Could Someone Please Explain the Benefits of a Stir Plate?

[RLinNH]

So, with my recent starter debacle, I have started thinking about MAYBE getting a Stir Plate. All I know about a stir plate is that it add very much needed oxygen to the starter. Also, it speeds up the starter time. That is all I could get from people that use them in my Home Brew Club. I do my starters the JZ way and I go big. I get good results with my way, and I don't need to speed things up when it comes to starters. But, if anyone here can tell me that it also helps with the yeast being healthier, then I would take the plunge and learn a new way. What say ye?

 

[MagicMatt]

I believe it would be reasonable to assume that the yeast are healthier if they're getting more oxygen.

Another big bonus of stir plates is that you can get a bigger yield of yeast cells with a smaller starter. For instance, if you have a 1L starter with ~100B cells and no stirplate, you can expect around a 40% increase in cells before it ferments out (~140B). With a stir plate, that number jumps to a 140% increase (~240B cells).

This allows smaller starters, which means less DME, which means less $$$.

 

[eadavis80]

Might be true and probably is, but I guess you can buy a lot of DME before the savings on the starter yield difference would pay for the stir plate - even from stir starters, which are the cheapest I've seen at $50.

 

[iijakii]

Another big bonus of stir plates is that you can get a bigger yield of yeast cells with a smaller starter. For instance, if you have a 1L starter with ~100B cells and no stirplate, you can expect around a 40% increase in cells before it ferments out (~140B). With a stir plate, that number jumps to 140% increase (~240B cells).

I believe this is a bit of a controversial claim. Recent studies seem to show they ferment out much quicker, but not at increased cell counts.

 

[robbyice]

swirling a starter every few hours grown in a cheap sanitized growler works great. pop some loose tin foil on the top and BOOM! starter done in 24 hours... why make it more complicated than it needs to be?

 

[MX1]

From my foxhole they are a waste of time, money and energy.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=22055.0

This is my experience and my opinion, YMMV

T

 

[TheMadKing]

Stir plates are valuable tools, but not ABSOLUTELY necessary (meaning, yes it's possible to make a good starter without them).

They maintain dissolved oxygen in solution at atmospheric level. The yeast use the oxygen, along with nutrients from the starter wort to produce sterols. Sterols are used to build healthier cell walls which increases alcohol tolerance, reproduction rate, and metabolism.

You will produce more cells for a given volume of wort with a stir plate than without by about a factor of 2 according to the Mr. Malty website.

http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php

EDIT: This does not apply to starters smaller than 1L, as there is not enough food for an entire wyeast pack to significantly reproduce, stir plate or not

Brukaiser has also shown that a faster vortex i.e. more gas exchange, results in higher rates of yeast growth. Based on this experiment it stands to reason that a stir plate is better than none at all.

http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2013/03/25/stir-speed-and-yeast-growth/

They are also not expensive or time consuming to make. I built mine for about $15 and it took less than 2 hours (not including glue dry time). using this method.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=338695

Don't let anyone tell you that stir plates are useless or don't do anything. There's a reason that every microbiology lab in the world uses them instead of just shaking their flasks.

 

[eadavis80]

I'm sure they are used in microbiology labs all the time, but for me - personally - I am not on a timeline, like I'm guessing they are. And, admittedly, I'm not "handy" so even if it's "simple" for some, I'd probably just get angry and frustrated. So, for now anyway, I'll just make my starter a day or two earlier tha stir plate users, swirl it when I walk by, cold crash, decant and pitch at room temp and enjoy my solid fermentations. I wish I was handier, but hey - I'm not. I can live with that.

 

[TheMadKing]

I'm sure they are used in microbiology labs all the time, but for me - personally - I am not on a timeline, like I'm guessing they are. And, admittedly, I'm not "handy" so even if it's "simple" for some, I'd probably just get angry and frustrated. So, for now anyway, I'll just make my starter a day or two earlier tha stir plate users, swirl it when I walk by, cold crash, decant and pitch at room temp and enjoy my solid fermentations. I wish I was handier, but hey - I'm not. I can live with that.

I'm absolutely not saying you can't make a good starter or a great beer without a stir plate, but it does have some undeniable advantages over hand shaking.

