Does a starter really make better beer?

[AnOldUR]

Healthy yeast in the proper amounts make better beer then the alternative. Do it right. Embrace the science. Make better beer.

There's a difference between embracing the science and blindly following someone’s interpretation of it.

To newb brewers out there, if anyone with decades of experience homebrewing offers to trade their experience for your stir plate...grab your stir plate and run like hell.

Funny. I bought that BS story when I started brewing. That stir plate sits on a shelf collecting dust. Now I only brew beer I can drink.

 

[AnOldUR]

i agree that there are difference between the two beers. what i'm not clear on is how he prepared the wort (eg oxygen or nutrients).

The problem with that experiment is that he made a starter with a count the same as what Mr Malty said would be in a pack of yeast after one month, not an actual pack of yeast. Great at finding out the effects of under pitching. Worthless in comparing to pitching without a starter.

 

[progmac]

The problem with that experiment is that he made a starter with a count the same as what Mr Malty said would be in a pack of yeast after one month, not an actual pack of yeast. Great at finding out the effects of under pitching. Worthless in comparing to pitching without a starter.

i didn't catch that.

 

[thefost]

The problem with that experiment is that he made a starter with a count the same as what Mr Malty said would be in a pack of yeast after one month, not an actual pack of yeast. Great at finding out the effects of under pitching. Worthless in comparing to pitching without a starter.

Hmm, I just checked his notes and he pitched 50 billion cells into 3 gallons of 1.059 wort... If I'm not mistaken that seems pretty darn close to what you'd expect from pitching a 1 month old liquid yeast into a normal 5.5 gallon.

 

[thefost]

i agree that there are difference between the two beers. what i'm not clear on is how he prepared the wort (eg oxygen or nutrients).

Looks like he did 10 minutes aeration with an aquarium pump with oxygen stone. Didn't list any special yeast nutrients added so I'd assume he didn't add anything.

 

[Schreiner]

Funny thing is unless you are counting cells with a microscope you are just making a best guess. I will make a starter based on the yeastcalc calculator when necessary. The last time I brewed my LHBS didn't have the yeast I wanted. He ordered two vials of yeast for me on a Monday, to arrive on Friday. Let them warm up a while Friday afternoon and pitched without a starter. But my best guess told me there was plenty of yeast in those two vials for 1.054 OG wort. Cell count matters most.

 

[tagz]

I don't get the Jamil bashing. He won the Ninkasi.... twice. Surely that shows that he has some mastery of homebrewing.

 

[RM-MN]

I don't get the Jamil bashing. He won the Ninkasi.... twice. Surely that shows that he has some mastery of homebrewing.

Sure Jamil has won the Ninkasi twice and uses starters to get the best possible beer. Gordon Strong has won the Ninkasi 3 times and he doesn't use starters. Who makes the best beer? Which one is right? Does it matter? I make beer that I want to drink. I don't care if it is award quality or swill, if I like it, it's done right.

 

[ChugachBrewing]

First things first, if the beer you are making you enjoy it, then you're doing it right.
As for the starter conversation I do make a small starter because a higher cell count does contribute to a healthier fermentation and often a better tasting beer. That being said, you can probably get away making great beer with just a snack pack. A small starter will definitely not do anything to hurt your beer unless you ramp it up to the point at which you are overpitching. I don't think any of us are probably taking it that far, so the risk there is low. If you have the ability to make a starter easily without running the risk of contamination then ryou should probably give it a try.

Sent from my PG86100 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[brew_ny]

I make beer that I want to drink. I don't care if it is award quality or swill, if I like it, it's done right.

that is what is really important in the end

all the best

S_M

 

[AnOldUR]

Hmm, I just checked his notes and he pitched 50 billion cells into 3 gallons of 1.059 wort... If I'm not mistaken that seems pretty darn close to what you'd expect from pitching a 1 month old liquid yeast into a normal 5.5 gallon.

I may have missed it, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my read of the article, no cell counting was done. I looks like the cell counts used were based on calculated numbers from building up a rather old slurry. Estimates, based on estimates. Further, no stir plates used, just random shaking. You really can't compare this to yeast grown and packaged under laboratory conditions by professionals.

Like I said earlier, it was an informative study. Just not in the context of this thread.

I began by building up the starters from 10 mL of slurry that was 52 days old (approx. 25 billion cells). The slurry was pitched into 500 mL of starter wort (~50B); after 24 hours this was split evenly between 400 mL (~50B) and 2.4 L (~125B) starters. These were allowed to ferment to completion, while being shaken as often as possible, then placed in a refrigerator 16 hours before pitching.

