stir plate vs. none

Brewer's Friend 728
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.
B

brewstergalVT

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Has anyone done an experiment of their own to compare a starter using a stir plate to one grown without a stir plate? I did a quick search and couldn't find anything though maybe the answer is buried in a thread.

I know the norm is to use a stir plate but I'm just wondering in the end if there really is a difference besides quicker growth.

Thoughts? Opinions? I'd love to hear them!!
 
So the end difference is really nothing. It merely speeds up the reproduction process by providing high amounts of o2 and keeping the yeast from settling out. It was mainly a lab thing until homebrewers/pro brewers of course adopted it as it saves you time. Thats just Sacc. If we are talking Brett it doesn't need as much rousing. What I actually do with my Brett strains is I put a stir bar in the flask and then use a magnet to move it around once a day to stir up the yeast. Sacc however I run stir plates on.
 
jamaral141989 said:
So the end difference is really nothing. It merely speeds up the reproduction process by providing high amounts of o2 and keeping the yeast from settling out. It was mainly a lab thing until homebrewers/pro brewers of course adopted it as it saves you time. Thats just Sacc. If we are talking Brett it doesn't need as much rousing. What I actually do with my Brett strains is I put a stir bar in the flask and then use a magnet to move it around once a day to stir up the yeast. Sacc however I run stir plates on.
Click to expand...


Brettanomyces benefits from use of a stir plate just as much as Saccharomyces. The difference being that Brett can produce acetic acid in aerobic environments, so the starter wort might need to be decanted prior to pitching a propagated Brett culture.
 
I didn't mean to say it doesn't benefit from it. Just that it isn't needed as much in Brett, although in reality they aren't really needed at all if your willing to wait. Ideally you would use a orbital shaker with Brett to maintain a slow rotation. Any time I use Brett on my stir plates I run it on the slowest speed.
 
I looked at Mrmalty and Yeastcalc both show (as well as all the other calculators that I have looked at) that you can make smaller starters if you use the stirplate. Over the long run that would save you $$, using less DME.
 
I have had a stir plate for as long as I have been making starters so I can't offer any stir plate vs no stir plate data.
I will add that I propagate a lot of yeast from slants/plates and the growth I experience, substantiated by cell counts, is far less than predicted in the online calculators.
Even if I use the model predicting the least growth without a stir plate I typically come up short.
My days of plugging the numbers into the calculator and trusting the outcome are over.
The best advice I would give for making starters to promote growth is to keep your inoculation rates low 25-40 million cells per milliliter.
If your just looking to revitalize a sample then 100-150 or more million cells per milliliter is fine but I don't get substantial growth at those rates.
 
you can make your own stir plate for like 10 bucks. Just order a computer fan and some neodymium magnets and buy a chord and dimmer switch.

also according to wyeast you only want to leave a starter for 18-24 hours, longer than that is not good for the yeast. only mentioned because that second link/answer mentions leaving a starter for 2-3 days.
 
jamaral141989 said:
So the end difference is really nothing. It merely speeds up the reproduction process by providing high amounts of o2 and keeping the yeast from settling out. It was mainly a lab thing until homebrewers/pro brewers of course adopted it as it saves you time. Thats just Sacc. If we are talking Brett it doesn't need as much rousing. What I actually do with my Brett strains is I put a stir bar in the flask and then use a magnet to move it around once a day to stir up the yeast. Sacc however I run stir plates on.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured, that it's just a time saver. So really, how much of a time saver are we talking about?

I've got a microscope but no stir plate but it seems many are the opposite: stir plate but no microscope. I was hoping there was some beer nerd out there that has done (or would do) an experiment to test the difference. Any takers?
 
The accepted time frame is 18-24 hours on a stirplate and 36-48 hours, sometimes more, with intermittent shaking.

Again, another difference is that the constant addition of oxygen using a stirplate helps the yeast reproduce so you can make a smaller starter with equivalent cell counts.

You can make a stirplate for about $10. Then you just "set it and forget it!" No need to think about swirling it up every time you pass by.
 
brewstergalVT said:
That's what I figured, that it's just a time saver. So really, how much of a time saver are we talking about?

I've got a microscope but no stir plate but it seems many are the opposite: stir plate but no microscope. I was hoping there was some beer nerd out there that has done (or would do) an experiment to test the difference. Any takers?
Click to expand...

