Smack Pack - have I been misled?

[Ridire]

I understand a laissez faire attitude toward brewing. RDWHAHB, and all that. Believe it or not, I support that attitude

As do I. If something doesn't go right, I don't freak out. I finish it up and drink what is produced. But I will research how not to have that same thing go wrong in the future. There is a difference between going with the flow and just not giving a rip.

 

[Bob]

Very true. All too often, however, the difference is subtle, and it's good to be on the lookout for it. Even more deadly, "going with the flow" has an alarming tendency to become habit, whence it devolves into "just not giving a rip".

Bob

 

[MarcusKillion]

As far as I know the new smack packs are pitch ready but they have the required 200 billion in them already . I would say that as long as it is not a a big beer and you pitch at right temp it will be fine without the starter but I would try to find the pitch ready ones next time .

 

[Ridire]

As far as I know the new smack packs are pitch ready but they have the required 200 billion in them already . I would say that as long as it is not a a big beer and you pitch at right temp it will be fine without the starter but I would try to find the pitch ready ones next time .

Package read "pitch ready 100 billion cells". Only 1968 smack pack at the store and the instructions claimed it was good for a 5 gallon batch up to 1.060.

 

[Yooper]

As far as I know the new smack packs are pitch ready but they have the required 200 billion in them already . I would say that as long as it is not a a big beer and you pitch at right temp it will be fine without the starter but I would try to find the pitch ready ones next time .

Wyeast's website states that their smack packs have 100 billion cells in them. If they have a new, larger package they aren't advertising it.

 

[misterbk]

Very true. All too often, however, the difference is subtle, and it's good to be on the lookout for it. Even more deadly, "going with the flow" has an alarming tendency to become habit, whence it devolves into "just not giving a rip".

Bob

And when you remember that the first two pages of a thread can quite likely become the "online authoritative source" read by a lot of google searchers, pretty much forever.

I thought the reaction was appropriate given how many posts before that had said it doesn't have much effect.

 

[stpug]

One smack pack is underpitching. You can listen to amateurs blither on about how they've used one smack pack for decades and blah blah blah, but the simple scientific fact is that one smack pack or vial does not - can not - contain enough cells to properly inoculate 19-20 liters of 1.060 wort.

That is a FACT supported by more brewing science than any of the "just pitch the one and it'll be fine" posters in this thread can even process.

It is a FACT that a proper inoculation is 1 million cells per ml of inoculated wort per degree Plato. The calculators are based on this paradigm. The calculators are RIGHT. People who say the calculators are wrong don't understand enough about the subject to have an opinion, or they'd realize the calculators are right.

Accepting as valid the "advice" that you can brew consistently excellent beer by ignoring how much yeast you're pitching is as stupid as listening to the fellow who says that a can of Blue Ribbon extract, a bag of sugar, bread yeast and a garbage can covered in cheesecloth will make consistently excellent beer. Would you just throw in a handful of hops? Or do you carefully calculate how many IBU you want and carefully measure your hops accordingly? Do you just toss in some malt? Or do you carefully tailor your grist to ensure the flavor, color, and OG you desire? Please. That's a no-brainer.

Long story short: Advice to pitch one smack pack is bad advice.

Cheers,

Bob

Here's what Wyeast says about this:

Direct Pitch Activator™
Activator™ Product Information and Usage

Activator™ packages are designed for direct inoculation of 5 gallons of standard* wort. Activator™ packages contain live yeast cells in a liquid slurry. This yeast slurry is packaged in an optimum condition for storage, while maintaining the ability for rapid and complete fermentation.

Activator™ packages include a sterile liquid nutrient pouch that, when “smacked”, releases its contents into the yeast slurry and “activates” the package. The available nutrients initiate the culture’s metabolism which in turn generates CO2 and causes swelling of the package. This process will reduce lag times by preparing the yeast for a healthy fermentation prior to inoculation. Activation also serves as a viability test of the culture. Expansion of the package is an indicator of healthy (viable and vital) yeast. Although beneficial, cultures do not need to be activated prior to inoculation.

Usage

The Activator™ package contains a minimum of 100 billion cells in a yeast slurry.. The Activator™ is designed to directly inoculate 5 gallons of standard strength ale wort (1.034-1.060 SG) with professional pitching rates. For lagers, we recommend inoculating the wort at warm temperatures (68-70°F/ 20-21°C), waiting for signs of fermentation, and then adjusting to the desired temperature. Alternatively, for pitching into cold conditions (34-58°F/ 1-14°C) or higher gravity wort, we recommend increasing this pitching rate. This can be achieved by pitching additional Activator™ packages or by making a starter culture. Please see the Pitch Rate section for additional information.

Instructions for the proper use of Activator™ packages:
To Activate, locate and move inner packet to a corner. Place this area in palm of one hand and firmly smack the package with the other hand to break the inner nutrient packet. Confirm the inner packet is broken.
Shake the package well to release the nutrients.
Allow the package to incubate and swell for 3 hours or more (it is not necessary for this package to fully swell before use) at 70-75°F (21-24°C).
Use sanitizing solution to sanitize the package before opening.
Shake well, open and pour the Activator™ into 5 gallons of well aerated or oxygenated wort up to 1.060 OG at 65-72°F (18-22°C). Maintain temperature until fermentation is evident by CO2 bubble formation, bubbling airlock or foaming on top of wort. For high gravity or low temperature fermentations additional yeast may be required.
6. Adjust to desired fermentation temperature.