 

[g-star]

Lots of great stuff! THANKS

For the record, my chico is always really fresh (1-2 weeks old) but that's changing with me switching up to WL007: 3 months old...

Let's expound: Are some of you guys REALLY following the Mr. Malty calculator? IE - buying 2-3 smack packs and preparing a 3-4L starter for a 1.048 lager?

Absolutely. Pale lagers are very difficult to get right, and by right I mean something that would score a 35+ by ranked BJCP judges. If you want a REALLY clean, world class lager, you need to pitch upwards of 1.75M cells/ml/*Plato. I usually shoot for 2M cells/ml/*Plato

For my last lager (1.054 Dortmunder), I used two relatively fresh tubes of WLP833 in a gallon starter. The beer was fermenting strong in less than 24hrs and came out exceptionally clean and indistinguishible from commercial lagers.

 

[MichaelBrock]

Sure Jamil has won the Ninkasi twice and uses starters to get the best possible beer. Gordon Strong has won the Ninkasi 3 times and he doesn't use starters. Who makes the best beer? Which one is right? Does it matter? I make beer that I want to drink. I don't care if it is award quality or swill, if I like it, it's done right.

As a strong believer in pitching sufficient quantities of yeast (I find the scientific argument compelling) I found it very difficult to believe that Gordon Strong doesn't use starters. I went straight to the source, his book "Making Better Beer". On page 130, the section titled "Using New Yeast: Making a Starter" he says:

Most yeast suppliers package their liquid yest in "pitchable' packages. These are directly usable in average-strength homebrews (5-gallon batches of 1.048 wort) when they are fresh and well stored (refrigerated). However, I usually like to make a starter so that the yeast are actively fermenting when pitched; this results in a quicker start to fermentation and less chance of off-flavors developing.

So that is two multiple Ninkasi award winners who are proponents of making starters.

 

[Likefully]

I am increasingly becoming aware that you need to understand that there are risks and certainties in brewing.

If you mash at too high a temperature you will denature the enzymes. Thats a certainty.

If your pitching rate is too low you run the risk of stressing the yeast and getting off flavours. Its a more likely risk than the risk of being hit by an asteroid while kissing someone on the beach under a full moon at low tide when the sardines are running. But it fits in the risk column.

 

[progmac]

So that is two multiple Ninkasi award winners who are proponents of making starters.

Strong is famously casual about yeast pitch rate. He has absolutely said that he makes lagers with no starters (i expect he sometimes makes one and sometimes doesn't). He talks a lot more about yeast health and a lot less about yeast quantity. In his book he also says that he always makes a starter with dry yeast and sometimes, or usually, or occasionally (can't remember the word) makes a starter with liquid yeast.

As for me, I make a starter of some sort or another with all my beers except for english ales. I've used the calculators in the past, I've done enormous pitches for lagers. But i've settled on making a 1-1.5 liter starter for most everything and leaving the calculators alone. I might decant some into a sanitized jar if I know I'll be using the same strain in the next month.

 

[RM-MN]

For a normal strength lager, I typically use a smackpack of Wyeast or make a 1L starter with a vial of White Labs. I don't go crazy on yeast, but I will often repitch from a normal batch if I'm making a stronger lager. I oxygenate and pitch with the yeast and wort at the same temperature.

This quote from Gordon Strong was copied from this thread on Homebrew chatter. http://www.***************.com/board/showthread.php?t=19915

If Gordon typically (his words) make s a lager from a single smack pack (with nutrients and oxygen) why do we make 2 liter starters for a 1.050 ale? Does it really make that much better beer? Why do Wyeast and White labs claim that one smack pack or one vial is sufficient?

 

[mkeckjr]

I think it's easy to see that pitch rate is important if you think about it in the limit: suppose in 5 gallons of wort you pitched a single yeast cell. This would almost undoubtedly result in a wild fermentation.

Generalizing that concept, I would say that as you get further and further from the target pitch rate of your particular beer (whether it be an ale or lager), the probability that the batch of beer has off flavors becomes higher and higher. It's not that a single fermentation may come out great with a low pitch rate; it's that averaged over thousands/millions of batches, you can greatly reduce the probability that you have a bad batch by pitching a proper amount of healthy yeast. So you can think of a starter as a risk-reduction technique.

 

[seabass07]

I am increasingly becoming aware that you need to understand that there are risks and certainties in brewing.

If you mash at too high a temperature you will denature the enzymes. Thats a certainty.

