Bells yeast starter

Well I am trying a two hearted clone. I have never done a starter or used yeast from a six pack. I collected from all six beers and cooled two weeks ago. I brought the mason jar out to warm 48 hours ago. 24 hours ago I dropped in cooled LME that was room temp. I put in about two cups that was prob about1.050 OG. I didn't measure it. I have not seen it fire up yet. I have cellophane on top of mason jar. See any problems? How long till action? I want to brew approx 72 hours after wort was added to yeast collection. Is that possible? Anyone know temp that bells yeast works. I have warned it up in warm water to try and kick it into gear. I have read the long clone TH thread but don't recall a temp.

 

To clarify, the LME was boiled and added like it should be. It read kinda funny, thought I should clarify.

 

Temp is normal. Mid 70's or so for propagation. You have two big problems I can see. First, Two hearted is not good to clone from (although some have been successful). The high alcohol and hops content severely stresses the yeast. They use the same yeast for almost all their ales. Try Amber or Pale Ale instead. Two, that starter wort gravity is WAY too high. You should start the dregs in a small volume of 1.020 wort (maybe 25-50mL) and step it up from there. I did 25>500mL>1.5L. It takes a good while though. Took me two weeks. No way you will have enough in 3 days, especially from Two Hearted bottles.

 

Ya I thought the starter was too big. It is actually amber yeast. I called it bells yeast but never actually say its from two hearted. Well, should I dilute the whole sample with some boiled water? I plan on doing this Sunday but maybe that not going to happen. I could also decant the wort off the top, then dilute that sounds better i would still leave some sugars.

 

Diluting it would be ok, but they're not going to like to grow up in that huge volume. Certainly not by Sunday.

 

Last Tuesday night I made a two quart starter of 1.030 wort, and added the dregs of three bottles of Bell's Amber Ale. Today, about 2PM I found this, next Tuesday I will step it up and brew a centennial IPA a week from tomorrow.

 

Looks good, but get that airlock off of there. Needs oxygen for efficient replication.

 

I did an amber ale with the Bells yeast recently, and it didn't like it when it dipped to 64*. The beer was a little under-attenuated and the bottles stored at my buddy's warmer house have overcarb'ed.

I saw a thread where somebody mentioned the temperatures displayed on the fermentors at Bells, and they were pretty warm (obviously the Oberon wheat, but the 2-hearted as well).

 

I'd guess 66* is the best place for less esters, and 72* would still be drinkable. The flavor started off a little fruity, but mellowed out pretty clean.

 

It has to due with the hydrostatic pressure on the yeast because of the tall fermenters. They can get away with brewing at temps that most homebrewers cannot because of the pressure.

 

Really? I understand the oxygen issue, but what would you suggest in place of an airlock? Seems weird to me to try to culture a small amount of yeast in an open vessel where propagation from a much more vigorous bacteria could contaminate and kill off said yeast culture.

Please explain.

 

Use loosely fitting tin foil instead. This will allow gas exchange needed for yeast starters while keeping the bad bugs out.

 

Yep. Sanitized foil, loosely fitted on top. Bugs can't "fall" into your starter by going under the foil and up around the lid. We use setups like that in lab all the time.

 

Thanks for the advice, I have seen that in threads and books and videos and always worried about contamination. I have always used the airlock and gotten good results, I harvest Bells Yeast for all of my Centennial IPA's. Even the starters I do I use the airlock, with great results. The process I use works for me and I like it, so I think I will stick with it.

 

That's fine but you're hamstringing your own yeast production. I work in a lab that routinely cultures yeast with loose fitting foil (as well as every other lab I have ever seen). They literally never get contaminated. Thousands of cultures. Of course your way will produce yeast, but they will only replicate until the oxygen is gone, then they will just ferment. It's not going to hurt anything other than ending up with lower numbers than you would otherwise.

 

Okay yes I see your point and I am sure your correct, but I don't have a lab for growing yeast I have a closet and a cat and two dogs and two curious grandchildren, and the security is not really up to par. Lost several starters to curiosity already, beer smelling, sticky, crying grandchildren do not please grandmother and I have discovered that cats and dogs really like beer yeast.
I may give the foil a try when I have a more secure facility for growing yeast in the summer. Right now the brew room and fermenter/storage area is too cold (48F) to do much other than cold crash before I bottle.
Lets do an experiment. I will be using the yeast I have now on Sunday for a Centennial IPA (recipe I have repeated with consistency). I will document the process and the results. Then I will repeat and change only the method of growing yeast (use of foil vs. air lock). If I get better FG (all else remaining consistent) then I will document and report back.

 

Subpar brew room security. That's a new one. I would be surprised if it changed the FG. The reality is that all it's going to do is make it take longer (i.e. more steps) for you to get the same volume of yeast. I'm sure it'll still work. Especially if it keeps the cat out!

 

Pablo's right. the yeast won't get contaminated due to the use of foil. i'm willing to bet most of us use foil and don't airlock our starters. i have cats, a dog, several aquariums and a few reptiles, i foil all my starters and don't have infection issues. air locking your starter, however, will eliminate the ability to introduce o2 via air when swirling or stir plating, thus inhibiting ythe growth rate of the yeast. i'd suggest if you're air locking your starters, to make them a bit larger than MrMalty suggests, that way you can get some added growth from the added volume. that said, not air locking your starters would be the best way to go, IMO.

 

I stepped up that harvested Bell's yeast starter last night and cleared a space on the top shelf in my bedroom closet (where the security is lacking) and I foiled it as you have suggested. By morning it was growing yeast, did not smell like fermentation, smelled like yeast so I am going to conclude I will get more yeast growth. And I say Thank You for talking me into trying this... So I pitch more yeast I am wondering if that will create more attenuation or faster fermentation? Or Both?

 

probably a faster, healthier fermentation.

 

Agree with Nordeast, faster, healthier, happier fermentation. My Bell's yeast got so excited last night they came bubbling out of the airlock!! Calmed down this morning though.

 

niiiiiice!! :rockin: i had a really healthy krausen with my Bell's yeast. i finally got to bottle the first two gal of my IPA (the other three are happily dry hopping a second time), man was it tasty going into bottles. still quite a lot of yeast up in suspension, and it spent 3 weeks in primary @ ~62. i won't know for sure until i get to drink some, but the yeast behaves very similar to 1056, in the fermenter, when it comes to attenuation and with it's unwillingness to flocc.

 

How does it taste compared to 1056? A lot of people say it's a little fruitier.

 

so far, it's hard to say, the beer was quite young and very hoppy after the first week of dry hopping. it very well could be a bit fruitier. i'll let ya know when i start cracking the bottles.