Full swelling of Activator™ packages is not required for their use. The contents of Activator™ packages may be direct-pitched without prior activation. Our smack pack technology is intended to be a tool for your use in determining viability, and in initiating metabolism for faster starts to fermentation.

Sterile Packaged Product – UV Light Barrier – 100% Guaranteed Pure
Keep Refrigerated. Do not freeze.

Best if Used by: This package is best when used within 6 months of the manufacturer’s date when stored between 34-40°F (1-4°C). Older yeast or yeast that has been exposed to higher or lower temperatures may take longer to become active or swell.


Warranty

Our Product Warranty states that we guarantee the viability of the yeast in our Activator™ packages for 6 months from the manufacture date assuming that they have been properly shipped, stored and handled. Our superior packaging material provides 100% oxygen barrier and UV light protection making this exceptional guarantee possible. During this 6 month guaranteed shelf life, some loss of viability is to be expected. This will vary from one strain to another. Activator™ packages that are 4 months old or older may require additional time to swell after activation.

Activator™ packages will sometimes swell slightly, or moderately during shipping or later while properly stored. This is not an indication of deterioration if the package is less than 6 months old and has been properly handled. This is result of trace amounts of nutrients, still available at the time packaging, causing small amount of culture activity and CO2 production. Some strains are more prone to this than others.

We think you’ll agree our unique “Smack Pack” is preferable to all other liquid yeast packaging options to assure the success of your fermentations.

White labs also has provided an answer to the similar question:

What is meant by pitchable quantities?

At White Labs we package our yeast with a concentrated cell count which does not require any additional propagation time. Therefore, our vials can be directly pitched into a five-gallon batch of wort, giving you approximately a 5-15 hour lag time. Our barrel (BBL) system designed for the professional brewers also has the appropriate cell count for their specified sizes.

Although I have nothing against a pitching rate calculator (i.e. pitching rate estimators), and generally adhere to them when reusing yeast, I also do not categorically reject a manufacturers recommendation as "invalid and amateur". Why would we chose to accept an "estimators" advice, or forum members, while rejecting the manufacturers advice?

I understand and agree with Bob's standpoint - in principle. However, I do not take his word with such authority as to disregard when a manufacturer states. My personal recommendation to the OP to simply pitch the single activator pouch comes knowing full-well that any other solutions that would offer the same yeast characteristics would also require significant additional "leg work" on their end. Additionally, just as Denny's advice is often given, this comes with plenty of experience and reasonable results from my end.

Last thing I want to do is keep kicking this dead horse, but in the spirit of keeping this discussion open to full disclosure I felt like a manufacturers recommendation should account for something. [KICK ]

 

[Ridire]

Why would we chose to accept an "estimators" advice, or forum members, while rejecting the manufacturers advice?

OK, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I do know a thing or two about increasing the bottom line and marketing. If Wyeast knows that the average brewer will pay $8 for yeast to make one 5 gallon batch of beer, and that 100 billion cells will do "good enough", and that most of us don't know the difference, then the way to maximize profits is to package 100 billion cells and say that it will produce 5 gallons of beer (which is true ). If this is below what pro brewers pitch, that speaks volumes to me.

EDIT: why does the shampoo manufacturer tell me to "repeat"?

 

[stpug]

Pro brewers are generally reusing yeast for a number of generations until they request a "refresh" from their yeast banking company (i.e. Wyeast, White Labs, etc), and I am in adherence to using the estimators calculations on the reusing of yeast in almost all scenarios. However, in this case (yours), you are using a fresh smack pack direct from Wyeast in which they have specifically stated: "The Activator™ package contains a minimum of 100 billion cells in a yeast slurry.. The Activator™ is designed to directly inoculate 5 gallons of standard strength ale wort (1.034-1.060 SG) with professional pitching rates."

What does a pro brewer receive from a company like Wyeast or White Labs when requesting a new stock for their brewery (in relation to a single, standard gravity batch)? I suspect, in accordance with their statement above, they get "a minimum of 100b cells per 5 gallons" that are in "optimum condition" for inoculating "with professional pitching rates".

Playing into the conspiracy aspect of this: If manufacturers were packaging their yeast in such a way as to produce sub-par beer (not my words) for the majority of brewers out there don't you think the results would be self-evident? I've made LOTS of batches, over many years, using a single inoculation from WL or WY on standard gravity beers and not seen poor results like I've been warned I would see. It seems to me that a company providing a product that will lead to a poor user experience would simply lead to that particular company being boycotted.

Is it possible that the yeast provided by professional companies from their lab is that much more optimal than what we can collect for ourselves in our own homes?

[KICK ]

PS. Like Bob stated above, I'm not trying to be argumentative or angrymean.... and I would much rather be doing this over a few pints in a pub with you guys

 

[Bob]

There's this thing called "cell counts". You do it with a special microscope slide and other stuff. When you do that, you can easily find, as I have done, that the manufacturer's claims are bull****. If you want, you can also talk to Jamil, who did the same damned thing.

