Can we address the dry yeast yeast starter concept again?

[isomerization]

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.

You can believe whatever you like, but it’s only a belief. Have you tested your beliefs?

For example, you could split a batch into two separate fermenters of equal volume. Then pitch one with 1/10 of a vial with the rest of the vial into the other fermenter. Surely the results would be the same?

 

[applescrap]

You can believe whatever you like, but it’s only a belief. Have you tested your beliefs?

For example, you could split a batch into two separate fermenters of equal volume. Then pitch one with 1/10 of a vial with the rest of the vial into the other fermenter. Surely the results would be the same?

I dont understand why I would use 1/10th of a pack of yeast in a beer? That seems unreasonable but would be a good one for Marshall or someone here to test. I dont test anything, Marshall and the crew brew plenty and I have no reason not to trust their results. Others have confirmed their results and I believed from the get go this among other factors was just another source of brew dogma. So at this point we have to agree to disagree, but please tell me more. What do you think would happen if 1/10th a vial was pitched?

 

[mongoose33]

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.

Mathematics: 1x0 is....0. So is 9x0. Doing it badly nine times in a row tells us...what?

The beauty of this is you don't have to agree with me, or anyone else. Do what you will or won't do.

I'm trained as a scientist. I don't accept casual or anecdotal evidence very readily, and I surely do not look at badly-administered testing procedures as definitive or anything else.

If you don't accept that a lack of control over the testing procedure throws great doubt into the interpretation of results, then you don't accept that lack of control does that.

OK.

 

[isomerization]

I dont understand why I would use 1/10th of a pack of yeast in a beer? That seems unreasonable but would be a good one for Marshall or someone here to test. I dont test anything, Marshall and the crew brew plenty and I have no reason not to trust their results. Others have confirmed their results and I believed from the get go this among other factors was just another source of brew dogma. So at this point we have to agree to disagree, but please tell me more. What do you think would happen if 1/10th a vial was pitched?

You said it didn’t matter because it’s just yeast growing, but you aren’t willing to *knowingly* underpitch. Where do you draw the line. Would you do a half vial? To answer your last question, I think it would be a ruined beer (for the large majority of strains, maybe with kveik or saison yeast it would be awesome).

You brought up Golden Promise, how do you feel about this Brulosophy post?

http://brulosophy.com/2019/05/13/gr...s-pale-ale-malt-exbeeriment-results/#comments

 

[Gregory T]

Y

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.

pour boiling wort into a flask and cool it in an ice bath. I don’t see a risk there

If you’re making a 1.050 ale it probably doesn’t matter. When I made a 1.085 quad and pitched at .35 I got a stuck fermentation

 

[eric19312]

I'm trained as a scientist. I don't accept casual or anecdotal evidence very readily, and I surely do not look at badly-administered testing procedures as definitive or anything else.

If you don't accept that a lack of control over the testing procedure throws great doubt into the interpretation of results, then you don't accept that lack of control does that.

OK.

At some point the repeatability of the results would seem to overcome the objections about lack of perfection in the testing protocol.

I get the burned out taste buds argument and spicy food but would note that over the last couple years true pallet wrecking beers seem to be the exception even in the IPA category. FWIW it doesn't sound like the tests are normally conducted at ends of long nights of heavy drinking.

It seems the majority of their testers are homebrewers or other craft beer enthusiasts and may be actively engaged in doing what they like to do ... drinking beer. If these beer drinkers can't pick the odd beer out of three samples it is proof of only that...typical homebrewers and craft beer drinkers were unable to tell the beers apart when blinded to foreknowledge of the test variable and the beers were served in opaque cups. I like @applescrap's comparison..a spoonfull of cinnamon in the boil kettle I bet that crowd will get it right no matter what they did to their pallets before the test.

It seems that many who argue against the validity of the brulosophy testing get may be getting overly hung up on their own ability to distinguish differences in their own self administered side by side tests. But it is impossible to control a personal side by side test to exclude knowledge of the variable. And most people doing their own side by sides don't even bother to get someone else to blind them to the test or bother with tasting in opaque cups. They just pour the samples and taste them. Of course they know they are different they focus on which one tastes better and think about why. I've done this many times in homebrew club settings.

