG is more than 1.050. If it's less than 1.050, he says just pitch the liquid or dry yeast directly into you fermenter.

so is there a "magic" OG threshold where you can directly pitch yeast from the packet without needing a starter? I know there are tons of variables with this question: dry, liquid, strand, temperature fermentation, O2 in mash, etc.

I just wanted to get a few other experienced brewers take on direct pitching from yeast packets correlating to OG levels. I've only done 2 batches so far, both came out clean, both were under or at 1.050, both were direct pitched from packet, one was liquid yeast (1275), other was dry(us-05).

Excited to hear your thoughts...

Trey

I'm curious about this as well. Just did a pale ale that I directly pitched from the wyeast 1056, and my OG was 1.065 and it's fermenting like crazy (even had to install a blow off tube the krausen was so wild), the batch I just brewed after was a citrus bomb IPA that the OG was expected to be higher (1.065-1.071) it ended up at 1.078 @ 70 degrees, but this time I made a starter and they are both bubbling allong. Should I have made a starter for the first?

If you care about making good beer, I'd recommend using a calculator like http://yeastcalc.com/ over any rule-of-thumb. You need to be pitching the correct amount on every batch. You should also properly rehydrate your dry yeast.

http://seanterrill.com/2011/07/29/dry-yeast-viability-take-two/

http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/

With White Labs a starter is the only way to proof the yeast, but if I have a fresh (less than three week) smack pack that swells quickly, I wouldn't hesitate to pitch into 5 gallons or less of wort 1.050 or under.


But the "always make a starter" group here on HBT are much more passionate about their cause, so the vote will probably sway that way.

There is no magic number, but Wyeast states right on the smack-pack that there is enough yeast for a wort with 1.06 OG or less.

That being said, I make a one liter (1/2cup DME in 650 mls h2O) for EVERYTHING under 1.065. Works for me.

Much discussion about this topic, and great beer can be made without a starter. However, most folks that use starters NEVER go back to not using them. That should tell you something.....
Pez.

After I voted, I mean to say at least...It depends, if I am using dry packs, or smack packs, or vials, how old, etc. I just make one, when I don't have enough yeast for an adequate pitch.

Pezman1 said:

Much discussion about this topic, and mediocre beer can be made without a starter.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. When you factor in loss of viability from transport and storage, a single smack pack will rarely provide the proper pitching rate.

Some people don't use starters, and they claim their beer is good, but I've never tried their beer, and I've never seen any objective, verifiable, controlled experiment that showed that pitching too little yeast makes better beer than pitching the correct amount.

IMO there is enough conjecture and mediocre beer in the world, there's no reason to add any more.

Pezman1 said:

There is no magic number, but Wyeast states right on the smack-pack that there is enough yeast for a wort with 1.06 OG or less.

Click to expand...

You have to specify: "enough" yeast for what? A few thousand cells will successfully ferment a 5 gal batch, given enough time. What that would taste like, who knows.

In order to achieve the typical flavor profile for a given yeast strain, you need to pitch at roughly the typical pitching rate: 0.75 million/mL°P for ales; 1.5 million/mL°P for lagers. If you have a reason for pitching more or less, then by all means go for it, but not knowing (or at least estimating) the pitching rate is like not knowing how much malt is going in.

Assuming a perfectly fresh smack pack (100 billion cells), you would have the standard ale pitching rate for 5.5 gal of ~1.025 wort. With 5.5 gal of 1.050 wort, you'd be pitching *at most* half the standard rate.

I guess this means that you are using a new pack/vial in a 5 gallon batch.

For me there are too many variables. I use frozen yeast, washed yeast, yeast cake, new yeast and dry yeast. I have to treat each situation on it's own.

I always check mrmalty or yeastcalc and pitch the proper amount. 22 batches and have not had any bad ones at all.

Nateo said:

Fixed that for you. When you factor in loss of viability from transport and storage, a single smack pack will rarely provide the proper pitching rate.

Some people don't use starters, and they claim their beer is good, but I've never tried their beer, and I've never seen any objective, verifiable, controlled experiment that showed that pitching too little yeast makes better beer than pitching the correct amount.

