Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
It's getting to where dry yeast costs almost as much as liquid yeast. Does anyone know why dry yeast pricing has skyrocketed?
Can we address the dry yeast yeast starter concept again?
- Thread starter Gregory T
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
OP
OP
Gregory T
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 64
Omg now I don’t want to pitch it at all. I through a fit when I got 5 month old yeast for a Tripel I was making and got new yeast
Recently I decided to buy a 500g block of US-05. It was half the price per gram as buying packets.
I am normally a lager brewer and wanted to experiment with US-05 again to see how clean and crisp of a brew i could get it. It's a hassle to chill wort in the summer down to 45F, and it's a hassle to collect and repitch the yeast. So i am going to redo all my standard lager recipes and see how it goes.
I am normally a lager brewer and wanted to experiment with US-05 again to see how clean and crisp of a brew i could get it. It's a hassle to chill wort in the summer down to 45F, and it's a hassle to collect and repitch the yeast. So i am going to redo all my standard lager recipes and see how it goes.
OP
OP
Gregory T
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 64
Neither of my LHBS (these are a pretty good drive for me) had all the malts or the yeast I wanted. That forced me to order it online. My favorite online shop recently sent me 2 packs of WLP500 that was 5 months old when I received them. (Fill price). Speaking of <75% viability.
I took real issue with that and hesitate to order liquid yeast online, especially during the summer.
That left me with a chance to try out dry yeast since I’ve never done it. Which led to this situation
I’m intrigued by the concept that making a starter somehow u does part of the mfg process
Once I get my hands on some Belgian A, I just asked a shop to order me some, I will probably top crop that for awhile.
In this case, it is not my beloved Tripel, So I’m willing to experiment a little. But the idea of a bunch of dead yeast in my beer at the start is making me ill
I took real issue with that and hesitate to order liquid yeast online, especially during the summer.
That left me with a chance to try out dry yeast since I’ve never done it. Which led to this situation
I’m intrigued by the concept that making a starter somehow u does part of the mfg process
Once I get my hands on some Belgian A, I just asked a shop to order me some, I will probably top crop that for awhile.
In this case, it is not my beloved Tripel, So I’m willing to experiment a little. But the idea of a bunch of dead yeast in my beer at the start is making me ill
I wonder if it would be practical to crack open a big pack and divide it into, say, 20x 25 g vac-sealed packs before moisture was a problem.
Hmm, my vac sealer also has a setting where I can pump down and then hold vacuum for a while before sealing. That would help boil off moisture.
Baker's yeast comes freeze-dried and people keep jars in the fridge without a problem, so it seems like you should have a bit of working time with brewer's yeast.
Hmm, my vac sealer also has a setting where I can pump down and then hold vacuum for a while before sealing. That would help boil off moisture.
Baker's yeast comes freeze-dried and people keep jars in the fridge without a problem, so it seems like you should have a bit of working time with brewer's yeast.
Don't know how much truth is in this. I got this jar of dried bread yeast, open since more than a year.... Poorly closed with a lid that won't really shut. Still works. So the majority still seems to be alive.
I've heard this before and it always comes across as self serving on Dr White's part. He is behind the data that says the liquid yeast degrades stupid fast that underpins everyone's yeast calculators. At 3 months past manufacturing date Mr Malty says the yeast is 32% viable. But White Labs continues to provide information regarding starters on their website although it follows this statement...
"One package of White Labs yeast within proper date ranges will work for any 5-gallon batch of beer of any gravity."
OK so here is the interesting thing I found...
With White Labs current packaging 3 month old yeast is over 90% viable...
https://www.whitelabs.com/news/purepitch-shelf-life
Be nice to see the many online calculators updated to include this information
Notice they didn't qualify how well it "will work"
Will it fully attenuate...
How clean will it be...
How long will it take to ferment...
Most of us know that pitching 1 vial into any 5G of wort is bad because we've done it and determined over time that pitching more yeast makes better beer and consequently we've never gone back.
This is on my list of things to investigate.
While in Asheville we visited the local homebrew store. The owner said that they'd done some evaluation of both Wyeast and White Labs yeast, and found that at 6 months White Labs yeast was still 90 percent viable, while the Wyeast was something like 30 percent.
I'm only relating what he said, and before anyone says "well, they produce yeast there in Asheville," yes they do--but only commercial yeast. The small packets we homebrewers use come from San Diego.