Check the link I posted. Starter vs no starter.
 
DurtyChemist said:
Check the link I posted. Starter vs no starter.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I don't think the OP is questioning building a starter, but rather using a stir plate vs not using a stir plate for said starter.

Like others have said, you can make your own stir plate dirt cheap. Definitely cheaper than what a good 2L + flask will run you lol. I think Denny Conn is in the "meh, no need for a stir plate" crowd. In his podcasts, he's said he uses his stir plate less and less and just goes by the jug shaking/swirling as you walk by method.

I can't say either way. Like most here, I use a stir plate only because it seemed the norm and I don't know any better. I list Denny's method for reference and only to say that some of the "big name" home brewers don't necessarily believe a stir plate is required. In a nutshell, I'm like the OP...I don't know...
 
chunkwagon said:
I could be wrong, but I don't think the OP is questioning building a starter, but rather using a stir plate vs not using a stir plate for said starter.

Like others have said, you can make your own stir plate dirt cheap. Definitely cheaper than what a good 2L + flask will run you lol. I think Denny Conn is in the "meh, no need for a stir plate" crowd. In his podcasts, he's said he uses his stir plate less and less and just goes by the jug shaking/swirling as you walk by method.

I can't say either way. Like most here, I use a stir plate only because it seemed the norm and I don't know any better. I list Denny's method for reference and only to say that some of the "big name" home brewers don't necessarily believe a stir plate is required. In a nutshell, I'm like the OP...I don't know...
Click to expand...

Correct. My question is not about starter vs. no starter, it's stir plate vs. no stir plate.

I've not seen Denny Conn podcast but it sounds interesting. Do you happen to have a link handy?

I'm not much of a gadget person unless I know it will actually help me make better beer. Maybe I question things too much but I like to have proof that what I'm doing is worth the time & effort for better beer.
 
brewstergalVT said:
Has anyone done an experiment of their own to compare a starter using a stir plate to one grown without a stir plate? ....
Click to expand...

Yes. Braukaiser has done lots of excellent work on this topic.

Here is a presentation of his from 2013.

The TL,DR version

Yeast growth in a starter (final biomass of yeast)

Stirred>shaken>no agitation


growth_over_stir_speed.gif


More from his excellent trove of info here
 
brewstergalVT said:
Correct. My question is not about starter vs. no starter, it's stir plate vs. no stir plate.

I've not seen Denny Conn podcast but it sounds interesting. Do you happen to have a link handy?

I'm not much of a gadget person unless I know it will actually help me make better beer. Maybe I question things too much but I like to have proof that what I'm doing is worth the time & effort for better beer.
Click to expand...


Podcasts: https://www.experimentalbrew.com/podcast
And just to be clear. I don't think Denny denies that there aren't benefits to using a stir plate, I think his point was that they aren't required. You'd have to go back and listen to some of the casts. I don't recall which one it was where he talked about his plate sitting on the shelf more and getting less use.
I'm a gadget guy, so I do enjoy using my stir plate. It's easier for me because once it's on the plate, I'm done with it till I pitch, plus I know from using a plate, my pitches are good with lots of healthy yeast.
 
Thanks for the links to Kai's experiments and for the link to Denny's podcast! I appreciate your help!
 
I found myself in a position to split a propagation I have going of Wyeast 3522.
I would guess I had 40 billion cells in 500 milliliters of wort that was at the tail end of fermentation.
I split that into two 2,000 milliliter flasks with 1,500 milliliters of fresh wort in each. One on a stir plate and the other setting next to it. I will shake the non stir plate sample when convenient and when they are done I will do a cell count from each and post the results.
 
sky4meplease said:
I found myself in a position to split a propagation I have going of Wyeast 3522.
I would guess I had 40 billion cells in 500 milliliters of wort that was at the tail end of fermentation.
I split that into two 2,000 milliliter flasks with 1,500 milliliters of fresh wort in each. One on a stir plate and the other setting next to it. I will shake the non stir plate sample when convenient and when they are done I will do a cell count from each and post the results.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's great! Thanks for doing the experiment, I look forward to reading your results!!
 
So you want to see a 10 gallon batch split between a stir plate and just pitching a vial into a growler and shaken whenever a brewer remembers or would you just pitch into a growler and let it sit without shaking? Are you looking to see how fermentation is different (just OG & FG) or are you wanting to know if the taste is different between pitching a higher number of cells?