Again...are the methods flawed? Surely. Does this mean that there is no number of consistently repeated study results (repeated by different brewers in different locations with different tasting panels) that the results become a reasonable challenge to current dogma? That dogma is a tough SOB.

 

[cmac62]

Interesting discussion. Following

 

[hopjuice_71]

Wow, this got off topic. OK, I have two thoughts, one on topic and one off.

Regarding starters, pitch rates, and dry yeast, I tend to look at all of these as mere guidelines. I figure if I am getting within 2 or 3-fold of my target pitch rates I'm doing OK. I have the means to cell counts but I am far too lazy (too much like my day job...). It hasn't let me down. I tend to do starters because yeast isn't cheap anymore, but it is the one thing I can keep and propagating almost indefinitely (if you can store frozen stocks or slants). I can get my grain in bulk at ~$1 CAD per kg and hops at ~$15 per 0.5 kg. Yeast is ~$12 for liquid and $6-8 for dried for a packet. Yeast is almost the most expensive ingredient now if I were to buy it each time! So, it only makes sense for me to propagate it, dry yeast included. I have zero worries about contamination - aseptic technique is pretty straightforward with a gas stove, the right techniques, and minimal expense.

About Brulosophy.. ..I am a hardcore, ultra-anal scientist - I make a living as a structural biologist, but I really like Brulosophy. In the lab there is a time and place for the experiment that gets you the wicked accurate results. Then there is the time when ballpark is good enough. Despite criticisms, given the parameters the Brulosophy guys have to work with, I think their experimental setup is pretty good. Could their testing be better, sure. But I view the results in context of those ballpark experiments. I only care about their results when the outcome is black and white. Those grey areas.. ..well, I can interpret them for myself. But if the results are in that close range, where maybe a better triangle test would have resolved a clear result, I simply tend to think that this variable is probably not the first one I have to worry about (not that I worry about beer, unless there is none left...).

Just my $0.02

Cheers

 

[applescrap]

You said it didn’t matter because it’s just yeast growing, but you aren’t willing to *knowingly* underpitch. Where do you draw the line. Would you do a half vial? To answer your last question, I think it would be a ruined beer (for the large majority of strains, maybe with kveik or saison yeast it would be awesome).

You brought up Golden Promise, how do you feel about this Brulosophy post?

http://brulosophy.com/2019/05/13/gr...s-pale-ale-malt-exbeeriment-results/#comments

Good points and questions. Look back, I said within reason. I always say within reason. I dont think a reasonable and prudent brewer would pitch 1/10th a pack or vial. But I would gladly pitch a pack and do no more and highly suggest you do the same, unless you really like a fast start, I get that.

I appreciate that GP and muntons test. I will take it to heart, look into it and the others like it they have done. It makes sense, I was told in a different thread that once the juice ferments the killer organic black cherry tastes like any. I know Marshall also tested apple juice vs expensive apple juice. So yeah maybe the ferment scrubs unique character a mouthful of it dry doesn't. I suspected a little to be honest.

Here is the heart of it, I will change. And appreciate that you have saved me some money maybe. I have 50 pounds left so after that. See, I will adjust and change and also take things into consideration. In this case muntons is uk so maybe more similar? Maybe muntons would be a good choice for me. I am willing to admit that I dont know what I dont know. You and I, I think have different goals, I brew, I drink, I brew. I brew fast most importantly to me. I am also going to be changing to close transfers at some point. I feel strongly about that.

 

[isomerization]

Wow, this got off topic. OK, I have two thoughts, one on topic and one off.

