Can we address the dry yeast yeast starter concept again?

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

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

hopjuice_71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
374
Reaction score
372

mediant beat me to it. I went down a rabbit hole of reading the primary literature regarding activated dry yeast (ADY) performance. I found this paper as well. One might criticize this study because it was performed by Lallemand; however, several other studies performed by academic researchers back up many aspects of this (though focus only on gen 0).

By way of summary, significant performance differences have only been associated with lager strains, and the nature of the performance differences is inconsistent between reports. Importantly, genetic stability, and indeed INCREASED genetic stability relative to liquid cultured counterparts, has been repeatedly associated with ADY, meaning it is no more prone, and possibly even less prone, to generating undesirable petite mutations.

Initially, viability is an issue with ADY (anywhere from 50-80% viability); however, this is clearly not an issue with subsequent generations. Regarding the initial dry pitch, if viability is accounted for in pitch rates, the abundance of dead cells is no more than what would be added in a dose of yeast nutrient.

At the end of the day, having read all these studies, I personally have no reservations using a starter for ADY or repitching.
 

mongoose33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
8,104
Reaction score
8,045
Location
Platteville, WI
So....we have two different.....views, opinions, evidence....from both @Denny and @mediant . I've been working a lot trying to understand yeast--maybe a fool's errand on my part :)--so I turned to my "Yeast" book co-authored by Chris White and Jamil Zainasheff.

  • On page 121 there is this quote: "In general, underpitching affects flavor more, while overpitching negatively affects yeast health over more generations."
  • Then on page 104 is this, in relation to pitching rates: "More cell growth usually results in more flavor compounds." There's more cell growth with an underpitch, I believe.
  • But then again, in the table on page 105, it shows that with an increased pitching rate, esters drop.

The above, while seemingly contradictory, is why I've struggled in trying to understand yeast. Yet, esters aren't flavor compounds, they're aroma compounds, so maybe all this isn't as contradictory as it appears (at least to me).

Regardless, there does appear to be contradictory findings regarding all these things. Just look at the posts by Denny and Mediate. I think what we're all trying to do here is figure this out, and all this contradictory stuff isn't helping. I'm sure they're both on the same mission, i.e., figure it out.

Perhaps it matters more with lagers than ales. Perhaps it matters more with some strains than others. Perhaps it's related to fermentation temp. Perhaps....who the heck knows?
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
1,144
So....we have two different.....views, opinions, evidence....from both @Denny and @mediant . I've been working a lot trying to understand yeast--maybe a fool's errand on my part :)--so I turned to my "Yeast" book co-authored by Chris White and Jamil Zainasheff.

  • On page 121 there is this quote: "In general, underpitching affects flavor more, while overpitching negatively affects yeast health over more generations."
  • Then on page 104 is this, in relation to pitching rates: "More cell growth usually results in more flavor compounds." There's more cell growth with an underpitch, I believe.
  • But then again, in the table on page 105, it shows that with an increased pitching rate, esters drop.

The above, while seemingly contradictory, is why I've struggled in trying to understand yeast. Yet, esters aren't flavor compounds, they're aroma compounds, so maybe all this isn't as contradictory as it appears (at least to me).

Regardless, there does appear to be contradictory findings regarding all these things. Just look at the posts by Denny and Mediate. I think what we're all trying to do here is figure this out, and all this contradictory stuff isn't helping. I'm sure they're both on the same mission, i.e., figure it out.

Perhaps it matters more with lagers than ales. Perhaps it matters more with some strains than others. Perhaps it's related to fermentation temp. Perhaps....who the heck knows?

The best source of information on fermentation parameters and how they affect esters and higher alcohols that I’ve ever read was Greg Casey’s 2005 presentation to Rocky Mountain Microbrewers Symposium.


