Does a starter really make better beer?

[zwiller]

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?

 

[Foosier]

yes...

Smack pacs are supposed to be enough yeast but by themselves fermentation seems to take a while to get rolling. When you do a simple starter you double (at a minimum) the yeast being pitched. This gives you a faster start and reduces the stress on the yeast.

From my experience, I have done it both ways. I perceive a better product when I have used plenty of yeast with good fermentation temp control. When I have used a single smack pack I have been less pleased with the results. I know other brewers swear by them too.

 

[LibertyBrewer]

Maybe you should read this book

http://books.google.com/books?id=bUW6cQAACAAJ&dq=yeast&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TD48U6_oCJPfsAT134K4Cg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ

 

[duboman]

Proper pitch rate makes better beer as stressed yeast creates more potential for off flavor development and fusel alcohols. Also the potential for stalled/stuck fermentations and poor attenuation is greatly reduced.


Sent from the Commune

 

[homebrew57]

One thing I noticed before making starters was that all my beers would not ferment down to the proper FG. Once I started making starting I have no problem getting down to the estimate FG every time. This, IMHO, makes a better beer by the numbers and by taste.

 

[brew_ny]

a starter is just a tool to help you to make better beer

so yes, but there are many other things that go with it

all the best

S_M

 

[Weizer]

Maybe you should read this book

http://books.google.com/books?id=bUW6cQAACAAJ&dq=yeast&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TD48U6_oCJPfsAT134K4Cg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ

Buy it now. Read it cover to cover. I reference it all the time when my brewing buddies doubt my knowledge

This book changed the way I brew. Once I finished It, I immediately went and purchased an aeration setup, built a stir plate, and bought a 2L flask. Fermentation usually starts within 4-5 hours, and finishes in 3-5 days.

 

[Rockn_M]

Yes. Happy yeast make good beer. Stressed yeast produce off flavors. My first experience with liquid yeast was with an Oktoberfest. Once I tapped the keg I could taste a hot alochol taste which I found out was due to under pitching yeast.

 

[zwiller]

Thanks.

I suppose I have to show my bias since I've been brewing 20 some years. JZ seems like a cool very knowledgeable fella but IMO he is rehashing the same things I've learned over the years from other authors. No doubt he has pushed the envelope and made some improvements along the way.

I get no off flavors and hit my FG spot on. (I am BJCP awaiting my ranking btw) I tend to geek out with water chem and pH so perhaps that sets things up good enough for the critters.

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.

 

[progmac]

i'm a little more skeptical. the starter thing is treated as a panacea around here. i think if people did a side-by-side, they would be surprised by the results.

 

[thefost]

Here's a side by side experiment where they tested exactly what you are asking:
http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/

Results - Although the difference was small, the starter beer was better

 

[Braufessor]

I think it does make a difference.

It REALLY makes a difference when people are not pitching a fresh smack pack. I don't think it is at all uncommon for people to buy a smack pack that is 1-2-3 months old. And then, put off brewing with it for several weeks, or even months. They smack that 5 month old pack and pitch it as is....... they are not even remotely in the ball park of a decent pitch of yeast.

I think if you have everything down well, and you pitch a pack of very fresh yeast, into a 1.40-1.055 type beer..... yeah, you can probably be ok, and may not notice anything. However, I would say that is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[AnOldUR]

Buy it now. Read it cover to cover.

And don't miss the part where it says, "We prefer slightly lower rates for ales." (.75 million cells per milliliter of wort per degree Plato.)

And the part about a "when pitching a fresh laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition" like a fresh, well handled smack pack, "a brewer can use up to a 50 percent lower pitch rate."

So if you trust your supplier is selling you good product, you don't need a starter for a beer in the 1.050 gravity range. Over 1.060 could be pushing your luck.

The fact is you don't have to make a starter. There's no magic there. What you have to do is be sure you're pitching enough healthy yeast.

 

[boydster]

And don't miss the part where it says, "We prefer slightly lower rates for ales." (.75 million cells per milliliter of wort per degree Plato.)

