Do I need a starter?

[Chefencore]

Decided to brew today. Just occurred to me that I didn’t even consider making a starter. It’s gonna be 5 gallons of 1.059. Beer Alchemy and Mr Malty say use a 1.3L starter. Wyeast Ardennes, production date Aug 23. If I started a starter now, would it even be ready tonight? If i don’t brew today, it will have to wait til thursday.

 

[thegerm]

yes you need a starter. You can delay pitching. the starter would not be ready by tonight.

 

[pm5k00]

Your beer will more than likely taste better if you use a starter, but you don't need one. If your OG is 1.069 or less both wyeast and whitelabs say on vial/smack pack will do the job.

 

[thegerm]

Your beer will more than likely taste better if you use a starter, but you don't need one. If your OG is 1.069 or less both wyeast and whitelabs say on vial/smack pack will do the job.

man I hate to flame, especially on hbt... but come on now. a smackpack or vial isn't sufficient for anything over 5 gallons at about 1.030. this is fairly uncontroversial. white labs and wyeast are promoting bad brewing when they claim what you have cited.

 

[mastweb]

You could pitch two packages of yeast and use no starter if you want to pitch today. Would cost more, but would be faster

 

[solbes]

You could delay pitching. Honestly I have never done this. But I would probably have a hard time sleeping at night. Imagining 1 bacteria, splitting into 2, splitting into 4, splitting into 8...tick...tick...

When my wort is ready, I want yeast in there right after it gets down to pitching temps. Don't let anything else get a foothold on that precious sugar.

I would just go buy another smack pack and pitch tonight. Next time go for a starter.

 

[KevinW]

Well it sounds like it is going to be a thursday brew to me

I know there are different schools of thought about just when to use a starter and when you probably don't.

I traditionally do not make "big" beers, mine tend to run in the upper 1.040's to upper 1.050's. For my first 10 batches or so I did not make starters.

As soon as I began making starters my beer quality improved dramatically,which for me is a huge achievement:cross: Now I make starters for all my beers, without fail!

Take the time to make the starter and you will thank yourself when you are drinking your beer later on!

Just my opinons though!

Good luck

 

[Clementine]

Although you have already made your decision I will give you further reason for knowing you made the right decision. The reason some people think that it is OK to pitch without a starter is based on their experience of things "working for them", some have been lucky and had particularly good yeast others are just uneducated and don't know how good their beer could be with the right amount of yeast.

If you don't do a starter then you are just guessing on the number of yeast you are pitching, ie your yeast could be anywhere from 100% viable to completely dead. Doing a starter you are confirming that your yeast are ready to go, you are also comfirming the numbers of yeast cells and are also improving their health so they can have a stress free (ie less fusel alcohols and esters) fermentation. I would not ever even think about using liquid yeast without a starter, whether it is 5 gallons of 1.030 or 1000gallons of RIS always do a starter of the correct size.

Clem

 

[xjmox14x]

man I hate to flame, especially on hbt... but come on now. a smackpack or vial isn't sufficient for anything over 5 gallons at about 1.030. this is fairly uncontroversial. white labs and wyeast are promoting bad brewing when they claim what you have cited.

While I certainly agree that a starter at any gravity level can produce a higher quality beer, simply stating that "a smackpack or vial isn't sufficient for anything over 5 gallons at about 1.030" is just flat out incorrect.

 

[solbes]

As a counter point, I've had some brews made by friends in the 1.055 - 1.065 that turned out excellent with no starter, just good control over temps. That being said I almost always make a starter for liquid yeast.

I don' think the OP has made up his mind yet, just the initial question post.

 

[thegerm]

While I certainly agree that a starter at any gravity level can produce a higher quality beer, simply stating that "a smackpack or vial isn't sufficient for anything over 5 gallons at about 1.030" is just flat out incorrect.

how so? are we arguing semantics? I assume when somebody asks questions like these they are coming from the point of view of someone who is hoping to make the best possible beer given their practical circumstance. so my answer addresses that scenario. How am I wrong?

 

[xjmox14x]

how so? are we arguing semantics? I assume when somebody asks questions like these they are coming from the point of view of someone who is hoping to make the best possible beer given their practical circumstance. so my answer addresses that scenario. How am I wrong?

He didn't ask what he needs to make the best beer possible. He asked if he needs a starter. The answer to that question in one word is: no.