I do have a microscope, a hemocytograph, and the ability to evaluate viability. I'm going to do that at some point in the near future.
But....while that may appear to be self-serving w/r/t White's conflict of interest in this, both my son's and my own experience, at least anecdotally, support what White said.
I will try to do some more objective testing, but to do it right is not a 10-minute experiment. I have a variety of packs of yeast, including some fairly old. But I need to figure a way to do multiple batches at the same time so I can test them. I do have some quart canning jars; just a matter of setting it all up and then testing. Only that....
bierhaus15
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,949
- Reaction score
- 446
To clarify, there is nothing wrong with using dried yeast when pitched at proper amounts. The issue comes when under pitching, making starters with it, or reusing and storing for future reuse. Good yeast management practices apply to liquid as well. Dry yeast is designed to be a single use product, but plenty of people re-pitch it and say it makes great beer. I don't believe them, but that is the beauty of this hobby... do what you want.
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 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.
Gnomebrewer
Well-Known Member
Not true. What evidence do you have to support this?
Edit: I just read your follow up responses. I still don't agree with you - I've pitched starters many times from dry yeast and always repitch slurry from both dry and liquid yeast. The interesting part - I prefer beers from repitched US05 than from a first pitch of dry yeast. It might be in my head (no side-by-side) but I perceive them as cleaner and clearer. I now mostly make a 'sacrificial' small batch with a packet of dry yeast, and use the slurry for my 'good' batches. Maybe you should try it before you comment that it'd bad practice.
Last edited:
Don't do that unless you want to screw with your understanding of yeast and starters. It's certainly screwing with mine.
I also have good success with Re pitched US05. Maybe it is specific to this specific yeast.
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
AHA forums have had a number of topics on re-pitched dry yeast in the last couple of years (I don't know if they noted that the 1st pitch was dry, re-hydrated, or made with a starter). IIRC, Nottingham is another dry yeast where people anecdotally report good results when re-pitching it. And people occasionally mentioned that they get better beer with the re-pitches.
I've never sampled their beer - so for me it's a "trust, but verify" idea.
Obviously your opinions on brulosophy are well known and probably why I went there....but it’s interesting, at least to me, that Marshall is a committed starter guy, but can’t manage to show the value.
duplicate post dang app
Last edited:
OP
OP
Gregory T
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 64
I think it’s good is relative
The thing with beer. I mean suddenly I apparently don’t know how to bottle beer so who knows. Even Though my undercarbed Saison still tastes better than most commercial varieties. Just not as good as The properly carbed saisons from the same batch. And yes, these were bottled 2 months ago, please don’t tell me to wait and they will even out
Sorry. I have had several bottles of this perfect saison and suddenly the last 2 were at about 1.5 instead of 3.25. Now I’m wondering whether the ones I entered are my beautiful 3.25 or these flat things
The thing with beer. I mean suddenly I apparently don’t know how to bottle beer so who knows. Even Though my undercarbed Saison still tastes better than most commercial varieties. Just not as good as The properly carbed saisons from the same batch. And yes, these were bottled 2 months ago, please don’t tell me to wait and they will even out
Sorry. I have had several bottles of this perfect saison and suddenly the last 2 were at about 1.5 instead of 3.25. Now I’m wondering whether the ones I entered are my beautiful 3.25 or these flat things
I don't need a crowd of other people to tell me what estery, phenolic, under attenuated oxidized beer tastes like. I can sense it myself, i don't like it, and know how to solve it.
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Due to truth in advertising laws, the reported cell counts for yeast packages (dry or liquid) are highly likely to be minimums, which may potentially grossly under-report the typical count of active/live yeast present.
Last edited:
Big Monk
Trappist Please! 🍷
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 1,151
I doubt that. Count them and see. I bet you’d get counts consistent with viability dating.
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
(emphasis added for those who skim)
This ('many of the things "most of us know" seem to shift over time') will likely continue as new information from presentations ("BYO Boot Camps" and "Hop and Brew School") and newer books ("The New IPA", "Simple Homebrewing") continue to filter into homebrewing forums. The "Hop and Brew School" reference is off topic - but the referenced data/science suggests that one doesn't need to vacuum seal hops when putting them in the freezer (it's up to you to trust or ignore the data). For dry yeast, presentations on E2U with more summary data are starting to appear (sorry, no direct links on this one: try a Google search for PDFs from likely presenters).