This is the source material for most of Yeast chapter in BLAM.
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
No, it's not true. Actually, the opposite. This is the explanation from Dr. Clayton Cone of Lallemand....you can read more in my BYO column..."
Ester and other flavor component production or synthesis is a complex
subject because there are so many variables taking place at the same time.
You are right, ester production is related to yeast growth but not in the
way you might think. The key element to yeast growth and ester production is
acyl Co-A. It is necessary for both yeast growth and ester production. When
it is busy with yeast growth, during the early part of the fermentation, it
is not available for ester production. Ester production is directly related
to biomass production. Everything that increases biomass production
(intensive aeration, sufficient amount of unsaturated fatty acids,
stirring) decreases ester production. The more biomass that is produced the
more Co-enzyme A is used and therefore not available for ester production.
Anything that inhibits or slows down yeast growth usually causes an increase
in ester production: low nutrient, low O2. It has been noted that a drop in
available O2 from 8 ppm down to 3 ppm can cause a four fold increase in
esters.
Stirring in normal gravity decreases ester production. Stirring in high
gravity increases ester production. CO2 pressure in early fermentation
decreases ester production. Taller fermenters produce less esters than
short fermenters. High temperature early in fermentation decreases ester
production. High temperature later in fermentation increases ester
production. Low pitching rate can result in less esters.
There are other flavor components such as higher alcohol that have there
own
set of variables. Stirring increases production of higher alcohols. CO2
pressure does not effect the production of alcohol. Amino acid levels in the
wort effect the production of higher alcohols. Most of the higher alcohol
is produced during the growth phase (exponential phase) of the yeast.
I am sure that there are many other variables. I am also sure that there
are beer makers that have experienced the very opposite with each of the
variables.

Pitching rates depend on several factors:
(1) The speed in which you wish the fermentation to take place. Some
professional brew master are in more of a hurry than others; desired beer
style, shortage of fermenter space. Pitching rates would vary as a means to
increase or decrease the total fermentation time. 10 X 10/6th cell
population for normal fermentation rates. 20 X 10/6th or more for a quick
turn around.
(2) Temperature control. If lack of refrigeration is a problem, the
fermentation needs to be spread out over a longer period by pitching with
less yeast.
(3) Health of the pitching yeast. If the pitching yeast has not been
stored
under ideal conditions (4C for less than one week) then larger pitching rate
must be done to compensate for the deteriorate of the yeast. Increased
pitching rates has its limits in trying to compensate for poor storage
conditions.
(4) When all other variables are under control you can use variations in
pitching rates to achieve certain flavor profile that are of interest to
you.
Conventional wisdom regarding pitching rate can lead to problems. During
each fermentation cycle the yeast will increase in size about three times,
so if you use all the yeast from the previous batch you will soon be
pitching with a huge amount of yeast. Professional brewers usually re-pitch
with about 25% of the yeast from the previous batch.
Proper handling of the yeast during storage (4C and <7 days) will
minimize
any problem with long lag phase. Start with a fresh culture of yeast after
about five recycles for bacteria control and or after 10 - 15 cycles for
genetic drift purposes.
There are many who will say that they are proud of the fact that they
have
used the same yeast after over 100 cycles. More power to them. I wish that
I could explain their luck. Good practices suggest frequent renewal with a
fresh culture is a good policy."


Brew Like A Monk. Recommends underpitching. I happen to disagree with this recommendation, but it is there
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
Interestingly enough while BLAM recommends underpitching, my understanding is the monks themselves typically pitch at unheard of rates in the U.S.

Around 5.0 million cells/ml/degree Plato

And under aerating the wort
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
1,144
Brew Like A Monk. Recommends underpitching. I happen to disagree with this recommendation, but it is there

You have to put that in context: if the Trappists underpitch, it’s simply because they have SUPER healthy and active yeast available that acclimated precisely to their brewery.

Should the average brewer under pitch? Nope. Should the more advanced brewer with healthy and active yeast underpitch? For sure is that nets the desired results.

My opinions are different than most but then again I brew only Trappist type ales. I do tons of things that go against the grain for fermentation and pitching because they give me the results I desire.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
1,144
Interestingly enough while BLAM recommends underpitching, my understanding is the monks themselves typically pitch at unheard of rates in the U.S.

Around 5.0 million cells/ml/degree Plato

And under aerating the wort

That’s not true. At least for pitching during primary fermentation.

You may be confusing bottling rates with pitching rates. Nearly all of the Trappists and others like Duvel, pitch at < 0.75 M/ml/°P.

My MO is as follows:

1.) Pitch around 1.25-1.40 M/ml/°P
2.) < 8 ppm O2
3.) Limit Zinc to minimum (0.3 ppm)
4.) No temperature control
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
That’s not true. At least for pitching during primary fermentation.

