Probably a stupid question

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mximus11

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington, MO
I want to brew today, I have a smack pack, and haven't started a starter. Is 2 or 3 hours better than nothing for a starter?
 
What's the OG of the beer your planning on brewing? If its not something crazy high you could probably get away with out using a starter if you're dead set on brewing today. Of course, its always better to make a starter.
 
You should be fine just pitching the smack pack then.

Just like that? Did you ask what type of beer it was? Maybe a lager?

Even an ale requires a quart starter at 100% viability according to Mr. Malty.

To the op, don't be surprised if your beer under attenuates, it may do fine but it's ALWAYS best to use a starter with liquid yeast. Your beer will benefit.
 
Just like that? Did you ask what type of beer it was? Maybe a lager?

Even an ale requires a quart starter at 100% viability according to Mr. Malty.

To the op, don't be surprised if your beer under attenuates, it may do fine but it's ALWAYS best to use a starter with liquid yeast. Your beer will benefit.

Agreed. You can still make good beer, but a starter will keep your slow lag/underattenuation worries in check.

Oh, if I had a dollar for every stupid question I asked, I'd be brewing on a gold-plated brew sculpture. I'll probably ask one later this week, just wait!

Eric
 
Oh, if I had a dollar for every stupid question I asked, I'd be brewing on a gold-plated brew sculpture. I'll probably ask one later this week, just wait!
Eric

There are no stupid questions, just stupid brewers.:eek: ;)
 
Just like that? Did you ask what type of beer it was? Maybe a lager?

Even an ale requires a quart starter at 100% viability according to Mr. Malty.

To the op, don't be surprised if your beer under attenuates, it may do fine but it's ALWAYS best to use a starter with liquid yeast. Your beer will benefit.

Notice where i said in my first post where its always best to use a starter.

I was just saying the he would *likely* be ok with just a smack pack. A lager would be a different story though.
 
No worries, not a lager. But how long does it take for the smack pack tpo "expand"? I don't want to pitch bad yeast and I see NO activity with the smack pack.
 
now i'll ask questions.

What yeast strain? How long since you smacked it? Whats the date on the package? Where did you have it stored and for how long?
 
RDWHAHB. When I started brewing I did all my batches with just a ready-to-pitch vial of White Labs, they all made great beer. Sure it's better to have a starter, but I think you'll survive without one... now back to my cage...
 
wyeast 3068xl the date is aug 31 2009 the pack says use within 6 months as I said earlier I smacked it today about 3 hours ago. It has been stored in the fridge.
 
wyeast 3068xl the date is aug 31 2009 the pack says use within 6 months as I said earlier I smacked it today about 3 hours ago. It has been stored in the fridge.

In that case i would definitely recommend a starter. If you had fresh healthy yeast thats a different story. But you're near the end of that 6 month window and the pack isn't showing any signs of activity. I'd go with a starter to be safe.
 
If you are somewhat anal about sanitation you can build the starter and brew on the same day. There is no law that says you have to pitch the same day you brew, it's just good practice.
 
And he could learn to do it right the first time ( ducks ) by making a starter, having patience enough to hold off brewing until the starter is ready, and then brew without regrets. :)
 
It had nothing to do with patience. It just slipped my mind. I have two jobs and a family, so every once and a while I might forget to do something.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top