Starter: better tasting beer or just less chance of infection?

I've brewed over 30 all grain batches using predominantly liquid yeast. One smack pack or vial (within a month of production) per 5 gallons without a starter. OG ranges from 1.055 to 1.070.

I fortunately have not had an infection. And I think my beer tastes great and so do my friends who drink it for free

So why do you do a starter? Does it make your beer taste better? Have you tested the same recipe with and without a starter? Or does having a large population of yeast ready to begin fermenting decrease the risk of infection?

Thanks!

Besides infection, a proper pitch rates gives more reliable attenuation. Though honestly, it really seems to be more an issue with lagers than ales.

I recently started doing them so that I can harvest some yeast from it and store it in the fridge for future brews.

I seem to be having good luck with attenuation. I just checked the gravity of a saison I mashed at 150F and used Wyeast 3711. Down to 1.000 after 12 days!

And I haven't yet tried a lager, so I could see that being more of a concern with the lower temperatures

CanAm said:

I seem to be having good luck with attenuation. I just checked the gravity of a saison I mashed at 150F and used Wyeast 3711. Down to 1.000 after 12 days!

And I haven't yet tried a lager, so I could see that being more of a concern with the lower temperatures

Click to expand...

Thats a product of saison yeast. 1.060 and below if your yeast is fresh then there is a good chance you will be ok without a starter although I would be surprised if you will consistenly get good results on many beers above .060 without using a starter. Drinkable, good, and great beers are often defined by fermentation character.

Another side of starters is yeast harvesting from the starter I get 5 or so brews from a single vial. I brew weekly 2g batches and monthly 5g or larger batches so the money savings is a big deal for me.

I have never done a side by side. I know that when I pitch a properly sized starter my fermentations start in less than 12 hours. Often in about 4 hours. I have always heard that if you under-pitch, the yeast spend the first part of the fermentation mainly reproducing to get to cell counts sufficient to ferment the wort, and it is during this phase where unwanted flavors are produced.

So, I make the starters in the theory that it will make my good beers better.

Let's see, why build a starter, you ask?

1) Insurance for a fully attenuated beer.
2) Fewer issues with off flavors (excessive esters, etc).
3) Less time spent in primary fermentations.
4) More control over yeast lag time.
5) Accurate pitching rates for targeting specific yields.
6) Potential to harvest yeast for future use.
7) Insurance for good yeast health.
8) Cheaper and more efficient than pitching multiple satchets/vials.

In short, you will make better beer with a starter.

CanAm said:

And I think my beer tastes great and so do my friends who drink it for free

Click to expand...

How does it do in competition when scored by certified BJCP judges? Blind objective feedback is a considerably more reliable indicator of your beer quality than what your friends think.

Making starters dramatically increases yeast health and cell counts, which in turn helps make better beer. This is not really debatable.

You might be satisfied with what you are producing now, and that's fine. But making proper starters will certainly provide at the very least incremental improvements.

There was an xBeeriment about this: http://brulosophy.com/2015/04/20/yeast-pitch-rate-single-vial-vs-yeast-starter-exbeeriment-results/

Conclusions (for the particular beer and conditions they were making it in):
- No discernible effect on the end product, including identical FGs
- A starter will make the ferment start waaaay faster, finish waaaay faster, and be more active.

Considering the number of threads here with people worrying about fermentations not starting or getting infected, the peace of mind may be worth the hassle of a starter. I would suggest doing it for that reason if you're re-using yeast slurry from previous batches, even though there are xBeeriments suggesting that's not important either.

Honestly, two reasons.

1. I like having the piece of mind that I'm pitching the appropriate amount of yeast needed to make the beer as good as possible.

2. I got a stir plate as a birthday gift from SWMBO...if I don't use it I'll get hell for it

I don't enter comps so what I think and friends think DOES matter! Not all of us brew to compete! I do it to save money over the ridiculous price they get for a semi decent ale($35 a case for Fat Tire!). That is basically 20 gallons of all grain brew! I like it, friends like it, family likes it so that is what counts!

g-star said:

How does it do in competition when scored by certified BJCP judges? Blind objective feedback is a considerably more reliable indicator of your beer quality than what your friends think.

Making starters dramatically increases yeast health and cell counts, which in turn helps make better beer. This is not really debatable.

You might be satisfied with what you are producing now, and that's fine. But making proper starters will certainly provide at the very least incremental improvements.

Click to expand...

Starters let me push a beer to drink-ability faster, faster turnover means I don't run out when family locusts descend on me(especially with football season coming up, I will need 3-4 cases of beer my weekend to host everyone). Plus friends who stop in and ask if they can get some beer from me for some event etc...