IMO there is enough conjecture and mediocre beer in the world, there's no reason to add any more.

Click to expand...

Nah, I've had great beer made with just a smack pack and bad beer made with the "correct" starter. No conjecture needed.

Keep in mind I merely quoted the instructions on the back of the Wyeast smack pack. I didn't say they were Gospel.

BYO even had a experiment on this subject.

EDIT - Found the BYO experiment - Jan-Feb 2010. They under-pitched, correctly pitched, and overpitched, then tried all the beers. It confirmed that correct pitching rates speeded up fermentation, but results of the finished beers were mixed, with some even preferring the underpitched beers. Quote," Beyond that, our experiment failed to confirm some of the key predictions of the basic pitching rate model with respect to attenuation and ester production."

Pezman1 said:

Nah, I've had great beer made with just a smack pack and bad beer made with the "correct" starter. No conjecture needed.

EDIT - Found the BYO experiment - Jan-Feb 2010. They under-pitched, correctly pitched, and overpitched, then tried all the beers. It confirmed that correct pitching rates speeded up fermentation, but results of the finished beers were mixed, with some even preferring the underpitched beers. Quote," Beyond that, our experiment failed to confirm some of the key predictions of the basic pitching rate model with respect to attenuation and ester production."

Click to expand...

If you had said "I've made beer that I enjoy without using a starter," I wouldn't be able to disagree with you. Was the beer objectively great? How many gold medals did it win?

I've yet to meet a homebrewer who thinks they consistently make poor beer. Everyone thinks their beer is great.

Do you have a link to that experiment? I don't have a BYO subscription.

Nateo said:

If you had said "I've made beer that I enjoy without using a starter," I wouldn't be able to disagree with you. Was the beer objectively great? How many gold medals did it win?

I've yet to meet a homebrewer who thinks they consistently make poor beer. Everyone thinks their beer is great.

Do you have a link to that experiment? I don't have a BYO subscription.

Click to expand...

I'm a paper subscriber to BYO and not too computer minded, so I do not know how to link that (or any) article to you. The issue month and date is the best I could do.

As a homebrewer I will freely admit I have made poor beer. More than one batch.... More than two. I have also never entered my beer in any competitions, so I have no gold medals to prove any of my beer ever turned out tasting better than pond scum. I also have no proof that my own beer tasting ability is good, except that I generally like or dislike what other beer knurds like or appreciate in a beer..

Do I believe that starters are a good thing? Absolutely! I always use them. Do I believe in a blanket statement that your middle gravity or lower beer will turn out bad if you only use a smack pack? Absolutely not.

Technically anything over 1.030 needs more than 100 billion cells for "optimal" fermentation; but that doesn't mean a 1.050 wort won't ferment with 1 smack pack.

I've never brewed anything under 1.050 and I stopped using dry yeast awhile ago.

I always use a starter.

Sulli said:

Technically anything over 1.030 need more than 100 billion cells for "optimal" fermentation.

Click to expand...

^This^ couldn't be more true.

I make a starter for pretty much every 5 gal or larger batch if I'm using liquid or washed yeast, regardless of gravity. If MrMalty were to say I don't need a starter (it never will for a 5 gal batch unless the OG is <1.028), which it sometimes has with ~2-~3 gal batches, I make a ~1 L starter to ensure the viability of the yeast if nothing else.

I make a starter for all of mine because I have no idea how well that yeast was taken care of. In the beginning (before there was light) I followed the directions on the back. I made very poor beer, which I wouldn't blame on under pitching. I'm new to the game and don't know all that much, but I do know that I get PO'd when my beer wasn't good. And it's a little more for me to do, which is really why I got into this hobby. It certainly hasn't saved me any money yet!

I rarely make starters, because I use dry yeast. If I'm planning a big beer, I make a small one to build up the yeast and pitch on the cake.

How are you guys measuring the number of yeast cells in your starters?

jaynik said:

How are you guys measuring the number of yeast cells in your starters?

Click to expand...

I lay all mine out on a big table and have my kids count them

duboman said:

I lay all mine out on a big table and have my kids count them

Click to expand...

This.