And the part about a "when pitching a fresh laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition" like a fresh, well handled smack pack, "a brewer can use up to a 50 percent lower pitch rate."

So if you trust you supplier is selling you good product, you don't need a starter for a beer in the 1.050 gravity range. Over 1.060 could be pushing your luck.

The fact is you don't have to make a starter. There's no magic there. What you have to do is be sure you're pitching enough healthy yeast.

The .75 number is what most pitch rate calcs use to begin with, so that doesn't advance the conversation.

Regarding the 50% lower pitch rate, I emailed JZ about that passage specifically, and here is what he wrote back:

[boydster],
Really, there is no excuse for not making a starter every time. There is no "well-handled" yeast that doesn't result in some loss of viability. Making a starter is easy, and pretty much guarantees great results.


Jamil Zainasheff
Chief Heretic
Heretic Brewing Company

I'm not taking sides on whether or not you need a starter for a 1.050-or-under beer, just sharing what I have been told by one of the guys who wrote the book that particular statement came from.

I completely agree with your last sentence. I actually usually pitch closer to 1 million cells per ml per degree plato now for my clean ales and I'm happy with the results.

 

[seabass07]

Starter vs no starter isn't the real issue. It's pitching rate. Low pitching rate will definitely increase esters and other off flavors. I make a small starter for even 1.050 beers because I get off flavors from pitching only a smack pack. I have done them back to back on the same beer and there was a huge difference. So now I make a starter for everything unless I'm using dry yeast. Then I use the correct amount of packets of dry yeast. Do what you want, but pay attention to the results. If you're happy with your results, then do what you want.

 

[sudbuster]

Thanks.

I suppose I have to show my bias since I've been brewing 20 some years. JZ seems like a cool very knowledgeable fella but IMO he is rehashing the same things I've learned over the years from other authors. No doubt he has pushed the envelope and made some improvements along the way.

Fellow brewer,
I have been brewing for a long time too. Back when Dr. Fix's books were new, since I have a science background, I went along with what he had to say and was the better for it. But everyone does not have a science background. What JZ, and others, did was digest the material available and then make it more accessible to the layperson of brewing science. That alone deserves accolades.

In response to the OP, I would respond: It depends on the brew and the age of the yeast. Personally, I calculate the pitch rate for each beer I brew and go from there. Cheers.

 

[edecambra]

Its not the starter per se, its enough healthy yeast. The starter usually and easily answers this. Perhaps Gigayeast could also, as they are double the yeast of typical wyeast or w-labs

 

[Cider123]

Well, it don't make worse beer

 

[chezhed]

I've done a side by side....twice. I went so far as to alternate my wort flow into the carboys one gallon at a time to try to insure I had the same wort. My variation was limited to what little there was between two indentitcal fermentation chambers with identical temperature controllers....I allowed .2C variance on my controllers.
Each time I used dry yeast (Safeale 05) and made a 2L starter. Each batch was 5 gallons at 1.056 OG. I slurried 2-1/2 packs for the dry and put 1-1/2 packs in the starter....higher than required cell counts for both if I remember.....

I got different activity levels...the starter batch started faster and was more active and seemed to finish earlier based on visible and audible activity. I did not take gravity readings to confirm though because I left both carboys for 24 days.

To be honest I can't tell any difference in clarity or taste either time and neither can the "NOSE" (SWMBO).

Because I primary for a lengthy time, I honestly can't find an advantage to starters with dry yeast......maybe I will do the same experiment with a liquid yeast next, but why would I expect something different?

 

[thefost]

Because I primary for a lengthy time, I honestly can't find an advantage to starters with dry yeast......maybe I will do the same experiment with a liquid yeast next, but why would I expect something different?

Well, for a normal 5 gallon batch there wouldn't be an advantage to a starter with dry yeast. Dry yeast contains about 200 billion cells, while liquid contains 100 billion, and the liquid cells lose viability at a very rapid rate. Pitching rate is what matters, and for a normal gravity ale you're not going to need any more yeast than what's in the dry packet. Liquid yeast is a different story, and will probably require a starter.