Regarding starters, pitch rates, and dry yeast, I tend to look at all of these as mere guidelines. I figure if I am getting within 2 or 3-fold of my target pitch rates I'm doing OK. I have the means to cell counts but I am far too lazy (too much like my day job...). It hasn't let me down. I tend to do starters because yeast isn't cheap anymore, but it is the one thing I can keep and propagating almost indefinitely (if you can store frozen stocks or slants). I can get my grain in bulk at ~$1 CAD per kg and hops at ~$15 per 0.5 kg. Yeast is ~$12 for liquid and $6-8 for dried for a packet. Yeast is almost the most expensive ingredient now if I were to buy it each time! So, it only makes sense for me to propagate it, dry yeast included. I have zero worries about contamination - aseptic technique is pretty straightforward with a gas stove, the right techniques, and minimal expense.

About Brulosophy.. ..I am a hardcore, ultra-anal scientist - I make a living as a structural biologist, but I really like Brulosophy. In the lab there is a time and place for the experiment that gets you the wicked accurate results. Then there is the time when ballpark is good enough. Despite criticisms, given the parameters the Brulosophy guys have to work with, I think their experimental setup is pretty good. Could their testing be better, sure. But I view the results in context of those ballpark experiments. I only care about their results when the outcome is black and white. Those grey areas.. ..well, I can interpret them for myself. But if the results are in that close range, where maybe a better triangle test would have resolved a clear result, I simply tend to think that this variable is probably not the first one I have to worry about (not that I worry about beer, unless there is none left...).

Just my $0.02

Cheers

What type of structural biologist? I did my PhD in an X-ray crystallography lab, but got out of that game long ago.

 

[applescrap]

Wow, this got off topic. OK, I have two thoughts, one on topic and one off.

Regarding starters, pitch rates, and dry yeast, I tend to look at all of these as mere guidelines. I figure if I am getting within 2 or 3-fold of my target pitch rates I'm doing OK. I have the means to cell counts but I am far too lazy (too much like my day job...). It hasn't let me down. I tend to do starters because yeast isn't cheap anymore, but it is the one thing I can keep and propagating almost indefinitely (if you can store frozen stocks or slants). I can get my grain in bulk at ~$1 CAD per kg and hops at ~$15 per 0.5 kg. Yeast is ~$12 for liquid and $6-8 for dried for a packet. Yeast is almost the most expensive ingredient now if I were to buy it each time! So, it only makes sense for me to propagate it, dry yeast included. I have zero worries about contamination - aseptic technique is pretty straightforward with a gas stove, the right techniques, and minimal expense.

About Brulosophy.. ..I am a hardcore, ultra-anal scientist - I make a living as a structural biologist, but I really like Brulosophy. In the lab there is a time and place for the experiment that gets you the wicked accurate results. Then there is the time when ballpark is good enough. Despite criticisms, given the parameters the Brulosophy guys have to work with, I think their experimental setup is pretty good. Could their testing be better, sure. But I view the results in context of those ballpark experiments. I only care about their results when the outcome is black and white. Those grey areas.. ..well, I can interpret them for myself. But if the results are in that close range, where maybe a better triangle test would have resolved a clear result, I simply tend to think that this variable is probably not the first one I have to worry about (not that I worry about beer, unless there is none left...).

Just my $0.02

Cheers

I like and appreciate this. That's the way I see it. I am a homebrewer and they are home brewing. There are also lots of them at this point so the tests are done in different cities, different brew clubs. They upgrade gear all the time from what I can tell and use both solid gear and practices. Quite frankly they are pretty kick a imo. I mean Matt del fiacco nailed all his volumes and numbers for a 30 min vs 180 min boil. That's solid. Listen to the podcasts, these aren't a bunch of guys like me. They often root for their dogma. I dont want to go to far off, but a realistic opinion based on this breadth of quality work deserves a look if nothing else.

 

[applescrap]

What type of structural biologist? I did my PhD in an X-ray crystallography lab, but got out of that game long ago.

Whoa, that's pretty cool.

 

[hottpeper13]

So , not to open another can of worms but what about KVEIK? This yeast has my head spinning. just put 6.33 grams of Voss on a Wee heavy of 1.124 and have 1/3 foam cap in 18 hours. Hoping it won't go below 1.025, the batch that started at 1.108 finished at 1.016, freaking 12%. Oh , I dried it in my oven at 100*. These worts also received 5 min of oxygen at 1/8 L per min.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

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).