Something I haven't seen mentioned is that certain styles are more suited to higher ester production. I would always use a starter for something like a lager or Belgian ale. I don't even consider a starter for a German hefe, I like the ester profile of banana and clove. That being said I agree that yeast viability is best shown via starter.

Mr. Malty! Get on that right now. Just pitched a packet of US05 in a 1.06 wort. For dry yeasts you shouldn't bother making a starter as the yeast has a lot of nutrients from the manufacturer that you'd be wasting, just grab an extra packet if your OG is high. For lagers you need twice as much yeast and liquid yeast has less cells than dry yeast, the advantage of liquid yeast is the diversity. The main downside to not making starters is being unsure of the viability of your yeast.

Originally Posted by duboman

I lay all mine out on a big table and have my kids count them


Exactly. I read a lot of comments about how it is bad to under pitch but not sure if other than a bubbly starter, you can be sure your yeast has more cells than a smack pack.

Maybe your kids are working for all these other guys...

While most yeast companies suggest you to make a starter at "above 1.05 or 1.06 Fermentation" you will make better beer with healthy yeast.

Always make a starter.

Nateo said:

Do you have a link to that experiment? I don't have a BYO subscription.

Click to expand...

BYO only puts select articles online: http://***********/component/resour...Brewing Science/2025-pitching-rate-experiment

You should be able to find the episode discussing the results in the BBR archives. It's worth mentioning that that wasn't a controlled experiment.

Here's one that I did and subsequently published in Zymurgy, about a year ago: http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/

jaynik said:

How are you guys measuring the number of yeast cells in your starters?

Click to expand...

The easiest way is to use a microscope and plate cytometer. You should be able to pick up both on eBay for <$100. White Labs has the basic protocol on their site: http://www.whitelabs.com/beer/cell_count.html

a10t2 said:

BYO only puts select articles online: http://***********/component/resour...Brewing Science/2025-pitching-rate-experiment

You should be able to find the episode discussing the results in the BBR archives. It's worth mentioning that that wasn't a controlled experiment.

Here's one that I did and subsequently published in Zymurgy, about a year ago: http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/



The easiest way is to use a microscope and plate cytometer. You should be able to pick up both on eBay for <$100. White Labs has the basic protocol on their site: http://www.whitelabs.com/beer/cell_count.html

Click to expand...

The BYO experiment WAS a controlled experiment. They took one batch of beer and split it three ways. The only variable was the yeast amount.


Having all the factors the same except for one independent variable is the definition of a controlled experiment.

Granted, they compiled results from several experimenters and different tasters, so in this regard there is more room for process error and bias - and they aknowledged that this should be taken into account in the results.


Pez.

I just wanted to say thank you all for posting, and please continue. As a noobie brewer, I'm enjoying reading from more experienced brewers, which is basically any one who has brewed more than 3 batches... so the whole forum site.

I am being convicted to start using a starter for nearly all batches going forward. I did appreciated the "styles" comment on the issue of under-proper pitching rates.

Pezman1 said:

Granted, they compiled results from several experimenters and different tasters

Click to expand...

Exactly; that's what makes it a survey. There's a second uncontrolled variable - the equipment/recipe/process.

If I polled 100 people on their choice of breakfast cereals and compiled the results, they might be useful, but it wouldn't be a controlled experiment.

a10t2 said:

Exactly; that's what makes it a survey. There's a second uncontrolled variable - the equipment/recipe/process.

If I polled 100 people on their choice of breakfast cereals and compiled the results, they might be useful, but it wouldn't be a controlled experiment.

Click to expand...

NO, they did their own controlled experiment.

Along with that, they invited others to do the SAME experiment and send in the results to compare to their own.

This does not make their own experiment an uncontrolled experiment. Likewise, it does not make the other experimenter's results uncontrolled either.
Pez.

Using your logic, I couldn't use your experiment results either as they are a survey of one.

When i buy a new vial i always make a starter as i do 10gal batches i need to up the cell count. When re-using yeast i also make a starter as the yeasts could have been sitting for a few months and i could be staring at a 40gal day.

While most yeast companies suggest you to make a starter at "above 1.05 or 1.06 Fermentation" you will make better beer with healthy yeast.