A more elaborate answer would be, yes and no. While it is recommended that a starter be used for liquid yeasts, you can certainly brew outstanding beer (5 gallon batches and well over 1.030 OG) without one, especially if you're on your game in other areas to help out the yeast, such as aeration and temp control. Of course, given the strain on the yeasts, and their workload, a better quality beer can be achieved using a starter to get the yeast cooking and have their numbers increased by the time you're ready to pitch.

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your point in saying "a smackpack or vial isn't sufficient for anything over 5 gallons at about 1.030". If you're going to say something like this, it might be better to elaborate a bit and give some reasoning. A blanket statement like that that is not entirely true does not help the OP in any way.

 

[thegerm]

he doesn't need a lot of things to make beer that isn't the best beer possible. he doesn't need to aerate, or have good sanitation, or deal with chlorine/choramine. he doesn't have to ensure proper calcium or ph in his mash, he doesn't need to measure his hops or worry about their AA. he doesn't need to control the temperature of fermentation, or any other number of things. He will still make beer.

but if he wants an assured method of brewing better beer, then the answer, especially for a 1.059 OG beer is yes, pitch the proper cell count.

"Consistent, high-quality beer requires precise measurements. One of the most important measurements, especially in terms of fermentation, is pitching rate. Without consistent pitching rates, flavor can change significantly from batch to batch.
"What are the consequences of overpitching or underpitching? In general, underpitching affects flavor more, while overpitching negatively affects yeast health more over generations. However, both can result in a less than ideal fermentation with high levels of diacetyl, acetaldehyde, and low attenuation." Yeast p121.

 

[Clementine]

he doesn't need a lot of things to make beer that isn't the best beer possible. he doesn't need to aerate, or have good sanitation, or deal with chlorine/choramine. he doesn't have to ensure proper calcium or ph in his mash, he doesn't need to measure his hops or worry about their AA. he doesn't need to control the temperature of fermentation, or any other number of things. He will still make beer.

but if he wants an assured method of brewing better beer, then the answer, especially for a 1.059 OG beer is yes, pitch the proper cell count.

"Consistent, high-quality beer requires precise measurements. One of the most important measurements, especially in terms of fermentation, is pitching rate. Without consistent pitching rates, flavor can change significantly from batch to batch.
"What are the consequences of overpitching or underpitching? In general, underpitching affects flavor more, while overpitching negatively affects yeast health more over generations. However, both can result in a less than ideal fermentation with high levels of diacetyl, acetaldehyde, and low attenuation." Yeast p121.

Love this! Well put

 

[Chefencore]

Damn y'all. I shoulda just called the Yeast Whisperer. Thanks for all the input! I obviously want to make the best beer possible, or else I would not have asked!!

Gonna make my starter tonight and brew Thursday. I don't want my wort sitting around for 36 hours with no lifeguard on duty.

 

[Chefencore]

One more question. I have only 100g of dme. Can I supplement with priming sugar to make a 1.5L starter or just let it ride at 1L?

And let the debate begin...

 

[pm5k00]

Starters are best made with maltose; dextrose or sucrose are not advised for starters as they don't prepare the yeast for their job. Also to my earlier post, i was posting from my phone and as such replied in short length, but i thought it was pretty clear that a starter would be better, but not required to make your beer. If the questions was phrased differently, such as " should I use a starter?" I would of said YES, but that was not the question asked.

 

[el_caro]

Starters are best made with maltose; dextrose or sucrose are not advised for starters as they don't prepare the yeast for their job. Also to my earlier post, i was posting from my phone and as such replied in short length, but i thought it was pretty clear that a starter would be better, but no required to make your beer. If the questions was phrased differently, such as " should I use a starter?" I would of said YES, but that was not the question asked.

It was pretty clear to me.

I find it disappointing that a yeast supplier like Whitelabs gives the impression it only recommends a starter if "Original Gravity is over 1.060, if the yeast is past its "Best Before" date, if you are pitching lager yeast at temperatures below 65F, or if a faster start is desired"
One could glean from that FAQ answer that a starter is not needed for other situations. However we all know that yeast viability could be effected by other things besides the best before date and hence a starter is desirable to proof the health of the yeast and get the pitching rate correct.

