Does a starter really make better beer?

[AnOldUR]

Hmm, I just checked his notes and he pitched 50 billion cells into 3 gallons of 1.059 wort... If I'm not mistaken that seems pretty darn close to what you'd expect from pitching a 1 month old liquid yeast into a normal 5.5 gallon.

I may have missed it, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my read of the article, no cell counting was done. I looks like the cell counts used were based on calculated numbers from building up a rather old slurry. Estimates, based on estimates. Further, no stir plates used, just random shaking. You really can't compare this to yeast grown and packaged under laboratory conditions by professionals.

Like I said earlier, it was an informative study. Just not in the context of this thread.

I began by building up the starters from 10 mL of slurry that was 52 days old (approx. 25 billion cells). The slurry was pitched into 500 mL of starter wort (~50B); after 24 hours this was split evenly between 400 mL (~50B) and 2.4 L (~125B) starters. These were allowed to ferment to completion, while being shaken as often as possible, then placed in a refrigerator 16 hours before pitching.

 

[g-star]

Lots of great stuff! THANKS

For the record, my chico is always really fresh (1-2 weeks old) but that's changing with me switching up to WL007: 3 months old...

Let's expound: Are some of you guys REALLY following the Mr. Malty calculator? IE - buying 2-3 smack packs and preparing a 3-4L starter for a 1.048 lager?

Absolutely. Pale lagers are very difficult to get right, and by right I mean something that would score a 35+ by ranked BJCP judges. If you want a REALLY clean, world class lager, you need to pitch upwards of 1.75M cells/ml/*Plato. I usually shoot for 2M cells/ml/*Plato

For my last lager (1.054 Dortmunder), I used two relatively fresh tubes of WLP833 in a gallon starter. The beer was fermenting strong in less than 24hrs and came out exceptionally clean and indistinguishible from commercial lagers.

 

[MichaelBrock]

Sure Jamil has won the Ninkasi twice and uses starters to get the best possible beer. Gordon Strong has won the Ninkasi 3 times and he doesn't use starters. Who makes the best beer? Which one is right? Does it matter? I make beer that I want to drink. I don't care if it is award quality or swill, if I like it, it's done right.

As a strong believer in pitching sufficient quantities of yeast (I find the scientific argument compelling) I found it very difficult to believe that Gordon Strong doesn't use starters. I went straight to the source, his book "Making Better Beer". On page 130, the section titled "Using New Yeast: Making a Starter" he says:

Most yeast suppliers package their liquid yest in "pitchable' packages. These are directly usable in average-strength homebrews (5-gallon batches of 1.048 wort) when they are fresh and well stored (refrigerated). However, I usually like to make a starter so that the yeast are actively fermenting when pitched; this results in a quicker start to fermentation and less chance of off-flavors developing.

So that is two multiple Ninkasi award winners who are proponents of making starters.

 

[Likefully]

I am increasingly becoming aware that you need to understand that there are risks and certainties in brewing.

If you mash at too high a temperature you will denature the enzymes. Thats a certainty.

If your pitching rate is too low you run the risk of stressing the yeast and getting off flavours. Its a more likely risk than the risk of being hit by an asteroid while kissing someone on the beach under a full moon at low tide when the sardines are running. But it fits in the risk column.

 

[progmac]

So that is two multiple Ninkasi award winners who are proponents of making starters.

Strong is famously casual about yeast pitch rate. He has absolutely said that he makes lagers with no starters (i expect he sometimes makes one and sometimes doesn't). He talks a lot more about yeast health and a lot less about yeast quantity. In his book he also says that he always makes a starter with dry yeast and sometimes, or usually, or occasionally (can't remember the word) makes a starter with liquid yeast.

As for me, I make a starter of some sort or another with all my beers except for english ales. I've used the calculators in the past, I've done enormous pitches for lagers. But i've settled on making a 1-1.5 liter starter for most everything and leaving the calculators alone. I might decant some into a sanitized jar if I know I'll be using the same strain in the next month.