But hey, don't believe me. I've only seen it with my own eyes and - here's a thought - SCIENCE. Believe what the people who take your money want you to believe (and, as Yooper points out, contradict that proclamation on their own website). I mean, I'm just a guy who's trying to help you for free. Why should you believe me? Because clearly I have a vested interest in making you do stuff. Listen, I've bought from both Wyeast and White Labs on the pro level, and guess what? They don't try to sell such bullsh!t to pros.

Do what you want. Want to discard tens of generations of practical experience, supported by scientific observation, in favor of a company's propaganda?

P.S. for Pug - I have had this argument SO. MANY. TIMES. Usually over beers. So let's imagine sitting next to one another, foamy pint in hand, poking fun at one another.

 

[stpug]

P.S. for Pug - I have had this argument SO. MANY. TIMES. Usually over beers. So let's imagine sitting next to one another, foamy pint in hand, poking fun at one another.

Does that mean that you mind can't be swayed?

 

[jeffjm]

This thread is going downhill quickly.

Everybody, what the yeast companies say doesn't affect the taste of your beer. How you use their products does.

When was the last time you heard someone say "This beer is flawed, it's overpitched"?

How many times have you had beers that were flawed because the brewer underpitched?

Worry less about what's advertised and more about creating an environment conducive to a good fermentation. For me, that means erring on the side of too much yeast rather than too little.

 

[Bob]

Does that mean that you mind can't be swayed?

In this case, no. I've been round and round this mulberry bush so many times, I know all the arguments. I've done the research. I've done the experiments. I've seen the little buggers swimming in the methylene blue. What they tell you Just. Ain't. So.

I am not the only one who's done this work. If you don't believe me, try JZ. Try any number of people who have attempted to justify the manufacturers' claims and couldn't.

Long and short: Can you brew beer just pitching a smack pack? Yes. Is it best practice, as dictated by hundreds of years of experience and scientific experimentation? No.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm not trying to dictate how people do things. Okay, that's not 100% accurate, because in a way I certainly am. But it's not as stormtrooper-jackboot-thuggery as you're making it out. I'm pointing out bad advice. I'm encouraging good practice. When my insistence on good practice collides with opinion (or even worse "common knowledge"), people get all butthurt. The less based on objective reality the opinion, the stronger the butthurt (as is usual). I'm okay with that. If one brewer comes away from this thread recognizing best practice as opposed to what isn't best practice, I'm thrilled.

I'm sorry you and I got off on the wrong foot, but if that's the price which must be paid for getting better information in the hands of people who can use it, well, so be it. I hope you can come to see the truth in what I've written. I hope you dig into why the "1 million active cells per milliliter of wort per degree Plato" rule exists and works.

Until then, I really do wish we could clink glasses together. Because it'd be a blast.

Bob

 

[dracus]

IF you take the time to "follow" the star, you'll find a pitch rate calculator on both white labs and wyeast sites which shows that 100 billion cells is not enough and in general you need at least 200 for most beers.

Manufactures often make less than optimal recommendations.

I'm glad though wyeast is finally clear on their packaging for a long time most people thought that wyeast was better because of smack pack and didn't need a starter where as with white labs you needed one.

Finally the truth is out and both packaging methods contain an equal amount of yeast.

S-04 is a great yeast not exactly the same as the one you wanted to use but its in a similar family. If you can keep the temps lower on the range you'll be happy with the english ale yeast. It does have a fruity bready character some people dont like if you ferment it higher on the range. Personally I love bready fruit esters but thats me.

 

[Yooper]

C'mon, people. Debate is great, and this is a worthwhile conversation. Let's not make snide remarks or snarky comments of a personal nature. Let's keep on topic and be civil. Let's talk about the claims of the yeast manufacturer, the actual cell counts, what this means in brewing and the results we can expect in our beers.

I've edited out the things that are inappropriate. Let's not make that happen again.

.....................
How many times have you had beers that were flawed because the brewer underpitched?

Worry less about what's advertised and more about creating an environment conducive to a good fermentation. For me, that means erring on the side of too much yeast rather than too little.

And that's the thing. I've definitely tasted flaws in competition beers that were strictly related to yeast health- underpitching and/or fermentation tempeature issues.

here's my irritation with both Wyeast and White Labs' products- in order to compensate for underpitching, they tell you to pitch too warm and hold the fermentation temperature at a higher point until it starts going and then lower the temperature appropriately.

Well, by the time fermentation gets going, the yeast reproduction phase is over and the esters will have been formed. Also, yeast perform great when warmed, but not as well when cooled, and to do this is counter to many expert's advice to do the exact opposite!

Like I said earlier, I recommend making a starter for OGs over 1.040. When life gets in the way, I have had good results with just pitching a smackpack when the yeast was superfresh in a sub-1.060 wort. It's not what I would consider good practice but it does work (at least, most of the time). I've done it probably 3-4 times or so over the last 7 or 8 years.