You may be confusing bottling rates with pitching rates. Nearly all of the Trappists and others like Duvel, pitch at < 0.75 M/ml/°P.
Let me see if I can find the source. Interestingly it goes with what Denny said about low aeration causing high ester
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
You have to put that in context: if the Trappists underpitch, it’s simply because they have SUPER healthy and active yeast available that acclimated precisely to their brewery.

Should the average brewer under pitch? Nope. Should the more advanced brewer with healthy and active yeast underpitch? For sure is that nets the desired results.

My opinions are different than most but then again I brew only Trappist type ales. I do tons of things that go against the grain for fermentation and pitching because they give me the results I desire.

Me too. Well I have ventured into saisons recently
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
That’s not true. At least for pitching during primary fermentation.

You may be confusing bottling rates with pitching rates. Nearly all of the Trappists and others like Duvel, pitch at < 0.75 M/ml/°P.

My MO is as follows:

1.) Pitch around 1.25-1.40 M/ml/°P
2.) < 8 ppm O2
3.) Limit Zinc to minimum (0.3 ppm)
4.) No temperature control


Haven’t found the original source material on it yet but here is a thread about low oxygen in wort

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/belgian-experiment-oxygen-and-pitch-rates.594386/
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
That’s not true. At least for pitching during primary fermentation.

You may be confusing bottling rates with pitching rates. Nearly all of the Trappists and others like Duvel, pitch at < 0.75 M/ml/°P.

My MO is as follows:

1.) Pitch around 1.25-1.40 M/ml/°P
2.) < 8 ppm O2
3.) Limit Zinc to minimum (0.3 ppm)
4.) No temperature control

Found it

https://byo.com/article/fermenting-belgian-style-beers/
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
1,144
Haven’t found the original source material on it yet but here is a thread about low oxygen in wort

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/belgian-experiment-oxygen-and-pitch-rates.594386/

The main thing is to limit yeast growth. Fast, large amounts of yeast growth means the production of excessive amounts of undesirable higher alcohols.

I want desirable higher alcohols to be only a small percentage of the total flavor and aroma compounds in my Trappist inspired ales.
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
The main thing is to limit yeast growth. Fast, large amounts of yeast growth means the production of excessive amounts of undesirable higher alcohols.

I want desirable higher alcohols to be only a small percentage of the total flavor and aroma compounds in my Trappist inspired ales.

Agreed. Interesting I think my best Tripel I ever made was before I got a lot of stuff I have. I think I will underaerate my next one and see what happens
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
1,144
Oh damn. I guess I read that wrong

The Trappists pitch scary low amounts of yeast. They can however, because it’s either being top cropped (Westmalle, Achel, Westvleteren) at high Krausen or used in a draflausen arrangement (Rochefort). Chimay is the odd duck. They may actually pitch normal amounts because they have a sophisticated lab and grown a single culture for each batch (they do NOT repitch yeast).
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
If we talk about yeast and fermentation long enough I inevitably rope someone in to talking about Trappist Ales.

:yes:
I will talk about Trappists until the end of time I actually spent 5 weeks in Belgium 2 years ago. Went to St Sixtus. Loved it
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
1,144
I will talk about Trappists until the end of time I actually spent 5 weeks in Belgium 2 years ago. Went to St Sixtus. Loved it

Westvleteren is one I’m not a huge fan of. I actually like the St. Bernardus range better and would for sure take a Rochefort over a Westvleteren any day.
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
The Trappists pitch scary low amounts of yeast. They can however, because it’s either being top cropped (Westmalle, Achel, Westvleteren) at high Krausen or used in a draflausen arrangement (Rochefort). Chimay is the odd duck. They may actually pitch normal amounts because they have a sophisticated lab and grown a single culture for each batch (they do NOT repitch yeast).

And I also understand they all step mash. Rests at 113°F 135°F 145°f and 156°F?
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
1,144
And I also understand they all step mash. Rests at 113°F 135°F 145°f and 156°F?

Yes. Although those rests are probably more down to tradition than function. There are better step mash schedules but not knowing the hops and whys of their rests keeps my criticism to a minimum.
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
Westvleteren is one I’m not a huge fan of. I actually like the St. Bernardus range better and would for sure take a Rochefort over a Westvleteren any day.
Yeah bit I can pick up a Rochefort 10 and St Bernardo’s anytime. You gotta drive through the middle of nowhere to get a XII
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
I was getting rochefort 10’s for a 1.90€ in Belgium at a night shop by the train I miss Belgium
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
That’s not true. At least for pitching during primary fermentation.