I don't consider myself handy either, but I glued a washer and 2 magnets down ok

 

[schematix]

Why build one when you can build 4 in 1?

 

[MagicMatt]

And, admittedly, I'm not "handy" so even if it's "simple" for some, I'd probably just get angry and frustrated.

Dude, come on. You make homebrewed beer. That's like multi-variable calculus compared to making your own stir plate. Seriously, $12 and an old hard drive magnet (or $5 for some neodymiun [rare earth] magnets) and you have yourself a stir plate.

Sure, it's not necessary, but for less than the price of ingredients for one brew (not to mention the added benefits, however trivial to you they may be), the question becomes "why not"? Even if it doesn't work (which I don't see how it wouldn't), you're only out $12-17.

 

[MagicMatt]

I believe this is a bit of a controversial claim. Recent studies seem to show they ferment out much quicker, but not at increased cell counts.

Care to link to said studies? I'm always willing to expand my horizons.

Currently though, every test I've seen has suggested unequivocally that using a stir plate will increase cell count over not using one. And a higher stir speed will also increase cell count.

Perhaps that does not matter to some, and that's their choice. I'm sure brewers didn't have stir plates 100 years ago and people continue to make great beer without them today, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a useful aid in making starters.

 

[Beernik]

I built mine in an afternoon for the price of a stir bar. Everything else I scavenged from old computers, old projects, and the charger of a dead cell phone.

But a starter is not going to turn a bad beer into a good beer. Making a starter (good pitching) could turn a good beer into a great beer. Lack of a starter (under pitching) could turn a good beer into a bad beer.

I made a diacetyl bomb because I "didn't have time to make a starter". Now I make sure I have time to make a starter. It's cheap insurance.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Care to link to said studies? I'm always willing to expand my horizons.

Currently though, every test I've seen has suggested unequivocally that using a stir plate will increase cell count over not using one. And a higher stir speed will also increase cell count.

Perhaps that does not matter to some, and that's their choice. I'm sure brewers didn't have stir plates 100 years ago and people continue to make great beer without them today, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a useful aid in making starters.

I think there was one study by one homebrew blogger I remember seeing (don't remember who) who extrapolated that conclusion out of one data point with questionable methods that weren't thoroughly expanded upon. As opposed to the likes of Kai Troester, who have very thoroughly expanded on their methods.

There could be other sources, but as what I've read thus far, stir plate = higher yield. That's not the controversial claim, as far as I'm aware, but rather the controversial claim is that it doesn't make a difference outside of speed.

So I'd certainly like to see more information, as I too am always looking to expand my horizons. But I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[actionjackson905]

I built mine in an afternoon for the price of a stir bar. Everything else I scavenged from old computers, old projects, and the charger of a dead cell phone.

But a starter is not going to turn a bad beer into a good beer. Making a starter (good pitching) could turn a good beer into a great beer. Lack of a starter (under pitching) could turn a good beer into a bad beer.

I made a diacetyl bomb because I "didn't have time to make a starter". Now I make sure I have time to make a starter. It's cheap insurance.

Hitting he like button. ..

I started using one about 8 months ago and noticed 3 benefits. 1 much quicker fermentation takeoff after pitching. 2. Before pitching I can tell if the yeast is active, and know with certainty that it's not a bad batch of yeast. 3 much cleaner tasting beer when finished, without much if any at all yeasty flavors.

I built mine from scratch for $35 Cdn, then built one for a friend from spare computer parts, and he bought his own project box for it for $5.

View attachment 1437619297347.jpg

 

[joshesmusica]

the benefits of a stir plate are that it does the stirring for you...

 

[philipCT]

So, I'm a stir plate guy and I've gotten to the point where I get predictably good results. I'll add two thoughts here:

1. The stir plate introduces greater repeatability into the process of building a starter. If you're getting good results, repeatability is a good thing

B.) if you get a bad yeast package, as I recently did, there is no doubt whatever about it. Your routine is solid and absolutely consistent. If there just no growth, it's manifestly obvious the problem was with the yeast. Then you can just build another starter from fresh and not risk your whole batch of beer. I'm sure you get this same benefit if you are doing the drive-by shaking routine too, it's just that you will never wonder "did I shake that as much as last time?".

Hope that's helpful.

 

[eadavis80]

Hitting he like button. ..