 

[stpug]

Interesting article by Palmer (http://byo.com/stories/item/1717-yeast-pitching-rates-advance-homebrewing) wherein he states there's a difference in harvested yeast versus more optimal packaged (lab) yeast, and therefore a difference in pitching rates using each kind (pro lab yeast needing only 50-75% the usual 1m/ml/°P rate). At this point we're talking about 1 package of Wyeast or White Labs (100b cells) can properly inoculate a 5 gallon batch of 1.040 wort. A little further down the article he points out that English and Belgian beers, which are noted for their yeast character, should be pitched at the low end of the recommended pitching rate; at "0.375–0.5 billion cells per liter" (i.e. 37.5% - 50% of the standard 'repitching' rule of thumb). Using the 0.5b (50%) cell rate to give the benefit of the doubt to the upperend, it is saying that a single package of wyeast or white labs for English and Belgian style beers can properly inoculate 5 gallons of 1.060 gravity wort.

The OP asked if they were given bad advice to use a single packet of Wyeast 1968 (i.e. an english yeast strain known for it's classic ester profile) on 5 gallons of 1.060 gravity wort. According to Palmer, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the upper end of the English strain recommendation, the advice the OP was given is SPOT ON! I assume Palmer's experience in the field can be trusted, just like J Zainasheffs can.

Edit:
To be honest, after learning more about pitching rates over the last few years, I was completely in-line with what Bob and others have stated about pitching rates. As I've stated before, I was personally giving advice to move forward with a single smack pack because of the extra leg work the OP would have to go through to achieve the "proper" pitching rate for a liquid yeast, or sacrifice the 1968 ester profile with S-04. Without even realizing it, it turns out that single vials/smack packs can be sufficient for standard gravity batches in various circumstances. As is the case with most things: Things aren't always what they seem and circumstances can help dictate procedure. I am personally coming away from this thread with a broader knowledge of yeast pitching rates as it relates to pro lab yeast versus repitching; and, to me, this helps explain why I and so many other folks have had success with single vials/smack packs.

 

[MorrisBrewingCo]

...And the debate continues. I don't have enough experience to provide input but I am intrigued to get a final consensus. To the OP, make a batch with one smack pack and another with two smack packs or a starter if you are confident in your brewing consistency and taste the difference. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't aeration a huge portion of yeast health and count?

 

[boydster]

That article is a good read, stpug. Thanks for sharing. I just read something similar in Yeast last night, as a matter of fact, so maybe there is something to this... In discussing pitching rates of .75 million/ml/*P for many ales and 1.5 million/ml/*P for many lagers, Chris and Jamil say the following:

Keep in mind these suggested rates are for repitching harvested yeast, because that is what brewers are doing most of the time. When pitching a fresh, laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition, a brewer can use up to 50% lower pitching rate. For homebrewers who might be working with yeast cultures that have been on store shelves for some time, the need to revitalize the yeast or increase the pitching rate comes into play.

I'm left wondering why a yeast calculator would seem to say the appropriate pitch rate, for instance, for a 1.060 5-gallon batch of beer is 2 vials or packs to achieve ~208 billion cells, since the very fact that you are using the vials would seem to indicate that you are using a fresh, laboratory culture (and thus only required to pitch 50% of the "standard" pitching rates)? I'm thinking specifically about Mr. Malty right now, since Jamil is Mr. Malty. The tab for repitching harvested yeast is separate, so the user is being (seemingly) clearly instructed to pitch 2 brand new vials or smack packs of yeast in order to inoculate 5 gallons of beer with 200 billion yeast cells.

 

[stpug]

Thanks for sharing that boyd. This is congruent with what Palmer wrote a few years back in the link I posted. I cannot explain why Mr. Malty would not be more in-line with the documentation in Yeast except to say that the book was co-authored with Chris White (aka White Labs) and his knowledge on the subject, as well as the book being a more recent release (i.e. the newest research has gone into it). Again, I find these little bits of information about lab-grade yeast interesting, and it's something that I didn't know 2 days ago.

Edit: IMHO, I think the consensus is to treat all yeast basically the same when using a calculator. You are definitely giving the benefit of the doubt to more yeast than needed, which is nearly always a better proposition than not enough, and I'm not trying to change the collective thought on this. I'm merely trying to explore why these HUGE yeast companies would advertise pitchable quantities when everything/everyone else thinks otherwise (myself included). I still stand by what the calculators indicate as required yeast cells, and I'll still make starters out of my commercial yeast packs regardless if the gravity is 1.030 or 1.060; but I'm starting to get the feeling that if I'm in a position where I would have to use a commercial pack in a pinch, as least I can judge how it might affect my finished product more clearly. And I can tailor my reply to someone else the same based on the variables in those particular situations.

...and in the words of a wise woman, "Debate is great"

 

[boydster]

I emailed Jamil for clarification, but I'm certainly not holding my breath for a response since he undoubtedly has plenty of work to keep him busy. If I hear back, I'll post his reply so the community can digest it.

If we only need to pitch at half the "normal" rate for fresh, lab-grade yeast, that would seemingly also have implications for using dry yeast. In other words, I wonder if we are technically overpitching when we pitch 200+ billion properly rehydrated cells from a dry yeast packet?