[...]

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.

Any insights as to how this research might extend from the Lallemand strains in the study to other dry yeast labs (or dry yeast "brands")?

"Treat each strain of dry yeast uniquely" was a suggestion that I got from a pro brewer a while back. While the strains share common traits / characteristics, each strain also has unique characteristics that could show up in the brewing process as well as in the finished beer. So I'm curious how people decide to extend research across strains (and producers) of dry yeast.

 

[applescrap]

Silver is money, started a thread and had new research from fermentis. This man has a PhD too apparently with a lot of other chops. I have offered yeast company recommendations, sensory tests, and an open mind. At least I havent been insulted along the way, which is the usual for anything against, so and so said it. At this point the only counter info is so and so said it. I know there is a lot of research always disproving everything, only problem is no one has yet to procure it. I have procured plenty to support my case. According to this they have several studies disproving the importance of yeast propagation. This is a done deal, pitch the yeast and get on with it.

https://fermentis.com/en/news-from-fermentis/technical-reviews/e2u-direct-pitching/

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Dry yeast is so inexpensive it makes sense to pitch a bit more and forgo the rehydration steps.

 

[hopjuice_71]

What type of structural biologist? I did my PhD in an X-ray crystallography lab, but got out of that game long ago.

I'm formally trained as a microbiologist (PhD from a microbiology/biochemistry lab) but I have hd to reinvent myself a few times over the years. Picked up structural biology during my post-doc years and my lab now incorporates X-ray crystallography, but we also dabble in SAXS and cryo-EM.

 

[Big Monk]

Dry yeast is so inexpensive it makes sense to pitch a bit more and forgo the rehydration steps.

I think the point is that the desirable dry strains are not as inexpensive as you would think.

 

[hopjuice_71]

Any insights as to how this research might extend from the Lallemand strains in the study to other dry yeast labs (or dry yeast "brands")?

"Treat each strain of dry yeast uniquely" was a suggestion that I got from a pro brewer a while back. While the strains share common traits / characteristics, each strain also has unique characteristics that could show up in the brewing process as well as in the finished beer. So I'm curious how people decide to extend research across strains (and producers) of dry yeast.

This is is one of the issues I was having with what is in the literature. So there are these "problems" with ADY that get thrown around. I only found two papers outlining this. I thought "there must be more." So I found a large review by Bamforth. Lo and behold, he only cites those two papers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of literature evidence regarding the problems. Moreover, these only focused on a very limited number of strains and, of those, only the lager strains displayed performance differences. So it is hard to really answer your question because I don't think it has been addressed.

If it helps, some logic, some experience as a microbiologist, and some gut feeling tell me that any performance differences, if they are there, would be mainly limited to generation 0 (the dry or rehydrated pitch). After a starter or a repitch, where you are approximately at gen 1 or beyond, then you are dealing with a population that is predominantly progeny cells and have not been stressed/altered by the drying process. At this point I would predict these should perform relatively consistently with respect to strain characteristics regardless of strain or manufacturer.

 

[eric19312]

There is lots of information on dry yeast manufacture and testing, available through IBD, MBAA, WBC, and other journals. You can imagine the allure of using dry yeast among large breweries like ABI, Miller, Asahi, ect, was strong and some like Whitbread jumped in head first; a yeast medium that lasts almost indefinitely, takes little space for storage, easy to move from facility to facility, produces the same results.... it should be a major clue that none of those breweries now use dry yeast for regular beer production, even now that the manufacturing process and cost has been streamlined.

...


Remember this argument?

Is dry yeast really more convenient for large brewers? Isn't it pretty easy to pump liquid yeast out of a yeast brink into a large conical fermentor? I'm thinking using dry yeast on industrial scale would more or less require rehydrating the yeast, loading it into a brink, then using the yeast. Maybe a microbrewer will open the top of the fermentor and chuck in a brick of US-05 but macros?

 

[hopjuice_71]

...


Remember this argument?