 

[RM-MN]

For a normal strength lager, I typically use a smackpack of Wyeast or make a 1L starter with a vial of White Labs. I don't go crazy on yeast, but I will often repitch from a normal batch if I'm making a stronger lager. I oxygenate and pitch with the yeast and wort at the same temperature.

This quote from Gordon Strong was copied from this thread on Homebrew chatter. http://www.***************.com/board/showthread.php?t=19915

If Gordon typically (his words) make s a lager from a single smack pack (with nutrients and oxygen) why do we make 2 liter starters for a 1.050 ale? Does it really make that much better beer? Why do Wyeast and White labs claim that one smack pack or one vial is sufficient?

 

[mkeckjr]

I think it's easy to see that pitch rate is important if you think about it in the limit: suppose in 5 gallons of wort you pitched a single yeast cell. This would almost undoubtedly result in a wild fermentation.

Generalizing that concept, I would say that as you get further and further from the target pitch rate of your particular beer (whether it be an ale or lager), the probability that the batch of beer has off flavors becomes higher and higher. It's not that a single fermentation may come out great with a low pitch rate; it's that averaged over thousands/millions of batches, you can greatly reduce the probability that you have a bad batch by pitching a proper amount of healthy yeast. So you can think of a starter as a risk-reduction technique.

 

[seabass07]

I am increasingly becoming aware that you need to understand that there are risks and certainties in brewing.

If you mash at too high a temperature you will denature the enzymes. Thats a certainty.

If your pitching rate is too low you run the risk of stressing the yeast and getting off flavours. Its a more likely risk than the risk of being hit by an asteroid while kissing someone on the beach under a full moon at low tide when the sardines are running. But it fits in the risk column.

You don't seem to realize that yeast are very predictable and consistent. This is the reason that commercial beers are so consistent. If pitching rate, temp, etc are the same on the same beer throughout different batches, the end product will be consistent. Underpitching and high fermentation temp WILL ALWAYS effect your beer. If you're happy with your results, then continue your methods. If you have off flavors, then look at your pitching rate and fermentation temp. It isn't a question of risk. Lower pitching rate WILL increase esters, phenols, etc. It's just a question of whether that bothers you or not. This isn't some roll of the dice.

 

[boydster]

You don't seem to realize that yeast are very predictable and consistent. This is the reason that commercial beers are so consistent. If pitching rate, temp, etc are the same on the same beer throughout different batches, the end product will be consistent. Underpitching and high fermentation temp WILL ALWAYS effect your beer. If you're happy with your results, then continue your methods. If you have off flavors, then look at your pitching rate and fermentation temp. It isn't a question of risk. Lower pitching rate WILL increase esters, phenols, etc. It's just a question of whether that bothers you or not. This isn't some roll of the dice.

His point is somewhat valid, though, in the sense that there are variables that work together that impact the final flavor of the beer. One of the easiest to control is pitch rate, but other things like nutrient availability and dissolved oxygen also play a role. If you pitch low, but have an abundance of nutrients and oxygen in your wort, you are far less likely to have off flavors than someone pitching low with poor levels of available nutrients. By controlling the controllables, we minimize the risk of creating off flavors due to uncontrolled variables. Given that most people start out paying very little attention to nutrients, pitch rate is the easiest variable to control to produce consistent results - increase pitch rate to minimize potential off-flavors due to varying levels of nutrients. If pitch rate was the only thing to be concerned with, Gordon Strong would probably not be making very good lagers. If you have the ability to control a flavor-impacting variable, the responsible thing to do is to control it. If you understand how other variables are interdependent, and you can control all of them to a degree that produces consistently desirable results, more power to you, but that isn't how most people start off in this hobby - hence, the typical focus on healthy pitch rate via a starter.

 

[g-star]

Why do Wyeast and White labs claim that one smack pack or one vial is sufficient?

Those are generic label instructions and designed to make the product idiot-proof. They also direct you to pitch at 75F...that doesn't make it optimal practice either.