I have been meaning to brew 10 gallons so depending on what I have going on this weekend I MIGHT be able to do this. I think it could make for an interesting experiment plus it gets me brewing. Maybe I'll just keep it in mind for future brews and report back...if I remember this thread.
 
Gavin C said:
Yes. Braukaiser has done lots of excellent work on this topic.

Here is a presentation of his from 2013.

The TL,DR version

Yeast growth in a starter (final biomass of yeast)

Stirred>shaken>no agitation


growth_over_stir_speed.gif


More from his excellent trove of info here
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. Other research shows that they all reach the final biomass, the stir plate just does it faster. And, as shown in this blog, the experiment by Chris White on this subject (which is used for the famous Mr. Malty calculator), was really conducted in an unrealistic setting where the stir plate was bound to work better.

http://www.woodlandbrew.com/2015/02/yeast-starters-stirred-vs-not.html?m=1
 
masaba said:
...Other research shows that they all reach the final biomass, the stir plate just does it faster. And, as shown in this blog, the experiment by Chris White on this subject (which is used for the famous Mr. Malty calculator), was really conducted in an unrealistic setting where the stir plate was bound to work better.

http://www.woodlandbrew.com/2015/02/yeast-starters-stirred-vs-not.html?m=1
Click to expand...

Steven Deeds' limited data is often cited in these types of discussion as rebuttal to the conclusion garnered from Braukaiser's and others' work.

I'm curious why you agree with him that the Mr.Malty data and Chris White's chosen experimental model was unrealistic. I've not seen Mr. Malty data published. What was unrealistic about the model to you?

I don't share your interpretation of the Woodland data but I have no doubt others do.

But let's for sake of argument, assume it is accurate data; stirring only speeds up the process but will not result in more biomass.

I would counter by stating that a starter sitting there for 48+ hours versus one that's done in under half the time if stirred is potentially beneficial for a variety of reasons.

Putting cell numbers aside again brewers' yeast viability is shown to be improved via growth in an agitated media over one that is not agitated. That is all outlined in the 2013 paper I linked.

I've no dog in this fight. I just don't view the work done by Woodland and Braukaiser to be in the same league.
 
Gavin C said:
Steven Deeds' limited data is often cited in these types of discussion as rebuttal to the conclusion garnered from Braukaiser's and others' work.

I'm curious why you agree with him that the Mr.Malty data and Chris White's chosen experimental model was unrealistic. I've not seen Mr. Malty data published. What was unrealistic about the model to you?

I don't share your interpretation of the Woodland data but I have no doubt others do.

But let's for sake of argument, assume it is accurate data; stirring only speeds up the process but will not result in more biomass.

I would counter by stating that a starter sitting there for 48+ hours versus one that's done in under half the time if stirred is potentially beneficial for a variety of reasons.

Putting cell numbers aside again brewers' yeast viability is shown to be improved via growth in an agitated media over one that is not agitated. That is all outlined in the 2013 paper I linked.

I've no dog in this fight. I just don't view the work done by Woodland and Braukaiser to be in the same league.
Click to expand...

Hey Gavin, thanks for responding. I really enjoyed your article in Zymurgy. I'm like you, I don't have a dog in this fight either, but I at least would like to let people know the variety of stuff out there so that they can make their own informed opinion. You are also correct that time for the starter to complete is an important factor! With that said, I will continue:

As far as I know, Steven is the only one who plots yeast growth vs. time in a starter culture. I skimmed Brukaiser's .ppt that you linked, and I cannot find how long he left the starters running. This should be on page 14 (his experimental setup page), but it is not. He mentions 'days old' a few times in the .ppt, but I believe this is a reference to how old the pack of yeast that he pitched was. He does plot some timelines in page 30 and 28, but unfortunately, these appear to be for fermentation and not comparisons of stir plate vs. agitation. So, since Steven is the only one who has actually gives results plotting yeast growth vs. time for different starter methods, I at least pay attention to it.

I think that it is up to each individual to figure out what works for them, but they should at least know all of the blog experiments that are out there in making up their mind.
 
masaba said:
...

As far as I know, Steven is the only one who plots yeast growth vs. time in a starter culture. ...
Click to expand...