Current HBT experience seems to favor making a starter to get healthy yeast population up to 200 billion for smack packs and vials for a typical 5-gallon batch of 1.060 ale, just as it also seems to favor pitching one 11.5 gram packet of dry yeast. I've never thought of this as overpitching before, but I would be interested in knowing what is truly correct. The calculators and our usual pitch rate calculations seem to be at odds with the Palmer article and Yeast.

 

[Ridire]

http://byo.com/stories/item/1717-yeast-pitching-rates-advance-homebrewing

The more I learn, the more confused I become.

 

[stpug]

If we only need to pitch at half the "normal" rate for fresh, lab-grade yeast, that would seemingly also have implications for using dry yeast. In other words, I wonder if we are technically overpitching when we pitch 200+ billion properly rehydrated cells from a dry yeast packet?

As far as what the dry yeast manufacturers tell us, they are basically guaranteeing 6+ billion yeast cells per sachet. We are using other folks cell counts of rehydrated dry yeast and extrapolating the ~200 billion cell count number. If you couple this with lag times, which I'm not certain actually proves anything, the ~200 billion cell count number seems to coincide with what we've been told to expect in terms of lag time for a certain pitching rate. This is another one of those "sticky" areas where I think us homebrewers have created a collective opinion, which is not to say it's wrong - just that we have no guarantees of these numbers.

 

[IL1kebeer]

One smack pack is underpitching. You can listen to amateurs blither on about how they've used one smack pack for decades and blah blah blah, but the simple scientific fact is that one smack pack or vial does not - can not - contain enough cells to properly inoculate 19-20 liters of 1.060 wort.

That is a FACT supported by more brewing science than any of the "just pitch the one and it'll be fine" posters in this thread can even process.

It is a FACT that a proper inoculation is 1 million cells per ml of inoculated wort per degree Plato. The calculators are based on this paradigm. The calculators are RIGHT. People who say the calculators are wrong don't understand enough about the subject to have an opinion, or they'd realize the calculators are right.

Accepting as valid the "advice" that you can brew consistently excellent beer by ignoring how much yeast you're pitching is as stupid as listening to the fellow who says that a can of Blue Ribbon extract, a bag of sugar, bread yeast and a garbage can covered in cheesecloth will make consistently excellent beer. Would you just throw in a handful of hops? Or do you carefully calculate how many IBU you want and carefully measure your hops accordingly? Do you just toss in some malt? Or do you carefully tailor your grist to ensure the flavor, color, and OG you desire? Please. That's a no-brainer.

Long story short: Advice to pitch one smack pack is bad advice.

Cheers,

Bob

I would listen this guy. Time and time again I would like to have said what he said above, in almost the exact same way that he said it. Usually I am nice about it but it really gets on my nerves to see people giving advice saying that "underpitching is OK". Well, I agree, underpitching is OK... if you want to make poor beer. It's almost just like saying, "Oh you are baking a cake, its ok to use half the flour... you will still make cake...."

Do yourself a favor and pitch the proper amount of yeast. It is proven that pitching the correct amount of healthy yeast is necessary to produce the best quality beer. Of course other factors are at play, but you would be insane if you think that fermentation is not the most important part of the brewing process. The mash and boil produce wort, but its the yeast that produce beer. Unless you have serious recipe flaws or piss poor sanitation, then you will make excellent beer with a healthy fermentation. And there is no way on Gods green earth that you will have a healthy fermentation by underpitching. If you are content with that then so be it. Brewing is a hobby and people are free to brew how they choose.

I have brewed two batches of the same beer in the past. One batch was pitched using the correct pitching rate via a starter and the other batch was pitched with less than half of the recommended rate via a 2 1/2 month old white labs vial. I can tell you personally that it was like drinking two different beers. The one with the starter blew the underpitched one out of the water. Try it yourself.

 

[Ridire]

OK, now for a really remedial question: any harm in making a starter for dry yeast? If you are using dry yeast, and not making a starter, how can you be sure how much of the yeast is viable?

 

[boydster]

Do yourself a favor and pitch the proper amount of yeast. It is proven that pitching the correct amount of healthy yeast is necessary to produce the best quality beer.

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, and in fact I have been in the same camp as you and Bob for as long as I have been brewing - I've posted before about it in this thread and others, as a matter of fact. I'm not abandoning that camp just yet. But I'm not opposed to experimenting for the sake of making better beer.

I am reading more information about yeast now than I have before and there is something about what Palmer says in the article St. Pug posted and what Chris and Jamil wrote about in Yeast that is clearly different than our standard "best practice." Those guys know their stuff, we quote them all the time. There also seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that pitching one smack pack or vial still yields a very good product (some will passionately tell you it is every bit as good as beers they have made with 2 vials or packs). I think it is worth exploring the idea that a fresh, healthy lab culture might actually be able to do a good job in the way Wyeast and White Labs tell us. That doesn't mean I believe or disbelieve it. It means I want to see whether the book learnin' can be turned into applied knowledge, or if the theory that you can pitch a single fresh, healthy vial and make equally as good of a beer falls apart in practice.