You may be confusing bottling rates with pitching rates. Nearly all of the Trappists and others like Duvel, pitch at < 0.75 M/ml/°P.

My MO is as follows:

1.) Pitch around 1.25-1.40 M/ml/°P
2.) < 8 ppm O2
3.) Limit Zinc to minimum (0.3 ppm)
4.) No temperature control

Ok I started pitching around 500 billion cells in my Tripels 5.5 gallons, 1.078. Which seems close to your 1.25-1.40 unless I’m not reading something right again. I don’t use oxygen. I use a Venturi and an air pump for about 10 minutes. I should probably get a DO meter soon.

I like the taste of the first one, but it turned out darker than I thought. It was darker than the St Bernardus Tripel and lighter than Taxman’s. I substituted the 1 lb of Munich for 1 lb of Vienna. I just moved it to cold crash

Does that sound about right for what you are saying?

I planning on making a few Blondes for the first time then going back to my Tripel So I can play around with it some.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
1,144
Ok I started pitching around 500 billion cells in my Tripels 5.5 gallons, 1.078. Which seems close to your 1.25-1.40 unless I’m not reading something right again. I don’t use oxygen. I use a Venturi and an air pump for about 10 minutes. I should probably get a DO meter soon.

I like the taste of the first one, but it turned out darker than I thought. It was darker than the St Bernardus Tripel and lighter than Taxman’s. I substituted the 1 lb of Munich for 1 lb of Vienna. I just moved it to cold crash

Does that sound about right for what you are saying?

I planning on making a few Blondes for the first time then going back to my Tripel So I can play around with it some.

We are hijacking this thread a bit. Maybe start a new one and tag me in it?
 

mediant

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
93
Reaction score
76
So....we have two different.....views, opinions, evidence....from both @Denny and @mediant
I was just trying to frame what Denny said into anecdotal evidence from Lallemand itself. For instance, descriptions of WLP300 and WY3068 say exactly the same about underpitching resulting in more estery flavors.

As for the Dr. Clayton Cone quotation itself - it represents a valid view that existed in the past. "Flavor-Active Esters: Adding Fruitiness to Beer", KJ Verstrepen et al., ‎2003 explains why this view is considered dated:
"The first models for the rate of ester synthesis during brewery fermentations focussed on the availability of the co-substrate acetyl-CoA as the main limiting factor. Parameters such as temperature, fatty acid addition, nitrogen and oxygen levels would exercise their influence on ester synthesis by changing the levels of acetyl-CoA. In brief, every factor that raises acetyl-CoA levels would also raise ester production. Oxygen, wort solids and wort lipids promote yeast growth and thus the usage of acetyl-CoA, leaving less acetyl-CoA available for ester production (24, 35, 36). However, this model fails to satisfactorily explain the influence of glucose or nitrogen addition and the lowering of top pressure, three factors that raise both yeast growth and ester production."
 

applescrap

Be the ball!
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,034
Reaction score
3,662
Location
Denver
Many of the things "most of us know" seem to shift over time and turns out we didn't really know them all that well at all. In this case I think it is possible that the quality of liquid yeast has changed over time and what we all knew to be true five years ago may not exactly apply today.

I know the guys at Brulosophy also claim to be believers in making starters and have posted extensively on their practices on making starters. Most experiments they have done continue to use starters. They have tried numerous times (7 or 8 I guess) to show pitching rate matters in ales or lagers which and have had no success in doing so. Of the three concerns you raised, in the experiments I recall and was able to google just now....
  • under, over and target pitched all attenuated about the same (very similar final gravities in side by side tests using same wort)
  • tasting panels were unable to distinguish differences between the beers (at least not a huge difference in "how clean")
  • The higher pitched beers did tend to finish faster - by 1-2 days or so.
I understand this last point is relevant in commercial beer production but I think is of less so in homebrewing. My beers are normally done in 2 weeks but usually life gets in way and they go three weeks before packaging. Having them done in 10 days would really not help me as I am a weekend brewer and things don't happen mid week. I also manage to pump out enough beer to keep my beer on hand without speeding up the process.

I think Dr White might be right and it could be worth trying a single three month old pack (of the new packaging) in batch of 1.050 or so wort and see what happens.