I think there's value that doesn't necessarily show up every time in flavors, in that it's insurance. You've probably seen me say this before, but I'll repeat it for others. My son is a microbiologist and also a home brewer. He says virtually all homebrews are "infected" in that there's dust and stuff floating in the air that ends up in our wort. Dust has bacteria on it, if we cough we expel droplets that contain bacteria, things like that.
If there's enough of those nasties in there, they can get a foothold and create off-flavors, and since bacteria reproduces far faster than yeast, it can happen fast.
A starter, by virtue of getting more yeast cells in the wort, and (in my case) taking off much faster than normal, allows the yeast the opportunity to outcompete any nasties that have fallen into the wort.
So--arguably there's value in doing a starter for that reason. Many brewers might argue that they don't have those off flavors even though they don't do a starter, but that doesn't mean they don't, at least occasionally. There isn't enough crap falling into our wort all the time to make a difference, time of year probably matters (bacteria-laden pollen, e.g.), it may not be bacteria that produces off-flavors of significance, and frankly, I'm skeptical of many brewers' ability to detect those off-flavors anyway. *see below for more on this
***
I met Marshall at the BYO boot camp in Asheville. Three things stood out. 1) Nice guy, enjoyed the chance to visit with him the first night. 2) He looks younger in person than pics I've seen of him. 3) He had a glass of my Darth Lager, and when it was done, said "Let me have some more of that." Highlight of my trip.
***
My skepticism of the Brulosophy approach is fairly well-known here, I think. They just don't control the tasting panels adequately for me to have confidence in the results. There's no control over what people are drinking prior to doing the tasting, and if they're burning their taste buds with IPAs before testing, or eating spicy or aromatic foods (garlic!), is it that they can't detect a difference, or that there's no difference? They also don't do the triangle test correctly--the orders in which people are exposed to the beers is supposed to be randomized, to eliminate ordering effects.
I did an experiment like this, and it's hard to do it. Participants don't care as much, there's all this stuff to keep organized, it's hard to get people to do the test before they start destroying their palate with all the various and sundry homebrews brought for trying....so it's not like I'm saying it's easy to do this all according to Hoyle. It's not.
That said, at least they're trying something. "Man in the arena" kind of thing. I think the control they bring to the two-batch approach is actually quite good. I'm a scientist, they really do a nice job trying to isolate the experimental variable each time.
***
* I'm pretty skeptical of a single anecdotal claim of something regarding taste or off-flavors. There's lots of evidence that people have different palates, that some flavors (off-flavor or otherwise) are not perceptible to some people, and so on. All you need to do is see the results of judging competitions; I've seen where people submit the exact same beer under two different entries; one wins or medals, the other is panned as bad. Same beer.
I've entered beer in local comps, only to be stunned with what won the competition. Off-flavor in the beer, either extract twang or something else, whereas mine did not have that. (yeah, sour grapes here
). A buddy and I were at one of these, where the beer being judged was an Amber. I've got a pretty good one. We were shocked at what won, as if I'd had a sample of it at a taproom, I'd have never ordered a full glass. Nor my buddy, either.I've done an off-flavor workshop, and I've become better at identifying off-flavors, though often pinpointing the source for me can be difficult. None of the judges at these comps have, as far as I can tell, ever done that.
So--when people say they don't have an off-flavor in a beer, I take it with a grain of salt. Is it because, THIS TIME, it wasn't infected, but next time it might be? Or that they can't detect an off-flavor that others would? A single anecdotal account is only that. Now, this doesn't mean I think the person is lying, I don't. It's just that it's a one-off judgment.
What I will do is take such a claim as a working hypothesis, looking for evidence it's wrong (which is all you can do in science). I'll also gather evidence that supports it, and eventually, if it looks interesting, I might do it in my own beer. That's what I did with pitching the single pack of White Labs yeast, no starter. White said he'd do that, my son has done it several times with no apparent ill-effects, and I just did it producing an excellent beer.
You reading this can take that as anecdotal, because....that's what it is.