The yeast label instructions cater to the lowest common denominator of homebrewer...they just want to ensure a fermentation happens (eventually) and beer is made. Will pitching one 3-month old tube or smack pack in to your 1.060 wort work? Yeah, after a long lag you'll get beer that is more than likely to contain more than one technical fault.

If you want to make the best, most error/falut-free beer possible, you need to make a starter....period. This has been proven for decades over and over by scientific study, and is not debatable.

 

[seabass07]

His point is somewhat valid, though, in the sense that there are variables that work together that impact the final flavor of the beer. One of the easiest to control is pitch rate, but other things like nutrient availability and dissolved oxygen also play a role. If you pitch low, but have an abundance of nutrients and oxygen in your wort, you are far less likely to have off flavors than someone pitching low with poor levels of available nutrients. By controlling the controllables, we minimize the risk of creating off flavors due to uncontrolled variables. Given that most people start out paying very little attention to nutrients, pitch rate is the easiest variable to control to produce consistent results - increase pitch rate to minimize potential off-flavors due to varying levels of nutrients. If pitch rate was the only thing to be concerned with, Gordon Strong would probably not be making very good lagers. If you have the ability to control a flavor-impacting variable, the responsible thing to do is to control it. If you understand how other variables are interdependent, and you can control all of them to a degree that produces consistently desirable results, more power to you, but that isn't how most people start off in this hobby - hence, the typical focus on healthy pitch rate via a starter.

Even with sufficient oxygenation, low pitch rate will still change the beer. The part of his point that I disagree with is that it is a "risk" akin to a chance happening that can mess up beer. They are all controllables and they all have an effect on the beer. Pitch rate, oxygenation, nutrients, temps during different parts of fermentation, etc all come into play and are very predictable.

 

[boydster]

Those are generic label instructions and designed to make the product idiot-proof. They also direct you to pitch at 75F...that doesn't make it optimal practice either.

The yeast label instructions cater to the lowest common denominator of homebrewer...they just want to ensure a fermentation happens (eventually) and beer is made. Will pitching one 3-month old tube or smack pack in to your 1.060 wort work? Yeah, after a long lag you'll get beer that is more than likely to contain more than one technical fault.

If you want to make the best, most error/falut-free beer possible, you need to make a starter....period. This has been proven for decades over and over by scientific study, and is not debatable.

It's worth noting, though, that those tubes are full of yeast grown aerobically in a nutrient-rich environment, so they are more well-prepared to go through additional growth than the yeast we collect at the bottom of a fermenter because they have a large amount of the nutrition they need already in the cells. BUT a starter still helps build up a larger colony and wakes the colony out of dormancy, leading to a faster start. Plus, who gets a vial of yeast fresh off the production line? "I do, I do," said nobody here, because we all get them from online or local homebrew supply stores - so there is a variable that is outside our control with respect to the viability and vitality of the yeast already.

This is from Clayton Cone, but whether dry or liquid, yeast from a lab is grown aerobically in a nutrient-rich environment, so the information is still valid for Wyeast or White Labs yeast: http://www.danstaryeast.com/articles/aeration-and-starter-versus-wort

 

[boydster]

Even with sufficient oxygenation, low pitch rate will still change the beer. The part of his point that I disagree with is that it is a "risk" akin to a chance happening that can mess up beer. They are all controllables and they all have an effect on the beer. Pitch rate, oxygenation, nutrients, temps during different parts of fermentation, etc all come into play and are very predictable.

You are absolutely right, they are all controllable, but from a troubleshooting perpective, increasing pitch rate and controlling temp are easy blanket solutions that will work practically every time. With a sufficiently large pitch rate, the yeast won't have to double very much at all and won't have a chance to produce off flavors as long as temps are also controlled. If you are going to pitch at a lower rate, increasing available nutrients and dissolved O2 will help prevent off-flavors from stressed yeast, because the yeast won't be stressed. That's how Gordon Strong pitches a single tube into a lager. Most people just starting out, though, wouldn't consider the extra lengths and the take away would be, "just pitching a single tube worked for him, so it will work for me" and there is a chance that they are right (if they somehow create the perfect environment for their yeast without trying to do so) but there is a greater chance that they will have fermentation issues. That's why I see validity to the "risk" term being used.

