White Labs Response to Starters

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.

Toy4Rick

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
451
Reaction score
111
Location
Vista
Hey Brew Buddies,

I reached out to White Labs to ask about their new yeast packaging, shelf life and while I was at it, I asked about why they don't recommend a yeast starter, just pitch and go, here is their response

"Pitching rates apply to re-pitching yeast, not fresh healthy yeast. That is why you do not need to do a starter for our yeast for beers under 1070. You certainly can, but you do not have to because our yeast is very viable and vital."

Don't want to trigger a starter war here, however I wonder how the yeast mfg and the brewing public ended up on opposites sides of this topic

Thoughts?
Rick
 
I guess that the implication there is that re-pitched yeast is neither fresh nor healthy. Hmmmmm.
 
I guess that the implication there is that re-pitched yeast is neither fresh nor healthy. Hmmmmm.

OR maybe they're adding enough cells to hit attenuation levels without a starter. Historically the point of making a starter was to ensure you had enough yeast cells. Gigayeast out of belmont says their packs have 200 billion cells so you don't need a starter.
 
Hey Brew Buddies,

I reached out to White Labs to ask about their new yeast packaging, shelf life and while I was at it, I asked about why they don't recommend a yeast starter, just pitch and go, here is their response

"Pitching rates apply to re-pitching yeast, not fresh healthy yeast. That is why you do not need to do a starter for our yeast for beers under 1070. You certainly can, but you do not have to because our yeast is very viable and vital."

Don't want to trigger a starter war here, however I wonder how the yeast mfg and the brewing public ended up on opposites sides of this topic

Thoughts?
Rick

Doesn't this have a lot to do with how old the package is??
It seems to me they are tooting their horn a little too much. Or maybe the new packaging really contains more yeast. It didn't sound like they were going to contain more cells when I read about it.

But then again you don't have to make a starter with any current package. It will ferment the beer. Just not in the best way.
 
I am not aware of any claims that the new pkg contains more cells and their current pkg contains approx. 100B so maybe you are right, it makes beer however...

IMO, I found my beer was noticeably better when I started making starters. Maybe it's just in my head but it seems to work for me

Rick
 
For the vast majority of people, it really isn't. Especially if you bottom harvest.

I agree with you. I just found it odd that they would imply that.

Perhaps the OP should have asked them just how many vibrant, perky, lively "new" yeast cells there are in one of their new packs.
 
Another thought.
The vials state they are ready to pitch as is into a 5 gallon batch. And they want to sell more yeast. Thus it is better to buy more of their yeast than to make a starter for a big beer or to harvest yeast for reuse.

Just sayin'....
 
Hey Brew Buddies,

I reached out to White Labs to ask about their new yeast packaging, shelf life and while I was at it, I asked about why they don't recommend a yeast starter, just pitch and go, here is their response

"Pitching rates apply to re-pitching yeast, not fresh healthy yeast. That is why you do not need to do a starter for our yeast for beers under 1070. You certainly can, but you do not have to because our yeast is very viable and vital."

Don't want to trigger a starter war here, however I wonder how the yeast mfg and the brewing public ended up on opposites sides of this topic

Thoughts?
Rick

I asked Jamil the same question after reading Yeast, since he and Chris White wrote the book together and it states basically the same thing you wrote above.
My question to Jamil:
I am reading the book you wrote with Chris White, and it discusses a pitch rate of ~1 million cells per milliliter per degree plato (.75 million for ales and 1.5 million for lagers) and then states that when using a fresh laboratory culture you can actually pitch at about half that rate. I also read a BYO article by John Palmer that states basically the same thing. On the Mr. Malty calculator, my understanding from using it is that it is telling me to pitch at the suggested rate for harvested yeast even if I am using a fresh vial or smack pack.

If I am making 5 gallons of beer (ale, for the sake of argument) with an OG of 1.060, and assuming I intend to purchase brand new, well-handled yeast, should I pitch 1 vial with ~100 billion cells (as the book seems to indicate would be appropriate) or should I be pitching closer to 200 billion cells either by making a starter or pitching a second vial (as the website seems to indicate)?

Jamil's response was this:
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

Given that they wrote the book together, you'd think they would be somewhat closer to being on the same page with something like pitch rate, but their answers are pretty far apart. Clear as mud, right? :)
 
The response may have been from a sales person, not someone knowledgeable about yeast.
White Labs does say viability decreases with the age of the yeast. A valid response would also need to consider how production date of the yeast relates to the fermentation of a big beer.
 