Click to expand...

I just want to be clear. Does a starter change the health of the yeast or the quantity of the yeast? Is this statement meant to imply that a packet of dry yeast or a smack pack will produce inferior beer to a beer pitched with a starter?

For those of you who are making a starter to increase the cell count, if you don't have the scope and cytometer, are you relying on faith to determine that your starter has created the desired impact?

Not trying to be antagonistic. I truly don't know which way this is going, but this argument always seems to get twisted between rhetoric, fact and opinion.

I'm in the "always make a starter crowd" when it comes to liquid yeast. My logic is based on the fact I've invested a lot of time and material into making a brew. Why even take the chance of messing it up over a few bucks worth of DME? As far as the cell count, I guess I'm just assuming a higher cell count since I went from a meer dusting of yeast in the bottom of my flask from the vial, to a half inch or more the next day.

The BYO experiment was just using dry yeast, from what I recall.

joety said:

The BYO experiment was just using dry yeast, from what I recall.

Click to expand...

You are correct. They figured it would be easier and more repeatable using dried yeast in the experiment. Pez.

Hammy71 said:

I'm in the "always make a starter crowd" when it comes to liquid yeast. My logic is based on the fact I've invested a lot of time and material into making a brew. Why even take the chance of messing it up over a few bucks worth of DME? As far as the cell count, I guess I'm just assuming a higher cell count since I went from a meer dusting of yeast in the bottom of my flask from the vial, to a half inch or more the next day.

Click to expand...

In addition to greater cell count, I get jackrabbit starts to my fermentation by using a starter. The fastest starts come when I crash cool the starter a day or two in advance, decant off the spent beer first thing in the morning on brew day, and shake up the flask every half hour or so while I'm brewing. If I am using carboys to ferment, I can see activity usually within an hour or two after pitching. There was a greater lag time back in the days when I'd just pitch from the smack pack.

"Great beer" or "good beer" can be rather subjective to one another's palate.

I've not made a ton of beer but I will admit to making bad beer.

I would ask this - has anyone ever tried someone's brew and without recipe and process discussion said "This beer was made with an underpitched yeast process"?

I don't know of anyone who can say that. Of anyone who can taste when a beer was made with yeast that was underpitched and nail it to that cause....

IMO - I think we would ALL love to pitch the exact perfect amount and I think most tend to work towards that but I don't really every worry too much about it. If I'm there - great, if not I'll work on it but I won't stop brewing. It's beer guys, not a cure for cancer. If it's great - super, if I have to dump it - so what? I'm out say 30 or 40 bucks. If 40 bucks breaks me - I'm doing a lot of other things wrong. Relax and enjoy the hobby.

Interesting, there's a video with a wyeast employee saying you don't need a starter under 1.060 with their smack packs. Above that he reccomended a 2 liter starter.

I think there is a difference between needing a starter and recommending one. Technically you don't need 8+ hours of sleep. But that is the recommendation. Will you brew good beer without a starter? Probably, but I still recommend one.

I'd say you'll brew average to poor beer without a starter and using a starter will increase your chances of making a great beer.

Denny said:

I'd say you'll brew average to poor beer without a starter and using a starter will increase your chances of making a great beer.

Click to expand...

This is the sentiment I am trying to delve into. This is completely subjective as are most all the opinions I have read on here about this. I guess my point is that you can say I feel better about making a starter than not, but no one seems to have objective evidence that their starters are superior to a smack pack (<1.060) or dry yeast. I have never used vials so have never been in the realm of where the producers recommend a starter. I don't think any of my beers have been bad and also can't say they are any better than one with a starter.

I'm all for questioning status quo but most conventional wisdom has basis in research. There really is nothing definitive in any aspect of brewing. The very least we can do is observe the behaviors of the most successful brewers. Jamil Z and Gordon strong for instance have had more NHC medals than most ever will. What do they do?

Better yet, do your own controlled experiments. You would be more likely to believe the results.

There are at least a dozen shortcuts you can take to brew what youd still call beer. Is this a game of how many you can get away with before its undrinkable?

The last thing I'll say is that performing a wort stability test will make it obvious why you dont want a half assed colony of yeast in there.