 

[seabass07]

That's because starters with dry yeast are pointless. You just use more dry yeast to meet your pitching rate.

 

[zwiller]

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?

 

[Weizer]

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?

I don't use Mr. Malty, because it's ****ing outrageous. Beersmith seems to be more accurate. I can use a month old white labs vial(usually not that old) and create a 2L starter, and have more than enough yeast for a 1.048 lager. That's using a stir plate for about 24-36 hours though..

 

[AnOldUR]

Regarding the 50% lower pitch rate, I emailed JZ about that passage specifically, and here is what he wrote back:

Really, there is no excuse for not making a starter every time. There is no "well-handled" yeast that doesn't result in some loss of viability. Making a starter is easy, and pretty much guarantees great results.

A agree that the "up to 50%" number has to be taken in context, but I'm not sure where JZ was coming from with that statement. It's wrong in so many way. There's the obvious notion of, "I put my name on a book to make money, but don't really believe what's in it." There's the EAC aspect of, "there is no excuse for not making a starter every time" and that it will magically “guarantee great results.” And you can be sure that both White Labs and Wyeast will argue with the "well-handled" part. From what I've read, they both take great pride and care to assure that yeast arriving at both commerical breweries and homebrew stores in good condition. FedEx shipping, insulated boxes, dry ice.

Never was that blown away by the Jamil mystique. Even less so after reading the reply you got.

 

[Kingbogart]

From what I've read, they both take great pride and care to assure that yeast arriving at both commerical breweries and homebrew stores in good condition. FedEx shipping, insulated boxes, dry ice.

I think everyone's version and circumstances for determining well handled are different. I personally don't have a LHBS. So even if it's well handled getting to the nearest HBS, or online retailer, there is no telling how long it was on their shelf before they sent it out to me. Nor how they took care of it on the additional UPS/FedEx/USPS truck or plane to my house. I've gotten anywhere between 1 week old up to a couple months. Nothing the WhiteLabs or Wyeast can do about it, just simple facts that viability in those packages is always questionable.

 

[boydster]

There's the obvious notion of, "I put my name on a book to make money, but don't really believe what's in it."

Funny, I thought the exact same thing. Either the statement is true, or it isn't.

I use the yeastcalc for stirplate starters and shoot for 1 million cells/ml/°P and I am happy with those results. For a small batch, low-OG beer, sometimes that means no starter. For most of my 5.5 gallon batches, I end up making one. Or I use some fresh harvested yeast, but that's a topic for a different thread

 

[seabass07]

I don't use Mr. Malty, because it's ****ing outrageous. Beersmith seems to be more accurate. I can use a month old white labs vial(usually not that old) and create a 2L starter, and have more than enough yeast for a 1.048 lager. That's using a stir plate for about 24-36 hours though..

I use mr. malty to calculate the size of my starter, but I ignore the viability part of the equation for the reasons you mentioned. I also know that his calculator overpitches by default. So I just take that into consideration when I make a starter and use it as a rough estimate. This doesn't have to be rocket surgery to get good results.

 

[Riot]

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?

I have also seen some outrageous numbers from mrmalty. I'm not sure if yeastcalc has the braukaiser formula, but I know brewersfriend does. If you have a stir plate you can actually grow an insane amount of yeast in a relatively small volume. Totally not real data, but I've made at least 20 batches including a few high gravity with those calculations, and I have never seen a ferment take more than 12 hours to take off.

 

[jbaysurfer]

A agree that the "up to 50%" number has to be taken in context, but I'm not sure where JZ was coming from with that statement. It's wrong in so many way. There's the obvious notion of, "I put my name on a book to make money, but don't really believe what's in it." There's the EAC aspect of, "there is no excuse for not making a starter every time" and that it will magically “guarantee great results.” And you can be sure that both White Labs and Wyeast will argue with the "well-handled" part. From what I've read, they both take great pride and care to assure that yeast arriving at both commerical breweries and homebrew stores in good condition. FedEx shipping, insulated boxes, dry ice.