Is dry yeast really more convenient for large brewers? Isn't it pretty easy to pump liquid yeast out of a yeast brink into a large conical fermentor? I'm thinking using dry yeast on industrial scale would more or less require rehydrating the yeast, loading it into a brink, then using the yeast. Maybe a microbrewer will open the top of the fermentor and chuck in a brick of US-05 but macros?

Storing dry yeast certainly seems a lot easier, which could be big advantage. I suspect (and this is indeed only a suspicion) the big issue is the evidence that generation 0 of dry yeast (sometimes) behaves differently than the subsequent generations. This means that to get a truly consistent product, commercial brewers would have to use new dry yeast for every single batch or, alternatively, brew a throw away batch, harvest that yeast, and then continuously re-pitch until fresh yeast is required. Neither seem very attractive on a commercial scale due to the inherent expenses of either option. But I am far from an expert on commercial brewing.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Hot off the press. Lallemand's latest rehydration, direct pitch, and aeration advice:

https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/docs/products/bp/BEST-PRACTICES_REHYDRATION_DIGITAL.pdf

In most cases,dry-pitched fermentations proceed normally without any problems. However, this option is not recommended in high gravity worts (above 16ºP or SG 1.065) or in soured worts with low pH.

Should I oxygenate my wort? Our yeast contains adequate reserves of carbohydrates and unsaturated fatty acids to achieve active growth. It is unnecessary to aerate wort upon first use. However, in high gravity wort (>16ºP), some oxygenation would be beneficial in order to promote the synthesis of unsaturated fatty acids and sterols, which leads to new membrane cell formation. If oxygenation is not possible, then increase the pitch rate for high gravity worts to ensure an adequate population of fermenting cells.

 

[eric19312]

Storing dry yeast certainly seems a lot easier, which could be big advantage. I suspect (and this is indeed only a suspicion) the big issue is the evidence that generation 0 of dry yeast (sometimes) behaves differently than the subsequent generations. This means that to get a truly consistent product, commercial brewers would have to use new dry yeast for every single batch or, alternatively, brew a throw away batch, harvest that yeast, and then continuously re-pitch until fresh yeast is required. Neither seem very attractive on a commercial scale due to the inherent expenses of either option. But I am far from an expert on commercial brewing.

I have no actual knowledge of commercial brewing but it makes for interesting reading.

I reuse yeast a lot and kind of doubt the differences from first generation batch to repitched batches are so insurmountable that brewers familiar with their products can't compensate. Perhaps first generation needs a little bit longer before temperature ramping or requires on average one more day in the fermentor. Maybe the dry yeast is pitched at 1 mil cells per mL and harvested yeast is used at 750 mil viable cells per mL.

If dry yeast is truly a use it fresh every time it is going to be a pretty expensive solution vs collection and maintenance of yeast from fermentation. Maybe ok for small craft brewery making 20 different styles of beer with 10 different yeasts and some of these months apart. But the industrial brewers aren't going to mess with that. They are going to be all about efficient use of materials and side/waste streams. Minimize number of yeast strains so as to always have very fresh yeast available to repitch. Maintain QC capability to test the harvested yeast at harvest and again before use. Efficient disposal (possibly even sale) of spent yeast beyond internal needs.

 

[bierhaus15]

This is is one of the issues I was having with what is in the literature. So there are these "problems" with ADY that get thrown around. I only found two papers outlining this. I thought "there must be more." So I found a large review by Bamforth. Lo and behold, he only cites those two papers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of literature evidence regarding the problems. Moreover, these only focused on a very limited number of strains and, of those, only the lager strains displayed performance differences. So it is hard to really answer your question because I don't think it has been addressed.

If it helps, some logic, some experience as a microbiologist, and some gut feeling tell me that any performance differences, if they are there, would be mainly limited to generation 0 (the dry or rehydrated pitch). After a starter or a repitch, where you are approximately at gen 1 or beyond, then you are dealing with a population that is predominantly progeny cells and have not been stressed/altered by the drying process. At this point I would predict these should perform relatively consistently with respect to strain characteristics regardless of strain or manufacturer.