 

[thegerm]

it's not just for proof of viability. even if those vials and smackpacks came to you at 100% viability and virile like bunnies in spring, they still don't provide enough cell count to ideally ferment anything over a very low gravity.

the problem of their documentation is the same as with the dry yeast manufacturers. they have 2 sets of directions: one for the professional brewer, and one for the home brewer. do you think white labs will recommend to a pro brewer to pitch .25 million cells per milliliter of wort per point of plato? Not a chance.

why do they give suboptimal advice to homebrewers? I don't know, but I have a cynical hypothesis about marketing to the lowest common denominator.

as to whether it would be better to make a smaller starter with all DME, or to increase your volume using sucrose or dextrose? I really have no idea which would be the lesser evil. Personally I'd probably go with the simple sugar to get to the volume suggested on the pitching rate calculator. But I won't stand behind that as the better way to go... I just dunno.

 

[tolkheleknar]

it's not just for proof of viability. even if those vials and smackpacks came to you at 100% viability and virile like bunnies in spring, they still don't provide enough cell count to ideally ferment anything over a very low gravity.

the problem of their documentation is the same as with the dry yeast manufacturers. they have 2 sets of directions: one for the professional brewer, and one for the home brewer. do you think white labs will recommend to a pro brewer to pitch .25 million cells per milliliter of wort per point of plato? Not a chance.

why do they give suboptimal advice to homebrewers? I don't know, but I have a cynical hypothesis about marketing to the lowest common denominator.

as to whether it would be better to make a smaller starter with all DME, or to increase your volume using sucrose or dextrose? I really have no idea which would be the lesser evil. Personally I'd probably go with the simple sugar to get to the volume suggested on the pitching rate calculator. But I won't stand behind that as the better way to go... I just dunno.

You would think if it were a marketing thing, they would tell you buy more yeast since that's the proper alternative to starters for upping cell counts.

 

[JimTheHick]

One more question. I have only 100g of dme. Can I supplement with priming sugar to make a 1.5L starter or just let it ride at 1L?

And let the debate begin...

How much simple sugar is in your wort? You should definitely be comfortable using at least as much as will be in the wort you brew up! Maybe split the difference and make 1.2 L as long as you aren't over 10-15% sucrose.

 

[pm5k00]

You would think if it were a marketing thing, they would tell you buy more yeast since that's the proper alternative to starters for upping cell counts.

I would think they would sell the vials/smack packs with the proper cell count for beers <1.070 so starters aren't needed at all.

 

[Komodo]

I would think they would sell the vials/smack packs with the proper cell count for beers <1.070 so starters aren't needed at all.

Well, this all remnds me of the debates of HSA and secondaries, etc etc. I won't debate whether pitching a vial or a 1-2L starter is "better", but will say that using a vial and no starter certainly isn't going to ruin it and make a " dumper". It'll likely be fine beer and you'll wonder why people make starters. If you brewed it again, and used a 1-2L starter and compared it side by side with the previous beer, you'll likely taste an improvement.

I'm doing this very thing right now, and will post my results in the future. I've recently begun brewing again, and have a 4G belgian in the fermenter now. I decided to use a fresh vial and no starter, and then will be washing and pitching a much larger amount on the next batch. It will be the same exact beer and process. White Labs Platinum 545. FWIW, this one was bubbling fast around 12 -18 hours and finished the largest chunk by 3 days. Then a sugar addition had it going in 5 minutes and now its in a long slow crawl. Perfect so far.

(every single thing above would of course be variable with ingredients, temps, OGs, individual yeast strains, etc etc)

 

[kappclark]

Once I switched to liquid yeast, and started harvesting/washing, I always try to do a starter to prove viability. If the yeast has been stored for maybe a week - 10 days, I might skip the starter (like I just did with Sat's batch of HPA (which had a lag time of maybe 12 hours..I used WLP001)

I am trying to be accurate in amount of slurry that goes into starter etc..

It has made a difference in quality and lag time...

If I have a good starter, I look forward to a good batch !

I am sure your batch will be tasty.

 

[beerhound28]

yes ..you want the yeast to dominate your wort rapidly so your batch can be up and running with little lag time and less chance of infection..a starter will produce better beer..I myself will NEVER brew beer without a starter...cheers

 

[beerhound28]

oh yeah... if you use dry yeast then a starter is not needed