Given that they wrote the book together, you'd think they would be somewhat closer to being on the same page with something like pitch rate, but their answers are pretty far apart. Clear as mud, right? :)[/QUOTE]

I think Jamil is suggesting, why not make a starter, its pretty cheap insurance against break downs in the supply chain.

I think Chris White is a business owner and is trying to compete with the ease of use of dry yeast. With all the dry yeast that are becoming available, I bet there is stiff competition in the Chico, Saison and English Ale market. Especially, when we are comoditizing WLP001/Wyeast1056/US-05. Essentially, us brewers have been saying they are all the same for a while now, why not go with the cheaper, easier to pitch US-05? Or Belle Saison Dry Yeast, or S-04? I think White Labs is trying to say, "Hey brewers you can straight pitch our yeast too!"

Although, you always need to add o2 with liquid yeast, dry yeast is already packed with what it needs to multiply - or so I've read.
 
The response may have been from a sales person, not someone knowledgeable about yeast.
White Labs does say viability decreases with the age of the yeast. A valid response would also need to consider how production date of the yeast relates to the fermentation of a big beer.

And also, "Do you want to make beer? Or do you want to make "perfect" beer?"

I don't do starters, mostly because I'm lazy (so before anyone flames me I admit to the laziness). My beer turns out, and the beers that had problems, was most likely not because of yeast viability or my pitch rate. Usually had more to do with other process issues along the way and learning (jumped right into all grain after 2nd extract batch). I'll probably eventually get into making starters in the next 6 months as I'm starting to work out kinks in my process. I'm sure theres been award winning beers that the brewer didn't use a starter, probably not as often as the reverse, but, it depends on what your goals are and the amount of time you wanna invest. (Yeah, no excuse necessarily since it is easy, but, I mostly just brew for myself and a handful of friends/family)
 
Or, if you want the character that they have indicated the yeast will provide, then you pitch according to their tested results within their specified limits.

Just saying ...
 
I agree with what ArkotR. said. If you underpitch, you may get some fruitiness from stressing the yeast, or some other unwanted side-effect. It can be subtle, so if you're not entering contests, it probably doesn't matter.
 
I tend to be in the starter camp myself. I use both Jamil's calc and the one at yeastcalculator.com alternatively to get an idea of growth rate, pitch rate, etc. based on the beer I'm making. There are just too many things in the supply chain that can impact viability of the yeast (heat, handling, age, etc.)

I've had very few "duds" from White Labs over the years. They're a great company with a superior product. But that being said, I have had a couple of them. And in each case my starter regimen allowed me to find out I had a clunker before a put 5-10 gallons of beer at risk for a poor fermentation.

Ferreting out bad/dead yeast aside, pitching rate matters. At least it has in my end product. I get better attenuation and a significant reduction to full elimination of any undesired flavors and aromas when I pitch a properly-sized, fresh, active starter for the beer I'm brewing. Well, that plus proper temperature control.

I've had a few one-on-one discussions with Jamil and a handful of other pro brewers. Across the board, each of them has taken the time to convince me that fermentation is where the distinction between good and great beer lies. Pitch a proper amount of healthy yeast and design your temperature schedule with your end goal in mind, and you've won a large part of the battle.

As Jamil points out, a starter is cheap insurance and proof of viability. Additionally, I can make a starter that will ensure I reach my desired pitching rate, often decreasing the amount of pre-packaged yeast I have to buy.

For less than $100, I purchased everything I would need to make canned starter wort. With a pressure canner and a couple of packages of both pint and quart canning jars, I can make up several jars of canned wort in an afternoon. I usually buy a 3# bag of DME and just make cans of starter until I run out. In a couple hours, I have enough shelf stable starter wort to last me several batches of beer. That takes the process of making a starter down to about 10 min when I am ready to start propagating prior to brewday. I just grab an appropriate # of jars of room temp wort, sanitize my flask, dump in the wort, hit it with a little O2, pitch the yeast and pop it on the stirplate.

The night before I brew, I put the finished starter in the fridge to cold crash. When I start my brew session, I decant the starter, give it a pint of fresh starter wort from one of my jars and place it in the fermentation fridge at my desired fermentation temp.