If your pitching rate is too low you run the risk of stressing the yeast and getting off flavours. Its a more likely risk than the risk of being hit by an asteroid while kissing someone on the beach under a full moon at low tide when the sardines are running. But it fits in the risk column.

You don't seem to realize that yeast are very predictable and consistent. This is the reason that commercial beers are so consistent. If pitching rate, temp, etc are the same on the same beer throughout different batches, the end product will be consistent. Underpitching and high fermentation temp WILL ALWAYS effect your beer. If you're happy with your results, then continue your methods. If you have off flavors, then look at your pitching rate and fermentation temp. It isn't a question of risk. Lower pitching rate WILL increase esters, phenols, etc. It's just a question of whether that bothers you or not. This isn't some roll of the dice.

 

[boydster]

You don't seem to realize that yeast are very predictable and consistent. This is the reason that commercial beers are so consistent. If pitching rate, temp, etc are the same on the same beer throughout different batches, the end product will be consistent. Underpitching and high fermentation temp WILL ALWAYS effect your beer. If you're happy with your results, then continue your methods. If you have off flavors, then look at your pitching rate and fermentation temp. It isn't a question of risk. Lower pitching rate WILL increase esters, phenols, etc. It's just a question of whether that bothers you or not. This isn't some roll of the dice.

His point is somewhat valid, though, in the sense that there are variables that work together that impact the final flavor of the beer. One of the easiest to control is pitch rate, but other things like nutrient availability and dissolved oxygen also play a role. If you pitch low, but have an abundance of nutrients and oxygen in your wort, you are far less likely to have off flavors than someone pitching low with poor levels of available nutrients. By controlling the controllables, we minimize the risk of creating off flavors due to uncontrolled variables. Given that most people start out paying very little attention to nutrients, pitch rate is the easiest variable to control to produce consistent results - increase pitch rate to minimize potential off-flavors due to varying levels of nutrients. If pitch rate was the only thing to be concerned with, Gordon Strong would probably not be making very good lagers. If you have the ability to control a flavor-impacting variable, the responsible thing to do is to control it. If you understand how other variables are interdependent, and you can control all of them to a degree that produces consistently desirable results, more power to you, but that isn't how most people start off in this hobby - hence, the typical focus on healthy pitch rate via a starter.

 

[g-star]

Why do Wyeast and White labs claim that one smack pack or one vial is sufficient?

Those are generic label instructions and designed to make the product idiot-proof. They also direct you to pitch at 75F...that doesn't make it optimal practice either.

The yeast label instructions cater to the lowest common denominator of homebrewer...they just want to ensure a fermentation happens (eventually) and beer is made. Will pitching one 3-month old tube or smack pack in to your 1.060 wort work? Yeah, after a long lag you'll get beer that is more than likely to contain more than one technical fault.

If you want to make the best, most error/falut-free beer possible, you need to make a starter....period. This has been proven for decades over and over by scientific study, and is not debatable.

 

[seabass07]

His point is somewhat valid, though, in the sense that there are variables that work together that impact the final flavor of the beer. One of the easiest to control is pitch rate, but other things like nutrient availability and dissolved oxygen also play a role. If you pitch low, but have an abundance of nutrients and oxygen in your wort, you are far less likely to have off flavors than someone pitching low with poor levels of available nutrients. By controlling the controllables, we minimize the risk of creating off flavors due to uncontrolled variables. Given that most people start out paying very little attention to nutrients, pitch rate is the easiest variable to control to produce consistent results - increase pitch rate to minimize potential off-flavors due to varying levels of nutrients. If pitch rate was the only thing to be concerned with, Gordon Strong would probably not be making very good lagers. If you have the ability to control a flavor-impacting variable, the responsible thing to do is to control it. If you understand how other variables are interdependent, and you can control all of them to a degree that produces consistently desirable results, more power to you, but that isn't how most people start off in this hobby - hence, the typical focus on healthy pitch rate via a starter.

Even with sufficient oxygenation, low pitch rate will still change the beer. The part of his point that I disagree with is that it is a "risk" akin to a chance happening that can mess up beer. They are all controllables and they all have an effect on the beer. Pitch rate, oxygenation, nutrients, temps during different parts of fermentation, etc all come into play and are very predictable.

 

[boydster]

Those are generic label instructions and designed to make the product idiot-proof. They also direct you to pitch at 75F...that doesn't make it optimal practice either.

The yeast label instructions cater to the lowest common denominator of homebrewer...they just want to ensure a fermentation happens (eventually) and beer is made. Will pitching one 3-month old tube or smack pack in to your 1.060 wort work? Yeah, after a long lag you'll get beer that is more than likely to contain more than one technical fault.