+1
 

applescrap

Be the ball!
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,034
Reaction score
3,662
Location
Denver
I remain all but certain within reason that yeast rates, starters, etc... has little impact over just tossing a pack of yeast in. Ray found tested 1 pack of yeast vs 5 and gave it to members of a brew club and no difference was perceived. After 9 different and random experiments, plus what Chris white said, plus the myriad of other little tests and work out there, it's hard to not acknowledge all that.

Let me put this another way. Let's talk about impact. Dump 24 oz of cold brew coffee in a beer, a tablespoon of cinnamon, etc...there will be significant and identifiable impact. A little more yeast, no significant impact. A correct pitch rate wont turn cheap grain into my beloved golden promise, and it wont turn four oz of hops into a 12 oz neipa. I am not buying the whole, "it all adds up". "A lot of different things" "the edge". I suspect the true edge in a comp is oxygen, packaging, recipe, water, and ingredients, not yeast pitch rate.
 
Last edited:

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
876
I remain all but certain within reason that yeast rates, starters, etc... has little impact over just tossing a pack of yeast in. Ray found tested 1 pack of yeast vs 5 and gave it to members of a brew club and no difference was perceived. After 9 different and random experiments, plus what Chris white said, plus the myriad of other little tests and work out there, it's hard to not acknowledge all that.

Let me put this another way. Let's talk about impact. Dump 24 oz of cold brew coffee in a beer, a tablespoon of cinnamon, etc...there will be significant and identifiable impact. A little more yeast, no significant impact. A correct pitch rate wont turn cheap grain into my beloved golden promise, and it wont turn four oz of hops into a 12 oz neipa. I am not buying the whole, "it all adds up". "A lot of different things" "the edge". I suspect the true edge in a comp is oxygen, packaging, recipe, water, and ingredients, not yeast pitch rate.

Most of the Brulosophy write-ups these days use vitality starters from remnant wort while their wort reaches the desired pitch temp.

Just like different cultivars of grain or hop, different yeasts will behave differently. It’s not much effort to avoid potentially ruining a whole batch of beer.

I can’t stand paying for a fresh pitch of yeast every batch, so using starters is necessary for me. Decreasing lag phase and overall ferm time are just side benefits :)
 

eric19312

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
3,792
Reaction score
2,374
Location
Long Island
Most of the Brulosophy write-ups these days use vitality starters from remnant wort while their wort reaches the desired pitch temp.

Just like different cultivars of grain or hop, different yeasts will behave differently. It’s not much effort to avoid potentially ruining a whole batch of beer.

I can’t stand paying for a fresh pitch of yeast every batch, so using starters is necessary for me. Decreasing lag phase and overall ferm time are just side benefits :)

Yah I think I am going to give that vitality starter with remnant wort another try.
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
I was just trying to frame what Denny said into anecdotal evidence from Lallemand itself. For instance, descriptions of WLP300 and WY3068 say exactly the same about underpitching resulting in more estery flavors.

As for the Dr. Clayton Cone quotation itself - it represents a valid view that existed in the past. "Flavor-Active Esters: Adding Fruitiness to Beer", KJ Verstrepen et al., ‎2003 explains why this view is considered dated:
"The first models for the rate of ester synthesis during brewery fermentations focussed on the availability of the co-substrate acetyl-CoA as the main limiting factor. Parameters such as temperature, fatty acid addition, nitrogen and oxygen levels would exercise their influence on ester synthesis by changing the levels of acetyl-CoA. In brief, every factor that raises acetyl-CoA levels would also raise ester production. Oxygen, wort solids and wort lipids promote yeast growth and thus the usage of acetyl-CoA, leaving less acetyl-CoA available for ester production (24, 35, 36). However, this model fails to satisfactorily explain the influence of glucose or nitrogen addition and the lowering of top pressure, three factors that raise both yeast growth and ester production."

Top pressure. As in open primary. Hmm I recently made 3 Saisons with Dunlop yeast that hit 1.002/1.003 in 8 days with just aluminum foil for an airstop.
I remain all but certain within reason that yeast rates, starters, etc... has little impact over just tossing a pack of yeast in. Ray found tested 1 pack of yeast vs 5 and gave it to members of a brew club and no difference was perceived. After 9 different and random experiments, plus what Chris white said, plus the myriad of other little tests and work out there, it's hard to not acknowledge all that.