By the time I am done chilling my main wort, the starter has already woken back up and is actively fermenting. I let fermentation go at my desired temp until things begin to slow down. Then, even with ales, I ramp my temp up by 1F per day or so until I am about 3-4F above my main fermentation temp. Using this process, I've had great results in terms of attenuation as well as hitting my desired flavor and aroma profile.

Getting this involved with the process is not for everybody. But for me, I like what I've been tasting since I started spending more time focusing on the fermentation side of things. Direct pitching a White Labs vial will, in almost ever case, make beer. I've even used the direct pitch process to make some really good beer.

But increasing pitch rate and controlling fermentation temps makes better beer for me every time (unless I do something stupid that has nothing to do with pitching rate or temp control) :eek:
 
Could you elaborate on canning starter wort. I harvest yeast and think the canned wort would be an excellent time saver. I guess the time you have the canned goods under pressure would be my most concern. Thanks.
 
Could you elaborate on canning starter wort. I harvest yeast and think the canned wort would be an excellent time saver. I guess the time you have the canned goods under pressure would be my most concern. Thanks.

I do my canned starter wort in quart mason jars. Simply put the DME and filtered water in the jar then shake. Follow basic pressure cooking steps and precautions. Take your time. 15 minutes at 15psi (255*F).

Once they're done and cooled, the contents of the jar are not under pressure but are actually under a bit of a vacuum. The lid sucked in is how you know you've got a good seal.
 
I was just on the White Labs website last week...and although I find this topic interesting, White labs has instructions on their website for making yeast starters for ales and for lagers.
 
I do my canned starter wort in quart mason jars. Simply put the DME and filtered water in the jar then shake. Follow basic pressure cooking steps and precautions. Take your time. 15 minutes at 15psi (255*F).



Once they're done and cooled, the contents of the jar are not under pressure but are actually under a bit of a vacuum. The lid sucked in is how you know you've got a good seal.


This is what I do as well. 15 min at 15 psi. There is a home brew club in California called the Maltose Falcons. Google their site. Once you get to their site, search for canning or starter. There is a great article about it. I use that as my guide


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
Honestly I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are making something that should have a bit of fruitiness then you can pitch directly. If you want a "cleaner" profile then you should up the cells in an ideal setting so that they have less to produce during the fermentation. Jamil claiming that a starter is cheap insurance that you have good yeast is really just him dodging the question. A starter has nothing to do with proof of life for yeast. If I was to direct pitch and not see activity in 72 hours then I would go get another vial and pitch again. Same thing would happen with a starter. Ultimately there is no "wrong" way to make beer. There are better and worse ways but if you like the beer you are making then I see no reason to modify what you are doing based on what experts say.
 
...I think Chris White is a business owner and is trying to compete with the ease of use of dry yeast. With all the dry yeast that are becoming available, I bet there is stiff competition in the Chico, Saison and English Ale market. Especially, when we are comoditizing WLP001/Wyeast1056/US-05. Essentially, us brewers have been saying they are all the same for a while now, why not go with the cheaper, easier to pitch US-05? Or Belle Saison Dry Yeast, or S-04? I think White Labs is trying to say, "Hey brewers you can straight pitch our yeast too!"

Yes I don't see why anyone would waste their time with liquid 001 or 1056 when there is US05 but nobody has put out a decent dry English yeast yet - Its not worth wasting a brew day only to dump S-04, Nottingham or windsor into your wort. If you are going to brew something english its worth the time, money and hassle of wlp002, wy1968, wy1318, or wy1469.
 
Yes I don't see why anyone would waste their time with liquid 001 or 1056 when there is US05 but nobody has put out a decent dry English yeast yet - Its not worth wasting a brew day only to dump S-04, Nottingham or windsor into your wort. If you are going to brew something english its worth the time, money and hassle of wlp002, wy1968, wy1318, or wy1469.

I use WLP001 because I have done a side by side comparison of the three yeasts that are supposedly the same strain (WLP001, Wyeast 1056, US-05), I can taste minor differences between the three of them when fermenting the same wort in the same temperature conditions.
 
I use WLP001 because I have done a side by side comparison of the three yeasts that are supposedly the same strain (WLP001, Wyeast 1056, US-05), I can taste minor differences between the three of them when fermenting the same wort in the same temperature conditions.