I started using one about 8 months ago and noticed 3 benefits. 1 much quicker fermentation takeoff after pitching. 2. Before pitching I can tell if the yeast is active, and know with certainty that it's not a bad batch of yeast. 3 much cleaner tasting beer when finished, without much if any at all yeasty flavors.

I built mine from scratch for $35 Cdn, then built one for a friend from spare computer parts, and he bought his own project box for it for $5.

So, are you saying for no. 1 that you got much quicker fermentation after pitching than you did BEFORE you started making starters or before you started making starters with a stir plate? 2. Making a starter without a yeast also shows you the viability of the yeast, as when I swirl the starter it foams up, thus I know the yeast is doing its thing. 3. Same type of thing as no. 1 - again - cleaner tasting beer than no starter or cleaner tasting beer than starter without a stir plate?

Again - I'm pretty sure a stir plate creates more cells more quickly than not using a stir plate. I guess my main question is, does it basically come down to 1 day on a stir plate = 2 days of shaking? If so, wouldn't it be just about the same for non-stir plate users like me to make their starters one day early?

Maybe one day I'll try to make one, but for now, planning and swirling gives me results I'm fine with.

 

[Beernik]

I don't know that I was getting better results with either no-shake or shaking my starters than I got when I didn't make a starter. Of course, I wasn't really calculating pitch rates at that time either. I would just make a ~1.040 starter in a gallon jug.

For those shaking and no shaking starters (& no starter) beers I'd let my 5% 5 gallon beers sit in primary for 4 weeks before bottling. It took that long to clean up esters, diacetyl, etc and cold crash. Now I can ferment 9 gallons in 4 days (including the D-rest). If I kegged, I could go grain to glass in about a week. But even bottling, I'm now drinking my beers in the amount of time I used to let them sit in primary.

A stir plate and calculating pitch rates has given me more control and more repeatability as well as a better beer in a shorter amount of time.


If you don't want to make one, don't make one. I didn't make one until I was on a forced brewing hiatus. I had to take a year off because my back was in constant spasm. During that hiatus, I put my time and money into a couple build projects. A stir plate was one of them.

 

[actionjackson905]

So, are you saying for no. 1 that you got much quicker fermentation after pitching than you did BEFORE you started making starters or before you started making starters with a stir plate? 2. Making a starter without a yeast also shows you the viability of the yeast, as when I swirl the starter it foams up, thus I know the yeast is doing its thing. 3. Same type of thing as no. 1 - again - cleaner tasting beer than no starter or cleaner tasting beer than starter without a stir plate?

Again - I'm pretty sure a stir plate creates more cells more quickly than not using a stir plate. I guess my main question is, does it basically come down to 1 day on a stir plate = 2 days of shaking? If so, wouldn't it be just about the same for non-stir plate users like me to make their starters one day early?

Maybe one day I'll try to make one, but for now, planning and swirling gives me results I'm fine with.

I should have stated that I made the stir plate at the same time as I started using a starter, and the first answer is yes. Before using a starter most times (depending on yeast type) activity would typically take 24 hours or more to start, where after using a starter on the stir plate activity ramps up within a few hours typically, again depending on yeast type. I went the stir plate route because I work 10-12 hour shifts and probably wouldn't have the ability to shake every few hours. Plus I had read that the stir plate accelerates the process. So yes, in 12-24 hours the yeast is ready to pitch.

As for taste with a starter, with or without a stir plate, I wouldn't know as I went went to starters with a stir plate right away. But the difference in taste was starter vs no starter.

For the cost and time to make one, or the $50-100 to buy one, was worth it for me in my situation.

My two cents on the subject. 🍻

 

[k1ngl1ves]

Get one. It looks cooler. You can never discount the coolness factor...

 

[DocDriza]

If you're worried about how hard it is to make a stir plate, here is what mine is based off of.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVLB9c0j1iU[/ame]

 

[MX1]

Guys, I just want to state again for the record, that a stir plate, IMHO, is not needed.

Read through the thread I linked above, there is some real good talk about how, what I have dubbed "The James Bond" starter method (shaken not stirred), works and why cell health should be the concern and not cell count.

Anyone that wants to use a stir plate, by all means, should use one, but in my brewing, I have had better luck with the shaken method pitched at high Krausen.