OP
OP
Gregory T
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 64
I think there's value that doesn't necessarily show up every time in flavors, in that it's insurance. You've probably seen me say this before, but I'll repeat it for others. My son is a microbiologist and also a home brewer. He says virtually all homebrews are "infected" in that there's dust and stuff floating in the air that ends up in our wort. Dust has bacteria on it, if we cough we expel droplets that contain bacteria, things like that.
If there's enough of those nasties in there, they can get a foothold and create off-flavors, and since bacteria reproduces far faster than yeast, it can happen fast.
A starter, by virtue of getting more yeast cells in the wort, and (in my case) taking off much faster than normal, allows the yeast the opportunity to outcompete any nasties that have fallen into the wort.
So--arguably there's value in doing a starter for that reason. Many brewers might argue that they don't have those off flavors even though they don't do a starter, but that doesn't mean they don't, at least occasionally. There isn't enough crap falling into our wort all the time to make a difference, time of year probably matters (bacteria-laden pollen, e.g.), it may not be bacteria that produces off-flavors of significance, and frankly, I'm skeptical of many brewers' ability to detect those off-flavors anyway. *see below for more on this
***
I met Marshall at the BYO boot camp in Asheville. Three things stood out. 1) Nice guy, enjoyed the chance to visit with him the first night. 2) He looks younger in person than pics I've seen of him. 3) He had a glass of my Darth Lager, and when it was done, said "Let me have some more of that." Highlight of my trip.
***
My skepticism of the Brulosophy approach is fairly well-known here, I think. They just don't control the tasting panels adequately for me to have confidence in the results. There's no control over what people are drinking prior to doing the tasting, and if they're burning their taste buds with IPAs before testing, or eating spicy or aromatic foods (garlic!), is it that they can't detect a difference, or that there's no difference? They also don't do the triangle test correctly--the orders in which people are exposed to the beers is supposed to be randomized, to eliminate ordering effects.
I did an experiment like this, and it's hard to do it. Participants don't care as much, there's all this stuff to keep organized, it's hard to get people to do the test before they start destroying their palate with all the various and sundry homebrews brought for trying....so it's not like I'm saying it's easy to do this all according to Hoyle. It's not.
That said, at least they're trying something. "Man in the arena" kind of thing. I think the control they bring to the two-batch approach is actually quite good. I'm a scientist, they really do a nice job trying to isolate the experimental variable each time.
***
* I'm pretty skeptical of a single anecdotal claim of something regarding taste or off-flavors. There's lots of evidence that people have different palates, that some flavors (off-flavor or otherwise) are not perceptible to some people, and so on. All you need to do is see the results of judging competitions; I've seen where people submit the exact same beer under two different entries; one wins or medals, the other is panned as bad. Same beer.
I've entered beer in local comps, only to be stunned with what won the competition. Off-flavor in the beer, either extract twang or something else, whereas mine did not have that. (yeah, sour grapes here
I've done an off-flavor workshop, and I've become better at identifying off-flavors, though often pinpointing the source for me can be difficult. None of the judges at these comps have, as far as I can tell, ever done that.
So--when people say they don't have an off-flavor in a beer, I take it with a grain of salt. Is it because, THIS TIME, it wasn't infected, but next time it might be? Or that they can't detect an off-flavor that others would? A single anecdotal account is only that. Now, this doesn't mean I think the person is lying, I don't. It's just that it's a one-off judgment.
What I will do is take such a claim as a working hypothesis, looking for evidence it's wrong (which is all you can do in science). I'll also gather evidence that supports it, and eventually, if it looks interesting, I might do it in my own beer. That's what I did with pitching the single pack of White Labs yeast, no starter. White said he'd do that, my son has done it several times with no apparent ill-effects, and I just did it producing an excellent beer.
You reading this can take that as anecdotal, because....that's what it is.
Agree completely . We pitch at the rates we do so the yeast we want wins the race. The race against bacteria and wild yeast. The yeast then forms a protective layer of carbon dioxide, alcohol, and lowers the PH which protects itself and our beer.
we could make wort and sit it out without ever pitching yeast. It would eventually ferment and might even be good.