From a business standpoint, why would Chris White endorse a statement that encourages you to buy less yeast from his company? From a legitimacy standpoint, why would Chris, Jamil, and Palmer all stand behind a statement they don't believe to be accurate? I'm just saying that they may be on to something, and if so, we owe it to ourselves to find out because I, for one, am currently adding 2x as much fresh, healthy, lab-grown yeast as they say I need to be using.

Edit: Sean Terrill did an experiment on one vial vs. two vials, and his results are not in line with the "50%" advice from Palmer, Chris, and Jamil. In fact, he reports the same results we would traditionally expect in an underpitched beer. Link: http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/

 

[boydster]

OK, now for a really remedial question: any harm in making a starter for dry yeast? If you are using dry yeast, and not making a starter, how can you be sure how much of the yeast is viable?

This has recently become another point of contention, too. The usual advice is that you should not make a starter with dry yeast because unless you are making a very large starter (I think 1.5 gallons or larger?) you will do more harm than good due to the large number of yeast cells already in the packet. However, there was a thread on here recently discussing the fact that the Fermentis packets say the guaranteed cell viability is something to the tune of 69 billion cells per 11.5 gram packet, whereas Mr. Malty and other sources have reported viable cell counts upwards of 230 billion (quoting that # from memory, it may have been 220 billion, not sure).

I am of the mindset that a fresh packet that has been properly handled and rehydrated will yield the 200+ billion viable cells and that the 69 billion figure is the guaranteed baseline for a yeast packet that is close to the expiration date, but I can't say that I have scientific proof one way or another.

 

[IL1kebeer]

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, and in fact I have been in the same camp as you and Bob for as long as I have been brewing - I've posted before about it in this thread and others, as a matter of fact. I'm not abandoning that camp just yet. But I'm not opposed to experimenting for the sake of making better beer.

I am reading more information about yeast now than I have before and there is something about what Palmer says in the article St. Pug posted and what Chris and Jamil wrote about in Yeast that is clearly different than our standard "best practice." Those guys know their stuff, we quote them all the time. There also seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that pitching one smack pack or vial still yields a very good product (some will passionately tell you it is every bit as good as beers they have made with 2 vials or packs). I think it is worth exploring the idea that a fresh, healthy lab culture might actually be able to do a good job in the way Wyeast and White Labs tell us. That doesn't mean I believe or disbelieve it. It means I want to see whether the book learnin' can be turned into applied knowledge, or if the theory that you can pitch a single fresh, healthy vial and make equally as good of a beer falls apart in practice.

From a business standpoint, why would Chris White endorse a statement that encourages you to buy less yeast from his company? From a legitimacy standpoint, why would Chris, Jamil, and Palmer all stand behind a statement they don't believe to be accurate? I'm just saying that they may be on to something, and if so, we owe it to ourselves to find out because I, for one, am currently adding 2x as much fresh, healthy, lab-grown yeast as they say I need to be using.

The only evidence that need is below. If other people like the taste of their beer that was pitched with half the recommended yeast then that's great... who am I to tell their taste buds what to like. But I know what I like and I know that properly pitched beer tastes better to me, so I that is the advice that I will give when someone posts here asking about pitching rates. I will disagree with anyone giving advice saying that underpitching will yield great results.

I have brewed two batches of the same beer in the past. One batch was pitched using the correct pitching rate via a starter and the other batch was pitched with less than half of the recommended rate via a 2 1/2 month old white labs vial. I can tell you personally that it was like drinking two different beers. The one with the starter blew the underpitched one out of the water. Try it yourself.

Here's another fun experiment. Brew two beers, one with the right amount of yeast and one with half the recommended amount. Enter those beers into three competitions to get a decent scoring sample and I'm sure the results will speak for themselves.

 

[boydster]

I have brewed two batches of the same beer in the past. One batch was pitched using the correct pitching rate via a starter and the other batch was pitched with less than half of the recommended rate via a 2 1/2 month old white labs vial. I can tell you personally that it was like drinking two different beers. The one with the starter blew the underpitched one out of the water. Try it yourself.

Your results sound similar to the results Sean Terrill wrote about in the link I posted earlier, and I've always believed that to be true. I'll probably do a test batch or two, just to prove it to myself. It is interesting to find so much conflicting information from sources that we generally give a lot of credence to, though. I wouldn't have taken the time of day to even consider that pitching one vial would be an acceptable pitch rate if I hadn't just read about it yesterday. I still find it hard to believe that it will make a beer that is as good or better than my normal pitch rate. I really only shared the quote from the book because it seemed wrong to withhold relevant information from the debate.

 

[PRE66_6TART]

here's my irritation with both Wyeast and White Labs' products- in order to compensate for underpitching, they tell you to pitch too warm and hold the fermentation temperature at a higher point until it starts going and then lower the temperature appropriately.

Well, by the time fermentation gets going, the yeast reproduction phase is over and the esters will have been formed. Also, yeast perform great when warmed, but not as well when cooled, and to do this is counter to many expert's advice to do the exact opposite!.