Let me put this another way. Let's talk about impact. Dump 24 oz of cold brew coffee in a beer, a tablespoon of cinnamon, etc...there will be significant and identifiable impact. A little more yeast, no significant impact. A correct pitch rate wont turn cheap grain into my beloved golden promise, and it wont turn four oz of hops into a 12 oz neipa. I am not buying the whole, "it all adds up". "A lot of different things" "the edge". I suspect the true edge in a comp is oxygen, packaging, recipe, water, and ingredients, not yeast pitch rate.

I deliberately “underpitced” a quad at .35 once. It stalled at 1.040. I repitched and got it to 1.025. It made a very sweet beer. Too sweet for me. It’s not a bad beer, but certainly not one of my best

Like all things brewing I think it depends
 

applescrap

Be the ball!
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,034
Reaction score
3,662
Location
Denver
Most of the Brulosophy write-ups these days use vitality starters from remnant wort while their wort reaches the desired pitch temp.

Just like different cultivars of grain or hop, different yeasts will behave differently. It’s not much effort to avoid potentially ruining a whole batch of beer.

I can’t stand paying for a fresh pitch of yeast every batch, so using starters is necessary for me. Decreasing lag phase and overall ferm time are just side benefits :)
Appreciate you making this point. Marshall and crew are not a bunch of people like me. They are a bunch of people who believe heavily in brew dogma. Marshall remains shocked at almost all of the experiments. He talks about thinking he was going to ruin the beer by doing the things he was doing. I mean he was certain he was going to ruin the beer. Speaking of ruining the beer.

"Not much effort to avoid ruining a whole batch of beer"

Are you implying that pitching a pack of dry yeast could ruin the beer? Or not making a starter could ruin the beer? Please explain more.

Decreasing lag time and overall ferm time aren't side benefits, they are the only benefits, period. Read this write up from Marshall. They have tested slurry four times as well 3 of the 4 no significance. Anyways he was certain the starter beer was better than the sloppy old slurry. Confirming the effort. Until he opened the keg door and realized he had switched lines and was "preferring" the sloppy slurry beer. I splash out the 5 dollars a batch for fresh yeast. I dont mind because I dont brew to much, but if I brewed 4 batches a day that would change.
Screenshot_20190610-055944_Samsung%20Internet.jpeg
 

isomerization

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
876
Appreciate you making this point. Marshall and crew are not a bunch of people like me. They are a bunch of people who believe heavily in brew dogma. Marshall remains shocked at almost all of the experiments. He talks about thinking he was going to ruin the beer by doing the things he was doing. I mean he was certain he was going to ruin the beer. Speaking of ruining the beer.

"Not much effort to avoid ruining a whole batch of beer"

Are you implying that pitching a pack of dry yeast could ruin the beer? Or not making a starter could ruin the beer? Please explain more.

Decreasing lag time and overall ferm time aren't side benefits, they are the only benefits, period. Read this write up from Marshall. They have tested slurry four times as well 3 of the 4 no significance. Anyways he was certain the starter beer was better than the sloppy old slurry. Confirming the effort. Until he opened the keg door and realized he had switched lines and was "preferring" the sloppy slurry beer. I splash out the 5 dollars a batch for fresh yeast. I dont mind because I dont brew to much, but if I brewed 4 batches a day that would change. View attachment 630524

Per the ruining beer comment, I was primarily thinking about liquid yeast that may be lacking viability. You wouldn’t know it until you’ve pitched it. A starter of some kind prevents this issue. Other ways to ruin your beer, but that was the main idea I was thinking of.

I’m not sure what you are saying with the rest of the post? Yeast slurry from a previous batch is basically a massive starter. We’re talking about the risks from underpitching. What did I miss?

On the benefits comments, that was mainly tongue in cheek, hence the smiley face. Don’t underestimate flavor effects that result from different growth phase lengths (again yeast strain dependent).
 

mongoose33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
8,104
Reaction score
8,045
Location
Platteville, WI
Appreciate you making this point. Marshall and crew are not a bunch of people like me. They are a bunch of people who believe heavily in brew dogma. Marshall remains shocked at almost all of the experiments. He talks about thinking he was going to ruin the beer by doing the things he was doing. I mean he was certain he was going to ruin the beer. Speaking of ruining the beer.