Again, YMMV

T

 

[TheMadKing]

So, are you saying for no. 1 that you got much quicker fermentation after pitching than you did BEFORE you started making starters or before you started making starters with a stir plate? 2. Making a starter without a yeast also shows you the viability of the yeast, as when I swirl the starter it foams up, thus I know the yeast is doing its thing. 3. Same type of thing as no. 1 - again - cleaner tasting beer than no starter or cleaner tasting beer than starter without a stir plate?

Again - I'm pretty sure a stir plate creates more cells more quickly than not using a stir plate. I guess my main question is, does it basically come down to 1 day on a stir plate = 2 days of shaking? If so, wouldn't it be just about the same for non-stir plate users like me to make their starters one day early?

Maybe one day I'll try to make one, but for now, planning and swirling gives me results I'm fine with.

No, you should only be leaving your starters for 24 to 48 hours no matter which method you use.

There is a given saturation level of yeast cells in a starter for the amount of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and sugars available. A shaken starter will always produce less cells than a stir plate starter of the same volume, no matter how long you leave it because you just cant maintain the oxygen levels in the liquid, so the saturation limit is lower.

If you decide not to use a stir plate, you can achieve the same results by making a slightly larger starter (~30-60% larger depending on what you're making). That way there's more liquid for the oxygen to be dissolved in and it will be less of a limiting factor.

 

[TheMadKing]

Guys, I just want to state again for the record, that a stir plate, IMHO, is not needed.

Read through the thread I linked above, there is some real good talk about how, what I have dubbed "The James Bond" starter method (shaken not stirred), works and why cell health should be the concern and not cell count.

Anyone that wants to use a stir plate, by all means, should use one, but in my brewing, I have had better luck with the shaken method pitched at high Krausen.

Again, YMMV

T

The thread you are indicating has 1 big problem for me. The starters are both 1L starters. Stir plates do not have much effect on a 1L starter because the oxygen is no longer the limiting factor, the sugar and/or nutrients are. There is simply not enough food to effectively reproduce a wyeast package in a 1L starter.

If you're going for a vitality starter, there's nothing wrong with that. Brulosopher has had some pretty interesting results comparing vitality to cell count. But if you're going for cell count, then an experiment with a 1L starter and a stir plate is kinda pointless IMO.

 

[MX1]

the use of a 1 liter starter is only do to the vessel needing to be 3-4 times the volume of the starter. If I had a 2 or 3 gallon container to shake, I would, and I could make one 2-3 liter starter, and not have to make two 1l starters.

In that thread there is a link to an article about max cell count in a volume of starter. Trying to exceed that means that yeast cells have to die to replicate, which cause the quality of the starter to drop.

In the end, I am a "whatever works" for you kind of person, and this works for me.
Also, I am a firm believer that if you would not drink your starter, then you should not pitch your starter. And that has never been an issue with the "James Bond" method... for me anyway.

Brew on Brothers!!
T

 

[MagicMatt]

the use of a 1 liter starter is only do to the vessel needing to be 3-4 times the volume of the starter.

Well there's yet another reason to use a stir plate: not needing a 3x-4x larger vessel. I don't understand why you would need such a large vessel anyway, but with a stir plate I can make up to 1800mL starters in a 2L flask. That means the vessel need only be 10-20%% larger, not 300-400%. Huge benefit IMO.

One more thing that I didn't see anyone mentioning is building up starters. Without a stir plate, it would take significantly longer to reach a desired cell count. I can do a 3 step starter (cold crashing for 24 hours between each step) in 6 days with a stir plate. You'd need like 13 days without one.

You also mentioned you pitch at high krausen. That means you're adding a lot of extra liquid to your wort, which could effect flavor and color, among other things. That extra liquid is just really bad beer. You said "if you wouldn't drink your starter then don't pitch it", which, no offense, is some pretty horrible advice.

Why would you think an uncarbed, unhopped, over-oxygenated (stale) beer would taste good? I've never met a starter that even smelled remotely drinkable. The purpose of the starter liquid is to give rise to yeast cells. Once those cells have accumulated, there's no need for the liquid anymore. That's why people cold crash, decant, and pitch just a thick slurry with the minimum amount of starter beer remaining. If we cared how the starter liquid tasted, we'd also care about things like water quality, salt additions, pH, ferm. temps, etc, which obviously we don't.