 

[zwiller]

This quote from Gordon Strong was copied from this thread on Homebrew chatter. http://www.***************.com/board/showthread.php?t=19915

If Gordon typically (his words) make s a lager from a single smack pack (with nutrients and oxygen) why do we make 2 liter starters for a 1.050 ale? Does it really make that much better beer? Why do Wyeast and White labs claim that one smack pack or one vial is sufficient?

Can you repost the link, it's not working? THANKS Not that I don't trust your summary...

No way I can keep with responding to all the good points made. But, one I do want to make is regarding newbies. Personally, I don't think a starter will make a beer not brewed properly "better". I routinely see guys stir plating and using bottled oxygen that pay no regard to water chemistry/wort pH.

Great info guys :rockin: Heck, we haven't even talked hefe's or belgians yet

 

[AnOldUR]

You don't seem to realize that yeast are very predictable and consistent. This is the reason that commercial beers are so consistent. . . Lower pitching rate WILL increase esters, phenols, etc. It's just a question of whether that bothers you or not. This isn't some roll of the dice.

I've read of a few occasions where Dogfish Head has dumped batches because of yeast issues. Even the big breweries wouldn’t have quality control if brewing were as predictable as you say. On a homebrew level the butterfly effect is even more pronounced. Every step in the brewing process has some effect on the final outcome and the average homebrewer doesn’t have a fraction of the control that the pros do. To hold making a starter up on a pedestal is nonsense. Within reason, pitch rate can be compensated for by yeast vitality and viability, proper wort management, fermentation temperature … and still produce beer without dreaded esters and phenols you speak of.

It’s mindless statements like the one below being repeated over and over that cloud this topic. It’s an oversimplification of a complex topic.

If you want to make the best, most error/falut-free beer possible, you need to make a starter....period. This has been proven for decades over and over by scientific study, and is not debatable.

So you’re saying, direct pitching a fresh, swollen smack pack into 3½ gallons of 1.050 ale wort would get better results with a starter, period?

Decades of studies. Surely you can point me to one that's made a direct comparison similar to this. Show me the study.

 

[Orthobrewsky]

As a strong believer in pitching sufficient quantities of yeast (I find the scientific argument compelling) I found it very difficult to believe that Gordon Strong doesn't use starters. I went straight to the source, his book "Making Better Beer". On page 130, the section titled "Using New Yeast: Making a Starter" he says:

So that is two multiple Ninkasi award winners who are proponents of making starters.

And on page 87 "You can make starters in growlers and plastic bottles, but the advantages of a stir plate are too big to ignore. I get much more predictable results since I started using one."

He may have changed his mind since writing that book, but he hasn't won any more Ninkasi awards since then, so, right or wrong, we can't argue against starters from his Ninkasi awards.

 

[RM-MN]

Can you repost the link, it's not working? THANKS Not that I don't trust your summary...

No way I can keep with responding to all the good points made. But, one I do want to make is regarding newbies. Personally, I don't think a starter will make a beer not brewed properly "better". I routinely see guys stir plating and using bottled oxygen that pay no regard to water chemistry/wort pH.

Great info guys :rockin: Heck, we haven't even talked hefe's or belgians yet

Sorry but that site's address seems to be blocked but here's a link to the original quotation right from Gordon Strong, reply #51.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=17065.45

 

[progmac]

And on page 87 "You can make starters in growlers and plastic bottles, but the advantages of a stir plate are too big to ignore. I get much more predictable results since I started using one."

He may have changed his mind since writing that book, but he hasn't won any more Ninkasi awards since then, so, right or wrong, we can't argue against starters from his Ninkasi awards.

He didn't change his mind and nobody in this thread is 'against' making a starter. People are just saying that it isn't the end-all be-all and that it isn't something to be dogmatic about. Our common ground is that we all agree that yeast health is very important. The disagreement is on yeast quantity.