I kinda laugh at the hepa filter on my aeration pump and think I didn’t filter the air I was stirring with before I got a pump. Of course, we control what we can
I feel yeast viability and fermentation temperature are critical in order to duplicate results. That makes me obsessive over yeast
For this beer, it’s a new recipe I’ve never tried. I am going to make a few batches to give away over the summer. Assuming I remember how to bottle again. (Not sure what I started doing wrong there out of the blue) So I wanted to try some dry yeast. I start reading the info on it and it didn’t make sense to me
There is a lot of good info in this thread
I think Dr White and your son are on the same page. Once you open that pack of yeast your yeast is contaminated. When you make a starter out of it you are propagating contaminated yeast. Starter media (low gravity wort) is excellent for propagating all sorts of bugs. If you decant and add fresh wort you are spending even more time in that low alcohol high pH ideal for expanding the contaminant populations.
Pitching more yeast into wort fights contamination by being faster to drop pH and make enough alcohol to suppress bacterial growth. But are you better off pitching 90 billion cells of yeast with very low contamination or 300 billion cells with some meaningful level of contamination?
I agree the wort you are pitching into is contaminated and a quick start should get it to a safety zone faster. And when the calculator is saying your liquid yeast pack has only 30 billion viable cells left a starter sounds like a very good idea. But that depends on the calculator being right.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 3,101
- Reaction score
- 5,538
Would a standard kitchen vacuum sealer work?
Yes it is. Have you tried MoreBeer for inexpensive yeast?
Lots of (seemingly) smart and experienced brewers have chimed in with different info. I am making my way through Chris White's Yeast book. I am not sure I have a comprehensive yeast "strategy" but I try different things and stick with what works the best (direct pitching dried yeast, harvesting yeast slurry including S-04, direct pitching White Labs packs into 2.5 gal batches...direct pitch a WLP001 pack into a 5 gal pale ale when an unexpected slot to brew popped up).
Much of my brewing habits were formed back when dried yeast had significantly more contamination and you could not get liquid yeast with 100B to 200B cells. All the info and quality yeast available these days has changed (or at least made me question) a lot of my practices.
GoeHaarden
The best advice is unsolicited
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,323
- Reaction score
- 738
I've re-pitched Notty with good success. I don't really see how the quality of pitchable cells in a yeast cake from dry yeast would be any different (other than strain) from that of liquid yeast.
OP
OP
Gregory T
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 64
Yes it is. Have you tried MoreBeer for inexpensive yeast?
Lots of (seemingly) smart and experienced brewers have chimed in with different info. I am making my way through Chris White's Yeast book. I am not sure I have a comprehensive yeast "strategy" but I try different things and stick with what works the best (direct pitching dried yeast, harvesting yeast slurry including S-04, direct pitching White Labs packs into 2.5 gal batches...direct pitch a WLP001 pack into a 5 gal pale ale when an unexpected slot to brew popped up).
Much of my brewing habits were formed back when dried yeast had significantly more contamination and you could not get liquid yeast with 100B to 200B cells. All the info and quality yeast available these days has changed (or at least made me question) a lot of my practices.
$6 a pack is Morebeer’s price. I won’t buy liquid yeast from MoreBeer. That’s another discussion
You don't really get much of a vacuum with those and then there is still the issue of exposure while handling it.
My guess is yes it’ll be fine. My plan once I open my 500g pouch is to split it into 5 100G bags. I’m planning to use most of the yeast in the next 6 months.
GoeHaarden
The best advice is unsolicited
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,323
- Reaction score
- 738
Why? Not trying to start an argument I'm just curious if your rationale for this is science or just good advertising by the company to sell more yeast?
Take the Weihenstephan strain for instance which, to my limited knowledge, comes dry as Saflager 34/70 and liquid (WLP830 I believe). Sure we could argue that the initial cell pitch of dry 34/70 isn't reusable, but what about the cells produced throughout fermentation? I don't think dry yeast manufacturers are genetically modifying the strain to go bad after one use...
Can anyone answer this? I will continue to reuse dry yeast as I've had good results, but the whole one-and-done idea for dry yeast just doesn't make sense to me.
GoeHaarden
The best advice is unsolicited
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,323
- Reaction score
- 738
Thanks. This is what I'm after. Do you by chance have the whole study?
PM sent.
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."
And yet it is Lallemand that recommends to uderpitch their Munich yeast to increase the banana flavor:
"Pitching rate for primary fermentation
The recommended pitching rate is 100g/hl to achieve up to 5 million live cells per ml.
A lower pitching rate of 50g/hl can be used to increase ester concentration notably isoamyl acetate
which is responsible for banana flavors. See below for more details."
Similar threads