"Not much effort to avoid ruining a whole batch of beer"

Are you implying that pitching a pack of dry yeast could ruin the beer? Or not making a starter could ruin the beer? Please explain more.

Decreasing lag time and overall ferm time aren't side benefits, they are the only benefits, period. Read this write up from Marshall. They have tested slurry four times as well 3 of the 4 no significance. Anyways he was certain the starter beer was better than the sloppy old slurry. Confirming the effort. Until he opened the keg door and realized he had switched lines and was "preferring" the sloppy slurry beer. I splash out the 5 dollars a batch for fresh yeast. I dont mind because I dont brew to much, but if I brewed 4 batches a day that would change. View attachment 630524

As I've noted before, I think there's a flaw in the way the brulosophy stuff is done. They have no control over what people were consuming prior to testing (IPAs? Heavily-spiced food?), and they don't randomize the presentation of the three samples in the triangle test.

The way they do the experiments? I think it's fine, actually quite good.

But the testing is flawed, potentially hugely so. It's really easy to look at the brulosophy stuff and say that there's no difference, but there is a huge alternative explanation for the results (which, btw, is the essence of causal analysis--eliminating alternative explanations of results). That is, it's very hard to have confidence in results when the people doing teh tasting aren't controlling the instrument, i.e., their palate.

Now, there's no rule that says you have to take from Brulosophy stuff what Mongoose says you're allowed to take. Do what you will with the results. But when we're trying to figure out what happens when yeast this, and yeast that, we shouldn't be looking to Brulosophy for guidance.

It's entertainment, mostly, and may give one food for thought. More's the pity, too, as the experiment side of the brulosophy analyses are pretty well done.

****

There's at least one exception to the above, IMO. When a LOT of people can tell the difference with a triangle test, and then there's a clear preference for one or the other, that should be looked at seriously.

But the "there's no difference" conclusions should be taken with a boulder of salt. Is there no difference, really? Or that the burned palates of the tasters can't perceive it? And would that work with different yeast, different recipes, different gravities, different fermentation temps, different populations of tasters?

The best way to use the Brulosophy stuff is do take the experiments as ideas for testing at home, and see what works in one's own homebrew environment...or not. I've done that. Used to strive to keep trub out of the fermenter, straining it out. Then I read a brulosophy experiment where they couldn't see a difference between trub and no trub, decided to try it myself. I couldn't perceive a difference. So I became less concerned about it. But that's me, my palate, and my recipes and my fermentation temps and my water and......
 
OP
OP
Gregory T

Gregory T

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
215
Reaction score
64
As I've noted before, I think there's a flaw in the way the brulosophy stuff is done. They have no control over what people were consuming prior to testing (IPAs? Heavily-spiced food?), and they don't randomize the presentation of the three samples in the triangle test.

The way they do the experiments? I think it's fine, actually quite good.

But the testing is flawed, potentially hugely so. It's really easy to look at the brulosophy stuff and say that there's no difference, but there is a huge alternative explanation for the results (which, btw, is the essence of causal analysis--eliminating alternative explanations of results). That is, it's very hard to have confidence in results when the people doing teh tasting aren't controlling the instrument, i.e., their palate.

Now, there's no rule that says you have to take from Brulosophy stuff what Mongoose says you're allowed to take. Do what you will with the results. But when we're trying to figure out what happens when yeast this, and yeast that, we shouldn't be looking to Brulosophy for guidance.

It's entertainment, mostly, and may give one food for thought. More's the pity, too, as the experiment side of the brulosophy analyses are pretty well done.

****

There's at least one exception to the above, IMO. When a LOT of people can tell the difference with a triangle test, and then there's a clear preference for one or the other, that should be looked at seriously.

But the "there's no difference" conclusions should be taken with a boulder of salt. Is there no difference, really? Or that the burned palates of the tasters can't perceive it? And would that work with different yeast, different recipes, different gravities, different fermentation temps, different populations of tasters?

The best way to use the Brulosophy stuff is do take the experiments as ideas for testing at home, and see what works in one's own homebrew environment...or not. I've done that. Used to strive to keep trub out of the fermenter, straining it out. Then I read a brulosophy experiment where they couldn't see a difference between trub and no trub, decided to try it myself. I couldn't perceive a difference. So I became less concerned about it. But that's me, my palate, and my recipes and my fermentation temps and my water and......