 

[TheMadKing]

the use of a 1 liter starter is only do to the vessel needing to be 3-4 times the volume of the starter. If I had a 2 or 3 gallon container to shake, I would, and I could make one 2-3 liter starter, and not have to make two 1l starters.

In that thread there is a link to an article about max cell count in a volume of starter. Trying to exceed that means that yeast cells have to die to replicate, which cause the quality of the starter to drop.

Not sure why your container needs to be that much bigger. I do 2L starters in a 2L Erlenmeyer flask without problems, unless you just want the headspace for gas exchange?

Max cell count is a function of available sugar (in the proper concentration), nutrient, and oxygen, not necessarily volume. Yeast needs all 3 in abundance to reproduce. If oxygen is limited in a 2L starter, then the yeast will grow to their maximum potential for that oxygen level. If oxygen is unlimited (with a stir plate) but sugar is limited (in a 1L starter) they will grow to the maximum potential for that sugar level. Therefore a 2+L starter with a stir plate is going to produce optimal cell growth.

I also decant my starters so I don't worry about the flavor of the starter wort. I wouldn't drink any starter just due to the yeast content alone! But as you say to each their own, and whatever works for ya!

 

[Qhrumphf]

Not sure why your container needs to be that much bigger. I do 2L starters in a 2L Erlenmeyer flask without problems, unless you just want the headspace for gas exchange?

Max cell count is a function of available sugar (in the proper concentration), nutrient, and oxygen, not necessarily volume. Yeast needs all 3 in abundance to reproduce. If oxygen is limited in a 2L starter, then the yeast will grow to their maximum potential for that oxygen level. If oxygen is unlimited (with a stir plate) but sugar is limited (in a 1L starter) they will grow to the maximum potential for that sugar level. Therefore a 2+L starter with a stir plate is going to produce optimal cell growth.

I also decant my starters so I don't worry about the flavor of the starter wort. I wouldn't drink any starter just due to the yeast content alone! But as you say to each their own, and whatever works for ya!

Also a decanter. I rarely pitch more than ~300ml of yeast slurry with barely any starter beer left. With super sized starters and lots of yeast, the amount will go up, though.

Also, foil and foam do not provide optimal gas transfer, to 2L starer in 2L flask does NOT produce optimal growth unless you inject air. And then, even with Fermcap, it'll probably overflow the starter. If it's not overflowing, you're probably not getting the activity and growth you think you are.

Braukaiser did a study on this, and since then, I always inject air into my starters. I've started doing any starters greater than ~1.5L in a 5L flask (still with injected air).

 

[MX1]

1. I get it you guys are stir plate fanboys, no biggie, to each their own.
2. I get it, I am a shaken not stared fanboy, no biggie, to each their own
3. I never said that I did drink my starter, but I do taste and smell it for off flavors. Seems that if I am pitching a yeast that made an off starter, I am trying to make off beer as well. While it is not the best tasting drink I have ever had, I do know the difference between a yeastie, un-hopped, un-balanced beer, and a bad starter....and I refuse to pitch a bad starter

The OP asked

Could Someone Please Explain the Benefits of a Stir Plate?

I offered my personal experience and opinion, as a counterpoint to the Party Line....it seems, that may have been where I went wrong.

T

 

[fosaisu]

You also mentioned you pitch at high krausen. That means you're adding a lot of extra liquid to your wort, which could effect flavor and color, among other things. That extra liquid is just really bad beer.

My concern as well. Even if it's not "bad beer" (which I question given the intentional oxygenation plus high fermentation temp) it's not going to be the type of beer I'm brewing, so why would I want to add a couple of liters of it to my brew if I could avoid it? I'd be interested to see some blind taste tests of high krausen pitch vs. ferment to completion/cold crash/decant/pitch.

Also, am I missing something or is the debate getting muddled between hand shake vs. stir plate and high krausen pitch vs. cold crash/decant? Even if pitching at high krausen produces the best tasting beer (which again seems counter-intuitive to me but I'm open to being proven wrong), couldn't you use a stir plate to get to high krausen faster than by shaking alone?