Six pages and not one person who has actually done a side-by-side.

 

[cjgenever]

One small pack in a 1070 beer? I've pitched a single pack of us-05 into that gravity and experienced esters that are not present with two packs or a starter. That is twice the numbers of a smack pack.

A starter is not all that important. It is the numbers pitched that make a difference. The reduced lag time a starter gives makes me happy and does reduce the possibility of infection. This lag time can be circumvented by feeding the yeast some wort ahead of time, but that defeats the purpose of avoiding a starter in the first place.

If you don't care about perfection and want good beer simply use rehydrated dry yeast art the correct numbers. Your better off with that than underpitching to avoid making a starter.

I don't think there is overkill in making a starter if your trying to brew great beer. I do think that there is overkill in worrying about infection from excess processes. Good technique and proper pitching rates will ensure that there is no infection.

Btw, tell your friend a single starter from a smack pack is good for a 1060 beer, unless viability is in question.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[thegreatmaibockaddict]

Do you guys think a starter makes BETTER beer. Seriously? Like side by side brew avg gravity 10G, split into 2 carboys, smack pack into one and a stir plated starter based on web based yeast calcs into the other. I think the starter might go a bit faster but have a hard time thinking it will make a noticeable improvement on quality.

Reason I ask as I have a buddy doing a 2 step starter from an activator pack that is pretty fresh and the beer is 1.060ish. I told him it was overkill and he thought I was crazy. Personally, I think there is larger chance he will pickup an infection.

While I think it is good advice to make a starter for big beers, lagers, old yeast, but it seems like there a large amount of guys that obsessing over starters. Made them for a while, then got away from it and am just pitching the Activator packs and I have no issues. That includes a 1.070ish house IPA. Heck, one time I forgot my yeast and just pitched the dregs of a homebrew and it turned out fine. Am I just lucky?

The Wyeast slap packs have more yeast than a white labs tube. And you can see by the pack bulging that the yeast is active. White labs, you dont know if the yeast has been mistreated (I have had bad tubes a handful of times) and as starter will tell you if your yeast is good, as well as increase the population to get a better jump on your beer.

My local shop cant carry the slap packs because wyeast charges an arm and a leg to ship, so you need to order more than you can sell to make it priced so you can sell it.

 

[Darwin18]

For myself, the answer to the title of this thread is "yes". I always make a starter with liquid yeast for whatever style of beer that I'm making because I have noticed a sizable improvement in the quality of my beer since doing so. It's very easy to do and I really can't think of a reason why I wouldn't do it.

Now, I don't particularly care you if use starters for your beer. It's your beer. Do whatever you want with it. Just don't be posting the daily topics like "Haven't seen fermentation in X hours" or "Fermentation stalled, OMG". Those are topics posted by people who don't use starters.

 

[boydster]

The Wyeast slap packs have more yeast than a white labs tube.

Both Wyeast and White Labs cultures leave the production line with ~100 billion cells from everything I have seen/heard/read.

 

[jalmeida]

I am not sure about the better beer part with one versus the other. But I do know that if you have enough yeast that is already active when pitched you leave less chance of infection. Like inoculating. The extended time that the yeast takes to start becoming active will leave opportunity for other things to take over.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[fmr_army]

I make starters because I'm a cheap SOB. I make a starter and put in about a tsp of yeast (accurately measured by the dollop poured out) into it, slap it on a stir plate and grow those yeasties.

Thus, I get about eight or ten batches out of a vial.

I use a 2 liter flask because my son broke my 1 liter one, and it was only a couple more bucks to get the 2l replacement, and it works better on my stirplate.

Anecdotally, I think that my fermentations have gotten better (quicker, more complete) since I started making starters, and since I started making bigger starters. However, I'm sure that my general technique is getting better so it could be that.

My opinion (which is decidedly unscientific) is that starters probably make sense in a lot of cases, but aren't necessarily vital in all. They work for me, so I use them.