And therein is the issue. Much of the original work on ADY were done by AB/Miller/Whitbread and are not readily available, or made it to publication. Granted, one could argue that in those times, the quality of ADY was very low and things have since improved. Currently, studies on ADY are showing up from Japanese breweries, including one at the last WBC where they looked at preventing the afore mentioned issues with yeast desiccation. One limited scale study from Lallemand should not be taken as gospel, considering the complexity and variability of drying yeast.

Is dry yeast really more convenient for large brewers? Isn't it pretty easy to pump liquid yeast out of a yeast brink into a large conical fermentor? I'm thinking using dry yeast on industrial scale would more or less require rehydrating the yeast, loading it into a brink, then using the yeast. Maybe a microbrewer will open the top of the fermentor and chuck in a brick of US-05 but macros?

I can assure you dry yeast is (potentially) an extremely convenient and cost effective method for brewing, especially in mega breweries that use multiple strains and have to store them between brews. How do you suggest consistently producing thousands of gallons of the same yeast slurry a week at different plants, including breweries that have to use of a different medium for yeast propagation (sorghum). Dry yeast solves all of this and you no longer have to operate/clean/and maintain a sterile brewery within a brewery that only produces yeast.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Regarding re-pitching (and the oft-repeated myth that dry yeast should not be re-pitched), I believe that the technical data sheets for most if not all Lallemand brewing yeasts now state this:

(Yeast Name) may be re-pitched just as you would any other type of yeast according to your brewery’s SOP for yeast handling. Wort aeration is required when re-pitching dry yeast.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

If it helps, some logic, some experience as a microbiologist, and some gut feeling tell me that any performance differences, if they are there, would be mainly limited to generation 0 (the dry or rehydrated pitch). After a starter or a repitch, where you are approximately at gen 1 or beyond, then you are dealing with a population that is predominantly progeny cells and have not been stressed/altered by the drying process. At this point I would predict these should perform relatively consistently with respect to strain characteristics regardless of strain or manufacturer.

Thanks. The insights help.

Over the years, across various forums, people who reuse dry yeast have noted some flavor differences between the 1st pitch and the other pitches. But if the 1st pitch (sprinkled or re-hydrated) produces an enjoyable beer, that may be all that matters to the brewer.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

There's no one size fits all answer for the question. Yeast usage scenarios at the macro, micro and home brewer scales will all be different. New Belgium propagates enough yeast to ferment an entire run of beer, from a single yeast cell as we were told on a tour of their Asheville brewery. That's a far cry from what you'd see at smaller breweries and light years away from a homebrewer's process. The fact is many of the local breweries I know of started out pitching dry yeast and many of them may still do.

 

[hopjuice_71]

There's no one size fits all answer for the question. Yeast usage scenarios at the macro, micro and home brewer scales will all be different. New Belgium propagates enough yeast to ferment an entire run of beer, from a single yeast cell as we were told on a tour of their Asheville brewery. That's a far cry from what you'd see at smaller breweries and light years away from a homebrewer's process. The fact is many of the local breweries I know of started out pitching dry yeast and many of them may still do.

Starting from a single cell sounds fancy, but it is not difficult at all. I do it all the time.. ..in my kitchen. You just need the means to plate/streak yeast on a solid medium. A single colony results from a single cell. From a single colony on the solid medium it is simple to use that to inoculate a small amount of liquid medium and step up growth to whatever amount you need. Its actually a lot easier on the homebrew scale than the commercial scale.

 

[Terpene]

Pitch rate is brewer's choice. Some brewers modulate pitch rate with certain strains in an effort to control fermentation performance and outcome, including ester production.

How the brewer achieves the desired cell count -- pitching more packets, using a starter, or repitching -- is less important than pitch rate, as long as it's done properly and with attention to yeast health.

I bet experienced tasters couldn't tell the difference in a split batch wort experiment where one is pitched with 3 packs of dry yeast and the other with equivalent cell count from a starter of the same strain.

IMO, as others above have mentioned, it really does come down to time/convenience vs cost.