I agree. It’s one of the Interesting things about brewing. I brew very few beers. I only brewed Tripels for a long time. I since have made some Dubbel, Quads, Saisons, and now a blonde. I did venture into a Dunkelweizen memorial beer for my Weimaraner.

The point being. I want to be able to replicate the process in order to make adjustments to these few beers I make

Someone who wants to try every recipe in brewing classic styles will have a completely different perspective

I believe it would be very difficult to ruin beer. You may make a beer you can’t replicate, or isn’t as good as the next one

Throw in the subjectivity of taste and you get a wide range of takes on what is acceptable And what acceptable actually means to each person.

My wife loves Lambi Kriek. I’m not a fan of that style. Doesn’t mean it is t good beer
 

applescrap

Be the ball!
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,034
Reaction score
3,662
Location
Denver
As I've noted before, I think there's a flaw in the way the brulosophy stuff is done. They have no control over what people were consuming prior to testing (IPAs? Heavily-spiced food?), and they don't randomize the presentation of the three samples in the triangle test.

The way they do the experiments? I think it's fine, actually quite good.

But the testing is flawed, potentially hugely so. It's really easy to look at the brulosophy stuff and say that there's no difference, but there is a huge alternative explanation for the results (which, btw, is the essence of causal analysis--eliminating alternative explanations of results). That is, it's very hard to have confidence in results when the people doing teh tasting aren't controlling the instrument, i.e., their palate.

Now, there's no rule that says you have to take from Brulosophy stuff what Mongoose says you're allowed to take. Do what you will with the results. But when we're trying to figure out what happens when yeast this, and yeast that, we shouldn't be looking to Brulosophy for guidance.

It's entertainment, mostly, and may give one food for thought. More's the pity, too, as the experiment side of the brulosophy analyses are pretty well done.

****

There's at least one exception to the above, IMO. When a LOT of people can tell the difference with a triangle test, and then there's a clear preference for one or the other, that should be looked at seriously.

But the "there's no difference" conclusions should be taken with a boulder of salt. Is there no difference, really? Or that the burned palates of the tasters can't perceive it? And would that work with different yeast, different recipes, different gravities, different fermentation temps, different populations of tasters?

The best way to use the Brulosophy stuff is do take the experiments as ideas for testing at home, and see what works in one's own homebrew environment...or not. I've done that. Used to strive to keep trub out of the fermenter, straining it out. Then I read a brulosophy experiment where they couldn't see a difference between trub and no trub, decided to try it myself. I couldn't perceive a difference. So I became less concerned about it. But that's me, my palate, and my recipes and my fermentation temps and my water and......
Mongoose, they have tested pitch rates 9 times. What more do you want? Once is good enough for me. By and large there is no impact in any of this and I didn't need them, I thought it from the start. If there was something there others would know.

I tell you what, want to ruin a beer, make a starter. Miss cleaning it or keeping things sanitary and you could ruin a beer. These issues are not likely in a dry yeast direct pitch. Chris White says pitch a pack iirc, as well as James Spencer from bbr. He uses direct pitch dry. He has tested it too iirc.
 

applescrap

Be the ball!
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
8,034
Reaction score
3,662
Location
Denver
Per the ruining beer comment, I was primarily thinking about liquid yeast that may be lacking viability. You wouldn’t know it until you’ve pitched it. A starter of some kind prevents this issue. Other ways to ruin your beer, but that was the main idea I was thinking of.

I’m not sure what you are saying with the rest of the post? Yeast slurry from a previous batch is basically a massive starter. We’re talking about the risks from underpitching. What did I miss?

On the benefits comments, that was mainly tongue in cheek, hence the smiley face. Don’t underestimate flavor effects that result from different growth phase lengths (again yeast strain dependent).
Oh, ok. I think making a starter, using slurry has more potential to ruining beer than pitching a dry pack or even liquid for that matter. That's one reason why I dont make a starter. I am not underestimating the phases of yeast, etc. I am calling it irrelevant to flavor. I know they are relevant microscopically just not in an end result way. I dont care if you want to make starters etc, but imo, if you want to make beer like I make you are going to have to buy Simpson's golden promise and the best water you can find. A starter wont get you there.
 
Last edited:
Top