 

[Orthobrewsky]

Sorry but that site's address seems to be blocked but here's a link to the original quotation right from Gordon Strong, reply #51.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=17065.45

Specifically, "For a normal strength lager, I typically use a smackpack of Wyeast or make a 1L starter with a vial of White Labs. I don't go crazy on yeast, but I will often repitch from a normal batch if I'm making a stronger lager. I oxygenate and pitch with the yeast and wort at the same temperature."

Now I remember reading that previously and it is certainly very interesting, since, especially for a lager, that would be far below the popular recommendations, even for a fresh pack or vial. I'm sure it would depend on what he goes on to describe about his process, especially the long lagering period preceded by a slow ramp down. He stresses not rushing the process.

I know the standard pitch rate recommendations are highly influenced by brewery practices which, for obvious reasons, usually involve making their beer as quickly as possible.

 

[Braufessor]

I don't claim that this is equivalent to a scientific, side-by-side experiment. However, my personal experience in regard to lagers indicates that starters are of benefit. Over the last two years, almost all of my lagers that have been at their best have actually been second generation repitches/starters of lots of yeast.

My general practice now, with lagers, is to use a smack pack or vial to make a 1-2L starter, that I decant and make a second 1-2 liter starter with (on stir plate). I will use this to make a smallish 1.04-1.045 helles or pils. I will then harvest yeast and use about a 1/3 of a quart - a pint of thick yeast slurry to make a starter. 1.5-2 L. Then I will use this to make my 1.045-1.06 lagers. This second set of lagers is ALWAYS better than the first. They consistently do much better in competitions - regularly scoring in the 38-42 range in big comps.

When I would attempt to brew/enter 1.05ish lagers with a smack pack and a single 2L starter, they were much more inconsistent, and almost all of my "no-so-good" lagers were from this smaller type pitching.

Again - my personal experience. Not holding it up for absolute science.

 

[stpug]

This is how far I can pee:

.
 .
  .
  .
   .
   .
   .
  ....

Darn, I lose!
Next time I tell you, next time

 

[Orthobrewsky]

He didn't change his mind and nobody in this thread is 'against' making a starter. People are just saying that it isn't the end-all be-all and that it isn't something to be dogmatic about. Our common ground is that we all agree that yeast health is very important. The disagreement is on yeast quantity.

Six pages and not one person who has actually done a side-by-side.

Yes, I guess I'd be speaking with more precision by saying "against the necessity of using starters, but I erroneously assumed I would be taken that way. No one seems to be saying it hurts to make a starter, though from what I've heard, it is possible to overpitch and that is what I thought of when reading in this thread about the experiment where someone was using substantial starters with dry yeast packs on mid gravity beers.

It sounds like Strong may have changed his mind. In the book, he explains that unless he is reusing yeast, he "will almost always make a starter," whereas in 2013 (referenced above) he says that even for lagers "I typically use a smackpack of Wyeast or make a 1L starter with a vial of White Labs." The only way for these statements not to imply a change of mind is if he "almost always" doesn't use Wyeast. Perhaps that is the case, but then it is odd to mention Wyeast first in that case.

I don't happen to be a part of the "always use a starter" faction, though it seems that I always do use one with liquid vials. However, I rarely get a really fresh vial. It certainly seems to be a consensus among experts that you don't really need a starter for a fresh vial in an average strength ale.

I think we all agree that it is possible to have too little yeast and that, if you have too little yeast, a starter can be the remedy. The reason some people make blanket statements that we should always use starters probably arises from another apparent consensus that overpitching is generally less dangerous than underpitching.

 

[Orthobrewsky]

My general practice now, with lagers, is to use a smack pack or vial to make a 1-2L starter, that I decant and make a second 1-2 liter starter with (on stir plate). I will use this to make a smallish 1.04-1.045 helles or pils. I will then harvest yeast and use about a 1/3 of a quart - a pint of thick yeast slurry to make a starter. 1.5-2 L. Then I will use this to make my 1.045-1.06 lagers. This second set of lagers is ALWAYS better than the first. They consistently do much better in competitions - regularly scoring in the 38-42 range in big comps.