This seems like and important point. I always thought it was very strange that the instructions on my white labs vials were exactly the opposite of what everything else I've ever read. I just checked my vial of 002 in the fridge. It says to keep it at 70 to 75 until fermentation begins, usually 5 to 15 hours. Then they say it again to make sure - keep it above 70 at all times! I checked the optimum ferment temperatures on their website and it was 65-68.

So according to these instructions I should keep it as high as 75 while I watch it like a hawk for up to 15 hours until it starts doing something and then suddenly drop the temperature by as much as 10 degrees? I've never heard advice like this, and it seems like a lot of unnecessary hassle unless you were trying to get away with using the least possible amount of yeast.

I'm fairly new to this, but the reasoning I've heard behind pitching lower and letting the temperature slowly rise after time makes a lot of sense. I think I will chose to err on the side of higher pitch rates and this

 

[PRE66_6TART]

Thus not have to worry about crazy temperature schedules.

(Accidentally hit send) doh!

 

[Bob]

Thanks for the information about the fresh lab culture vs. harvested slurry. I was not aware of that information and will be digging into it to see if a modification of my thinking is in order. I suspect it won't, if only because how rare it is to get a truly fresh lab culture through the homebrew supply chain. But when new information comes to light, I'm the first to embrace being proved wrong.

I have some reading ahead of me. Thank you!

OK, now for a really remedial question: any harm in making a starter for dry yeast? If you are using dry yeast, and not making a starter, how can you be sure how much of the yeast is viable?

When I did cell count comparisons, I counted cells in the rehydrated state. The best part about it was the dry yeast gave predictable yields Every. Single. Time., where liquid yeasts were all over the map depending on the age of the sample. And remember, this was back when we didn't have the superb range of dry yeasts we have today.

I don't see as there's any more harm in doing a starter with dry yeast vs. liquid. It's just kind of silly, as dry yeast is so much less expensive than liquid. You can predict you'll get X cells in Y grams, so buy that many grams of dry yeast. I mean, if you were going to be super-mega-parsimonious, you could start up some dry yeast. But that's not just "kind of silly", it's full on stupid. At least false economy; if you're amortizing hundreds of dollars in stir plates and Ehrlenmeyer flasks and DME and TIME to save $4, you're a special kind of snowflake. On the other hand, if you're building a starter not to save money but because you love building starters, I don't see any harm in building a dry-yeast starter. Once you get active cells, there's no real difference in cells.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[boydster]

Again, I blame Mr. Malty for confusion about yeast! He has two references to starters being bad for dry yeasts, although there is nothing to back up the claim other than the unnamed "experts" that he mentions.

From Mr. Malty: http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php

In fact, with most dry yeasts, placing them in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into the yeast.

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

Another case where you generally don't want to make a starter is with dry yeast. It is usually cheaper and easier to just buy more dry yeast than it would be to make a starter large enough for most dry yeast packs. Many experts suggest that placing dry yeasts in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into their product. For dry yeasts, just do a proper rehydration in tap water, do not make a starter.

In looking deeper into it, assuming dry yeast cell counts are at or near the 20 billion per gram figure that anyone who has done a cell count seems to agree with, you would need to do at least a 1L starter to get any real growth (and even then, minimal - 200 billion cells would only grow to 224 billion...) and around 3L starter to get peak yield factor (67million/ml innoculation rate, cell count would increase ~1.8x, peak yield factor means most growth while still ensurinig optimal yeast health). The innoculation rate and yield factor figures are from Yeast pg. 140. While the book is discussing propagating liquid yeast, as long as you are using similar innoculation rates in a nutrient-rich growth medium (like wort) it stands to reason that a dry yeast starter would result in healthy yeast.

 

[dpatrickv]

Im probably not in the vast majority here, but almost all of my first 20 or 30 batches had just a smack pack or vial pitched(Even bigger beers)....and I never had an issue. As long as you oxygenate well and the smack pack is relatively fresh you should be fine.

 

[peterj]

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

Another case where you generally don't want to make a starter is with dry yeast. It is usually cheaper and easier to just buy more dry yeast than it would be to make a starter large enough for most dry yeast packs. Many experts suggest that placing dry yeasts in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into their product. For dry yeasts, just do a proper rehydration in tap water, do not make a starter.

This is reason you shouldn't make a starter with dry yeast. The reliable and high cell count of dry yeast is also a good reason, but the above is why it can actually be harmful. Some of the experts he's talking about are the yeast manufacturers. They state that they put enough lipids in the membranes of the yeast to last for a number of generations of reproduction. This is why they also say you don't need to aerate your wort, because the yeast doesn't need the oxygen to create the lipids for their membranes because they have enough to last for all of the reproduction they will need to do. If you make a starter you will be depleting these lipids ahead of time with unnecessary reproduction.

 

[stpug]

IMO, the "cheaper" aspect is no longer relevant. Dry yeast is not as cheap as it was back when Mr Malty was published. It used to run in the $1.50 range and has since gone up about 3-fold ($4.50+). If I want to pay $9+ dollars for 2 sachets of yeast, I'll buy a liquid yeast for ~$7 and step it up with a little DME. I'll probably land about the same price point but I'll have many more choices of yeast to choose from plus not run the risk of viability loss upon pitching.