I agree completely. If I'm fermenting in the upper 60s, say for a pale ale or ipa, us05 is just fine. But if I take it below 64f, uS05 gets really peachy for me. 001 on the other hand, performs much cleaner in the low 60s for me


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 
Honestly I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are making something that should have a bit of fruitiness then you can pitch directly. If you want a "cleaner" profile then you should up the cells in an ideal setting so that they have less to produce during the fermentation. Jamil claiming that a starter is cheap insurance that you have good yeast is really just him dodging the question. A starter has nothing to do with proof of life for yeast. If I was to direct pitch and not see activity in 72 hours then I would go get another vial and pitch again. Same thing would happen with a starter. Ultimately there is no "wrong" way to make beer. There are better and worse ways but if you like the beer you are making then I see no reason to modify what you are doing based on what experts say.

Not to mention that even if you do direct pitch, if your fermentation temps are really regular or in the mid-ish 60s, you may still avoid any fruitiness. I pitched 1469 West Yorkshire and the bag definitely didn't swell as much as I've seen other bags (It was a couple months past its best time, but thats my own fault and figured, oh what the hell, itll ferment anyway). The Newcastle Werewolf clone I made with this yeast finished where I expected it to finish, and fermented around 68F, you would expect a lot more fruitiness to come out. Came out very clean.

(I don't know where my notes are right now, but it was over 1.050 and finished I think around 1.012ish)
 
A starter has nothing to do with proof of life for yeast. If I was to direct pitch and not see activity in 72 hours then I would go get another vial and pitch again. Same thing would happen with a starter.

I'm not sure I agree. I think starters are very useful for identifying DOA yeast before risking a full batch of beer on it.

Last winter, I ordered a vial of White Labs English Ale yeast. When I got home from work, the parcel was in our mailbox, having sat out there all day in -25° C weather. The yeast, of course, was frozen solid. I set the vial on my countertop for a day to slowly thaw out and warm up. I prepared a starter (from canned wort) and put it on the stir plate 3 days before brewing.

I never saw a krausen, but I know English Ale strains can sometimes ferment out quite quickly. So I finished my usual protocol, cold-crashing it the night before brewing.

On brew day, because I'd had my doubts, I checked the gravity of the starter. It was still 1.040. The yeast hadn't done a thing. So after I finished brewing up my beer, I rehydrated a pitched a packet of S-04 and was fermenting away a few hours later.

If I hadn't bothered with the starter and just pitched the yeast directly, then yes, after 72 hours, I could've declared it dead and pitched another vial. But by that point, any contaminants in the wort would've had 3 full days to get a foothold and have their way with my precious wort. It's undeniably better to get the correct pitch of healthy yeast into that wort as soon as possible, to outcompete any other foreign elements that would otherwise spoil your beer.
 
I'm not sure I agree. I think starters are very useful for identifying DOA yeast before risking a full batch of beer on it.

Last winter, I ordered a vial of White Labs English Ale yeast. When I got home from work, the parcel was in our mailbox, having sat out there all day in -25° C weather. The yeast, of course, was frozen solid. I set the vial on my countertop for a day to slowly thaw out and warm up. I prepared a starter (from canned wort) and put it on the stir plate 3 days before brewing.

I never saw a krausen, but I know English Ale strains can sometimes ferment out quite quickly. So I finished my usual protocol, cold-crashing it the night before brewing.

On brew day, because I'd had my doubts, I checked the gravity of the starter. It was still 1.040. The yeast hadn't done a thing. So after I finished brewing up my beer, I rehydrated a pitched a packet of S-04 and was fermenting away a few hours later.

If I hadn't bothered with the starter and just pitched the yeast directly, then yes, after 72 hours, I could've declared it dead and pitched another vial. But by that point, any contaminants in the wort would've had 3 full days to get a foothold and have their way with my precious wort. It's undeniably better to get the correct pitch of healthy yeast into that wort as soon as possible, to outcompete any other foreign elements that would otherwise spoil your beer.

I was wrong to make such a blanket statement. Your anecdote definitely shows that a starter can help people reach a best practices mentality with yeast. However I don't think 3 days with dead yeast would cause problems for a well prepared wort. I don't think a starter was even necessary in this instance to call the yeast DOA.
 
Back
Top