That sounds like a lot of yeast in both cases. Maybe it is the issue of later generations performing better in some strains. I've had some pretty lousy low to mid gravity lagers (but I drank them!) with 2 packs of W-34/70, but they've always been great when I've repitched the yeast. I'm thinking of using one pack with a starter the next time I try that yeast to see if I get better results.

 

[seabass07]

I've read of a few occasions where Dogfish Head has dumped batches because of yeast issues. Even the big breweries wouldn’t have quality control if brewing were as predictable as you say. On a homebrew level the butterfly effect is even more pronounced. Every step in the brewing process has some effect on the final outcome and the average homebrewer doesn’t have a fraction of the control that the pros do. To hold making a starter up on a pedestal is nonsense. Within reason, pitch rate can be compensated for by yeast vitality and viability, proper wort management, fermentation temperature … and still produce beer without dreaded esters and phenols you speak of.

It’s mindless statements like the one below being repeated over and over that cloud this topic. It’s an oversimplification of a complex topic.


So you’re saying, direct pitching a fresh, swollen smack pack into 3½ gallons of 1.050 ale wort would get better results with a starter, period?

Decades of studies. Surely you can point me to one that's made a direct comparison similar to this. Show me the study.

As far as dogfishhead goes, the only batches I've heard of them dumping were things like the 120min where they are knowingly taking a risk by pushing yeast well beyond what they want to do. This would not normally happen with a reasonable gravity beer unless there was human error involved.

For the mindless statement you mentioned, I agree. It's mindless. Much like the "3-4 week primary" one.

 

[AnOldUR]

You don't seem to realize that yeast are very predictable and consistent. This is the reason that commercial beers are so consistent.

As far as dogfishhead goes, the only batches I've heard of them dumping were things like the 120min where they are knowingly taking a risk by pushing yeast well beyond what they want to do. This would not normally happen with a reasonable gravity beer unless there was human error involved.

Link

Mr. Calagione tells us that Dogfish Head dumps about $100,000 of beer every year because it “just didn’t go exactly the direction we wanted. That happens with brewers all the time. You’re dealing with living organisms and sometimes they don’t do what they are expected to do.”

edit:

And Sam Calagione can somb. Anyone claiming to be the ambassador of an entire industry is simply arrogant.

Ball sucking? Well that changes everything. You win!

 

[Orthobrewsky]

Link
Mr. Calagione tells us that Dogfish Head dumps about $100,000 of beer every year because it “just didn’t go exactly the direction we wanted. That happens with brewers all the time. You’re dealing with living organisms and sometimes they don’t do what they are expected to do.”

I wish they'd just sell it for 50% off. I'd give it a try.

 

[raouliii]

....Main reason I ask is I am going to try a new house strain WL007 and I think it will be wise to step it up first since it is my first WL use. But after that, I'll have fresh yeast to harvest.

My experience with WL007 Dry English Ale is that it drops out hard. In a stir plated starter it flocs into egg drop soup. Even with a starter, I've once had it not reach expected FG. YMMV

 

[seabass07]

Link

Again, when you're pushing those living organisms well past their limits, you run into problems. Most breweries don't run into those problems, and if they do, it's usually because of mutations over several generations or other issues relating to human error. If they were so inconsistent, the brewing industry would be very dramatic. You'd just cross your fingers and hope fermentation went well.

One of the main reasons yeast are so consistent is what wyeast and whitelabs are doing. They preserve strains to keep them consistent. This isn't wild yeast we're talking about.

And Sam Calagione can somb. Anyone claiming to be the ambassador of an entire industry is simply arrogant.

 

[gr8shandini]

Here's my 2 cents on the matter. I rarely make a starter, but I do routinely re-use a portion of a previous yeast cake. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference and I do prefer a higher pitching rate. However, it's a minor effect that won't keep me from using a single vial or smack pack for the initial batch with a particular yeast strain.