Never was that blown away by the Jamil mystique. Even less so after reading the reply you got.

The "mystique" (and "magical") comment makes it seem like maybe you just don't want to like him...because I've never thought he had any "mystique" at all.

After not really having a bias about him one way or the other, I met him a couple weeks ago and was blown away by the guy's passion for making great beer. The yeast book is fairly technical, not "joy of homebrewing" (sorry Charlie!) type curriculum. Healthy yeast in the proper amounts make better beer then the alternative. Do it right. Embrace the science. Make better beer.

To newb brewers out there, if anyone with decades of experience homebrewing offers to trade their experience for your stir plate...grab your stir plate and run like hell.

 

[progmac]

Here's a side by side experiment where they tested exactly what you are asking:
http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/

Results - Although the difference was small, the starter beer was better

i agree that there are difference between the two beers. what i'm not clear on is how he prepared the wort (eg oxygen or nutrients).

 

[AnOldUR]

Healthy yeast in the proper amounts make better beer then the alternative. Do it right. Embrace the science. Make better beer.

There's a difference between embracing the science and blindly following someone’s interpretation of it.

To newb brewers out there, if anyone with decades of experience homebrewing offers to trade their experience for your stir plate...grab your stir plate and run like hell.

Funny. I bought that BS story when I started brewing. That stir plate sits on a shelf collecting dust. Now I only brew beer I can drink.

 

[AnOldUR]

i agree that there are difference between the two beers. what i'm not clear on is how he prepared the wort (eg oxygen or nutrients).

The problem with that experiment is that he made a starter with a count the same as what Mr Malty said would be in a pack of yeast after one month, not an actual pack of yeast. Great at finding out the effects of under pitching. Worthless in comparing to pitching without a starter.

 

[progmac]

The problem with that experiment is that he made a starter with a count the same as what Mr Malty said would be in a pack of yeast after one month, not an actual pack of yeast. Great at finding out the effects of under pitching. Worthless in comparing to pitching without a starter.

i didn't catch that.

 

[thefost]

The problem with that experiment is that he made a starter with a count the same as what Mr Malty said would be in a pack of yeast after one month, not an actual pack of yeast. Great at finding out the effects of under pitching. Worthless in comparing to pitching without a starter.

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.

 

[thefost]

i agree that there are difference between the two beers. what i'm not clear on is how he prepared the wort (eg oxygen or nutrients).

Looks like he did 10 minutes aeration with an aquarium pump with oxygen stone. Didn't list any special yeast nutrients added so I'd assume he didn't add anything.

 

[Schreiner]

Funny thing is unless you are counting cells with a microscope you are just making a best guess. I will make a starter based on the yeastcalc calculator when necessary. The last time I brewed my LHBS didn't have the yeast I wanted. He ordered two vials of yeast for me on a Monday, to arrive on Friday. Let them warm up a while Friday afternoon and pitched without a starter. But my best guess told me there was plenty of yeast in those two vials for 1.054 OG wort. Cell count matters most.

 

[tagz]

I don't get the Jamil bashing. He won the Ninkasi.... twice. Surely that shows that he has some mastery of homebrewing.

 

[RM-MN]

I don't get the Jamil bashing. He won the Ninkasi.... twice. Surely that shows that he has some mastery of homebrewing.

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.

 

[ChugachBrewing]

First things first, if the beer you are making you enjoy it, then you're doing it right.
As for the starter conversation I do make a small starter because a higher cell count does contribute to a healthier fermentation and often a better tasting beer. That being said, you can probably get away making great beer with just a snack pack. A small starter will definitely not do anything to hurt your beer unless you ramp it up to the point at which you are overpitching. I don't think any of us are probably taking it that far, so the risk there is low. If you have the ability to make a starter easily without running the risk of contamination then ryou should probably give it a try.

Sent from my PG86100 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[brew_ny]

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.

that is what is really important in the end

all the best

S_M