 

[fosaisu]

I never said that I did drink my starter, but I do taste and smell it for off flavors. Seems that if I am pitching a yeast that made an off starter, I am trying to make off beer as well. While it is not the best tasting drink I have ever had, I do know the difference between a yeastie, un-hopped, un-balanced beer, and a bad starter....and I refuse to pitch a bad starter

Fair enough -- I agree that it would be nuts to pitch a starter (at high krausen or after chill/decant) that smells (or tastes) like band aids. I had one of those once, and was happy to make the discovery at the starter stage rather than in my fermenter.

 

[rhys333]

I've never been able to catch it at high krausen due to doing other things, so I do what's practical for me... prepare a few days ahead, shaka-shaka, refrigerate, decant, pitch. Using a stir plate or pitching at high krausen isn't changing the quality of my beer.

 

[MX1]

I've never met a starter that even smelled remotely drinkable.

Starters....You're doing them wrong.....

Really I am just kidding, kinda.

I am at work, and do not have the info at my finger tips, and I do not get on my computer at home, so I am really not going to beable to articulate, defend, or cite my information.

So I guess, I will leave it as...

It works for me.

T

 

[MX1]

I will leave you guys with a request, please read the entire thread I linked in my first post. Page 2 and 3 is where the science gets talked.

thanks

T

 

[TheMadKing]

I will leave you guys with a request, please read the entire thread I linked in my first post. Page 2 and 3 is where the science gets talked.

thanks

T

I did read it and I have problems with the experiment.

I'm not knocking your methods man, I'm sure you make great beer.

I'm just pointing out that a stir plate is a more efficient tool for making healthier starters with less volume and more cells. If that's not a concern then by all means take your time and do it your way, and I'll do likewise. No need to bunch our britches over this, just a difference of opinion.

Op asked what the benefits were, so we told him/her. Bottom line they are more efficient + coolness factor + more resilient yeast. That's all I've got.

Cheers man, I've got my HB already down the hatch and #2 is in the gates!

 

[rhys333]

I did read it and I have problems with the experiment.

I'm not knocking your methods man, I'm sure you make great beer.

I'm just pointing out that a stir plate is a more efficient tool for making healthier starters with less volume and more cells. If that's not a concern then by all means take your time and do it your way, and I'll do likewise. No need to bunch our britches over this, just a difference of opinion.

Op asked what the benefits were, so we told him/her. Bottom line they are more efficient + coolness factor + more resilient yeast. That's all I've got.

Cheers man, I've got my HB already down the hatch and #2 is in the gates!

I agree with part of what you say here. Stir plates indeed produce more yeast cells with less volume than the shake method. I disagree that they produce more resilient yeast. The benefit of a stir plate is convenience, and of course the cool factor if that's your thing.

 

[MagicMatt]

Correct. They are just different methods of achieving the same result, albeit with differences in efficiency. It's like using a pair of scissors to cut your lawn versus using a mower; in the end the yard will look the same, but the benefits of one method over the other cannot be denied.

If you have the time and patience to clip your grass by hand, then more power to you. I'll use the mower. It doesn't, however, mean either method is wrong.

 

[rhys333]

Correct. They are just different methods of achieving the same result, albeit with differences in efficiency. It's like using a pair of scissors to cut your lawn versus using a mower; in the end the yard will look the same, but the benefits of one method over the other cannot be denied.

If you have the time and patience to clip your grass by hand, then more power to you. I'll use the mower. It doesn't, however, mean either method is wrong.

Shaking a starter once in a while is close to zero extra effort. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be using a push mower vs a ride-on mower. And its a small lawn you're mowing too.

Now, if you're brewing a large beer or a lager, stir plates are really handy. You're mowing a half acre now instead of the back yard so there's a clear advantage to breaking out that bad boy ride-on mower.

 

[Beerswimmer]

I haven't bought/built a stir plate because I haven't needed one. I brew mostly high gravity beers that need big starters, and haven't had a problem with my method. I use a growler, or a plastic soda bottle. I pour in the starter wort, pitch the yearst, put the lid on and shake for a solid minute. Then put on an airlock and let it go for a day or 2 like a normal beer, cold crash, decant, repeat. Twice usually. Works great.

BTW, my Chimay starters are a tasty treat