In my experience, underpitching doesn't spawn off flavors so much as has an effect on the head retention and mouthfeel. I believe this is because the reproduction of yeast is consuming proteins that would otherwise remain in the beer. The whole idea that underpitching "stresses" the yeast sounds like BS to me since I don't know of another organism on the planet that gets stressed out because it has more food than it knows what to do with and few competitors.

All in all, my experience jibes with the experiment posted earlier. Most people won't be able to tell the difference, but those who can prefer the "proper" pitching rate. For me, the effect is small and I'm OK with cutting a few corners to get a beer that's a 9.6 out of 10, but will step it up when it matters. Your mileage may vary.

 

[zwiller]

Thank you all for your insight and for keeping it civil. :rockin:

 

[g-star]

So you’re saying, direct pitching a fresh, swollen smack pack into 3½ gallons of 1.050 ale wort would get better results with a starter, period?

Decades of studies. Surely you can point me to one that's made a direct comparison similar to this. Show me the study.

The statement was based on a standard 5.25gal batch the vast majority of homebrewers are making. You're trying to bend reality to fit a willfully ignorant bias with the 3.5 gallon batch concept. Nevertheless, a fresh smack pack into 3.5gal is still not enough yeast by more than 30%.

Sources? Why don't you start looking for articles on proper pitch rates here:

http://www.nonprofitjournals.org/journals/brewing_chemists.htm

or here:

http://www.ibd.org.uk/publications/jib-online/132/the-journal/

or maybe here:

http://www.brewingscience.de/

instead of relying on internet forum chatter/hearsay or some random dude's blog post.

 

[kombat]

Isn't the question of starter or not really irrelevant? Don't we all agree that the real issue is pitching an ample quantity of active, healthy yeast? Whether you get there by growing up a starter, or pitching multiple packets of dry or liquid yeast, is really irrelevant, isn't it? Yeast don't care whether they came from a starter or a smack pack or a dry pouch. As long as there is the appropriate number of healthy, viable cells, isn't that all that matters? A starter is merely usually the most cost-effective way of attaining that quantity, but there are obviously other ways that would result in identical beer.

 

[cjgenever]

Many years ago...i pitched a single fresh sachet of us-05 (or was it still 56 at the time?) DIRECTLY into a 1.085 iipa. The ester profile WAS BAD ENOUGH THAT I WAS TOO EMBARRASSED TO LET ANYONE TASTE IT! Ferm temps were controlled.

This is a gross underpitch, but to say that underpitching isn't a problem is complete b.s. I wish people wouldn't mislead like that. A more truthful statement would be "over/under pitching, WITHIN REASON, is not a problem for the average brewer since the differences in the final beer are negligible". Of course, those 'negligible' differences could be a couple of points in competition, do take it for what it is. What works for one may not work for another. Brew what you want how you want, but don't anyone go cry when I tell you your banana ipa sucks

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[AnOldUR]

If you want to make the best, most error/falut-free beer possible, you need to make a starter....period. This has been proven for decades over and over by scientific study, and is not debatable.

You're trying to bend reality to fit a willfully ignorant bias with the 3.5 gallon batch concept. Nevertheless, a fresh smack pack into 3.5gal is still not enough yeast by more than 30%.

Sources? Why don't you start looking for articles on proper pitch rates here:
. . . .
instead of relying on internet forum chatter/hearsay or some random dude's blog post.

So, you're saying that you haven't read any creditable blind taste studies comparing a measured 30% direct under pitch with a measured "correct" pitch from a starter. Which, by the way, is what is mentioned in Yeast as being equivalent.

The “bent reality” was a legitimate example of a way of achieving a desired pitch rate while direct pitching and not having to buy two pack. Any “willfully ignorant bias” is coming from you by making blanket statements. This thread is a constructive debate. Please take your insults somewhere else.




edit:
This is how he takes it somewhere else.

"Willfully ignorant" people choose to ignore the hard science and mountains of work done over the years by people a lot smarter than themselves becuase (1) they have no respect for it or (2) it clashes with their limited personal experience and/or subjective biases.

I never should have believed that Chris White. He's such an ignoramas.