Thanks mate and I think it's just fine to put forward an alternate view.


I've yet to read any data that is in agreement with Woodland's findings WRT stirring v not
 
DurtyChemist said:
So you want to see a 10 gallon batch split between a stir plate and just pitching a vial into a growler and shaken whenever a brewer remembers or would you just pitch into a growler and let it sit without shaking? Are you looking to see how fermentation is different (just OG & FG) or are you wanting to know if the taste is different between pitching a higher number of cells?

I have been meaning to brew 10 gallons so depending on what I have going on this weekend I MIGHT be able to do this. I think it could make for an interesting experiment plus it gets me brewing. Maybe I'll just keep it in mind for future brews and report back...if I remember this thread.
Click to expand...

What you propose is different from what I was asking but still a very interesting experiment as it takes things one step further. Of course the end result is what most homebrewers are interested in improving so your idea is great. I would say shake the non-stir plate starter as that's what I think most of us do that don't have a stir plate. If you end up doing it, maybe consider doing a triangle test with the two beers when all is done. Thanks for your interest!
 
brewstergalVT said:
Wow, that's great! Thanks for doing the experiment, I look forward to reading your results!!
Click to expand...


Well the stir plate starter definitely finished well ahead of the shaken sample by 12-18 hours.
Additionally, the cell counts showed significantly more growth in the stir plated starter.
I let both run for 36 hours then homogenized and pulled a 10ml sample from each. Both samples were equally diluted before counting.
I will admit that 3522 is a highly flocculant strain and may not have been the best choice for this experiment.
Had I let the shaken sample run longer it may have built up a few more cells but it would have never caught up to the stir plate version. When I decant I will check gravity.
If I have more opportunities in the future for further testing I will report back.
I would be curious if one had an oxygen set up placed in the starter and turned on periodically what the results would be. I do this when I make large starters in 5 gallon buckets because I can't get them on a stir plate.
Honestly I think a long slow injection of O2 or periodic injections may be better than a stir plate but I don't have any data to support that.
 
Thanks Gavin C and sky4meplease for the info. I've already changed my practice a bit to help the yeast based on what both of you have shared. I had been doing my starters in a 2L mason jar fitted with a plastic screw on lid drilled and fitted with a grommet and airlock. The currently growing starter I have covered with a double layer of paper towels (initially sprayed with vodka), secured with a rubber band and a loose cover of aluminum foil (just because I'm scared). Shaking it as often as I can. Thanks again for your help!!
 
brewstergalVT said:
Thanks Gavin C and sky4meplease for the info. I've already changed my practice a bit to help the yeast based on what both of you have shared. I had been doing my starters in a 2L mason jar fitted with a plastic screw on lid drilled and fitted with a grommet and airlock. The currently growing starter I have covered with a double layer of paper towels (initially sprayed with vodka), secured with a rubber band and a loose cover of aluminum foil (just because I'm scared). Shaking it as often as I can. Thanks again for your help!!
Click to expand...


In order of importance I would suggest:
Make a starter!
Feed the yeast oxygen by stir plate, shaking or injection.
Try to keep inoculation rates 20-60 million cells per milliliter to maximize propagation over 60 million per milliliter to revitalize.
Keep the starter warm 70-75 degrees.

Additionally, I believe once the yeast get going they are pushing CO2 out so fast that O2 intake is virtually impossible unless it is injected. If you have a way to do feed the yeast oxygen by all means do so.
I think the reason stir plates do as well as they do is the slow intake of O2 in the early stages promoting health/growth and the circulation of the yeast in the later stages encouraging speed of propagation.
 

Similar threads

G
For Sale Grainfather, BEERMKR, stir plate, Kegs, bottles for sale- north of Houston
Replies
3
Views
666
Greg R
G
N
My Experience with SS Brewtech
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
ninkwood
N
Rob2010SS
Plate Chiller found on Spike Nano vs Exchillerator Brutus Counterflow
Replies
1
Views
897
SpikeBrewing
SpikeBrewing
S
Geothermal glycol chiller
Replies
10
Views
2K
Broken Crow
Broken Crow
Hop
Ongoing Review: BrewHardware Premium Recirculating BIAB Package
Replies
4
Views
967
Bobby_M
Bobby_M
Brewer's Friend 300

Latest posts

Back
Top