The rest may be true regarding built-in lipids and higher cell count as long as you're rehydrating. In you're not rehydrating then there's too much evidence to suggest a significant reducing in cell count viability to count that as a benefit; which is NOT to say that you won't make good beer.

Edit: I've used a few different dry sachets of yeast and rehydrated every time, and the only sachet than has produced what I would consider a "cream" was Nottingham (the only Danstar I've used). It truly came out a creamy consistency - like thick whipping cream out of a carton. All other dry yeasts I've used (US05, S04, MJ US West Coast, MJ British Ale, Brewferm Blanche) have simply turned into a mostly watery consistency with the obvious dissolved yeast.

 

[boydster]

This is reason you shouldn't make a starter with dry yeast. The reliable and high cell count of dry yeast is also a good reason, but the above is why it can actually be harmful. Some of the experts he's talking about are the yeast manufacturers. They state that they put enough lipids in the membranes of the yeast to last for a number of generations of reproduction. This is why they also say you don't need to aerate your wort, because the yeast doesn't need the oxygen to create the lipids for their membranes because they have enough to last for all of the reproduction they will need to do. If you make a starter you will be depleting these lipids ahead of time with unnecessary reproduction.

If you rehydrate before pitching into the starter wort and use a stir plate, I don't see how the yeast would have any trouble building a larger healthy colony? The wort and O2 should give them all the nutrient they need shouldn't it? Can you help me understand?

I don't make starters with dry yeast. But I am interested in learning more about the little buggers whenever possible.

 

[Ridire]

IMO, the "cheaper" aspect is no longer relevant. Dry yeast is not as cheap as it was back when Mr Malty was published. It used to run in the $1.50 range and has since gone up about 3-fold ($4.50+). If I want to pay $9+ dollars for 2 sachets of yeast, I'll buy a liquid yeast for ~$7 and step it up with a little DME. I'll probably land about the same price point but I'll have many more choices of yeast to choose from plus not run the risk of viability loss upon pitching. The rest may be true regarding built-in lipids and higher cell count as long as you're rehydrating. In you're not rehydrating then there's too much evidence to suggest a significant reducing in cell count viability to count that as a benefit; which is NOT to say that you won't make good beer. Edit: I've used a few different dry sachets of yeast and rehydrated every time, and the only sachet than has produced what I would consider a "cream" was Nottingham (the only Danstar I've used). It truly came out a creamy consistency - like thick whipping cream out of a carton. All other dry yeasts I've used (US05, S04, MJ US West Coast, MJ British Ale, Brewferm Blanche) have simply turned into a mostly watery consistency with the obvious dissolved yeast.

So, all other variables being equal, are you saying dry yeast produces a more watery beer?

I have only ever used dry yeast but have a batch with liquid yeast bubbling right now ( the batch that led to this thread being created ). I am hoping it has a little more body than the extract porter I brewed as my first ever beer.

 

[boydster]

Jamil and Palmer talk about pitching a single vial/pack into a 5 gallon 1.040 ale being OK if it is very fresh off the line on a podcast I just listened to: http://s125483039.onlinehome.us/archive/bs_starters12-22-08.mp3 around 9mins into the podcast.

They go on to say "Pitch less to get esters, pitch more to get a cleaner beer." Again, this is not what I've done in the past with liquid yeast - I have made starters - but it jives with the book by Chris and Jamil as well as the article by Palmer that was posted earlier. I guess the real test is to get some "fresh-off-the-line" yeast from Wyeast or White Labs and try it out - there's the rub. Buying at a LHBS, you'll get something that almost necessarily isn't the freshest possible, and shipping to either your house or LHBS carries with it the risk that the yeast wasn't handled perfectly on the voyage. Hence, probably, why it is generally sound advice to make a starter... also, I don't make a lot of 1.040 beers, so there's that.

 

[stpug]

@ridire: No, sorry about giving that impression. I was referring to the actual yeast slurry that's created when re hydrating yeast being watery. The beers themselves have all been great, or as good as the recipe and process was that I used. I happen to be drinking a cream ale created with one of the mangrove jack yeasts right now and it's got great mouthful for a lightish beer with virtually no noticeable yeast character (British Ale m07). I dryhopped with 3/4 oz of Belma in hopes of boosting the head retention and giving a subtle strawberry/melon aroma. So far the head retention is incredible for such a light beer but not much fruit aroma, but it's only been dryhopped for 4days so there's time.

 

[logan3825]

IMO, the "cheaper" aspect is no longer relevant. Dry yeast is not as cheap as it was back when Mr Malty was published. It used to run in the $1.50 range and has since gone up about 3-fold ($4.50+). If I want to pay $9+ dollars for 2 sachets of yeast, I'll buy a liquid yeast for ~$7 and step it up with a little DME.

Where the heck do you buy your yeast? That is way expensive. You can get US-05 for $3.29 a pack at Northern Brewer. Figure half a pound extract for a starter at about $1.80 and you are looking at either $6.58 for 2 packs of yeast or $5.09 for one with a starter. You don't even need more than one pack in most cases. For $1.50 I am not messing around with a starter.