If you want to make the best, most error/falut-free beer possible, you need to make a starter....period. This has been proven for decades over and over by scientific study, and is not debatable.

It's worth noting, though, that those tubes are full of yeast grown aerobically in a nutrient-rich environment, so they are more well-prepared to go through additional growth than the yeast we collect at the bottom of a fermenter because they have a large amount of the nutrition they need already in the cells. BUT a starter still helps build up a larger colony and wakes the colony out of dormancy, leading to a faster start. Plus, who gets a vial of yeast fresh off the production line? "I do, I do," said nobody here, because we all get them from online or local homebrew supply stores - so there is a variable that is outside our control with respect to the viability and vitality of the yeast already.

This is from Clayton Cone, but whether dry or liquid, yeast from a lab is grown aerobically in a nutrient-rich environment, so the information is still valid for Wyeast or White Labs yeast: http://www.danstaryeast.com/articles/aeration-and-starter-versus-wort

 

[boydster]

Even with sufficient oxygenation, low pitch rate will still change the beer. The part of his point that I disagree with is that it is a "risk" akin to a chance happening that can mess up beer. They are all controllables and they all have an effect on the beer. Pitch rate, oxygenation, nutrients, temps during different parts of fermentation, etc all come into play and are very predictable.

You are absolutely right, they are all controllable, but from a troubleshooting perpective, increasing pitch rate and controlling temp are easy blanket solutions that will work practically every time. With a sufficiently large pitch rate, the yeast won't have to double very much at all and won't have a chance to produce off flavors as long as temps are also controlled. If you are going to pitch at a lower rate, increasing available nutrients and dissolved O2 will help prevent off-flavors from stressed yeast, because the yeast won't be stressed. That's how Gordon Strong pitches a single tube into a lager. Most people just starting out, though, wouldn't consider the extra lengths and the take away would be, "just pitching a single tube worked for him, so it will work for me" and there is a chance that they are right (if they somehow create the perfect environment for their yeast without trying to do so) but there is a greater chance that they will have fermentation issues. That's why I see validity to the "risk" term being used.

 

[zwiller]

This quote from Gordon Strong was copied from this thread on Homebrew chatter. http://www.***************.com/board/showthread.php?t=19915

If Gordon typically (his words) make s a lager from a single smack pack (with nutrients and oxygen) why do we make 2 liter starters for a 1.050 ale? Does it really make that much better beer? Why do Wyeast and White labs claim that one smack pack or one vial is sufficient?

Can you repost the link, it's not working? THANKS Not that I don't trust your summary...

No way I can keep with responding to all the good points made. But, one I do want to make is regarding newbies. Personally, I don't think a starter will make a beer not brewed properly "better". I routinely see guys stir plating and using bottled oxygen that pay no regard to water chemistry/wort pH.

Great info guys :rockin: Heck, we haven't even talked hefe's or belgians yet

 

[AnOldUR]

You don't seem to realize that yeast are very predictable and consistent. This is the reason that commercial beers are so consistent. . . Lower pitching rate WILL increase esters, phenols, etc. It's just a question of whether that bothers you or not. This isn't some roll of the dice.

I've read of a few occasions where Dogfish Head has dumped batches because of yeast issues. Even the big breweries wouldn’t have quality control if brewing were as predictable as you say. On a homebrew level the butterfly effect is even more pronounced. Every step in the brewing process has some effect on the final outcome and the average homebrewer doesn’t have a fraction of the control that the pros do. To hold making a starter up on a pedestal is nonsense. Within reason, pitch rate can be compensated for by yeast vitality and viability, proper wort management, fermentation temperature … and still produce beer without dreaded esters and phenols you speak of.

It’s mindless statements like the one below being repeated over and over that cloud this topic. It’s an oversimplification of a complex topic.

If you want to make the best, most error/falut-free beer possible, you need to make a starter....period. This has been proven for decades over and over by scientific study, and is not debatable.

So you’re saying, direct pitching a fresh, swollen smack pack into 3½ gallons of 1.050 ale wort would get better results with a starter, period?

Decades of studies. Surely you can point me to one that's made a direct comparison similar to this. Show me the study.

 

[Orthobrewsky]

As a strong believer in pitching sufficient quantities of yeast (I find the scientific argument compelling) I found it very difficult to believe that Gordon Strong doesn't use starters. I went straight to the source, his book "Making Better Beer". On page 130, the section titled "Using New Yeast: Making a Starter" he says:

So that is two multiple Ninkasi award winners who are proponents of making starters.

And on page 87 "You can make starters in growlers and plastic bottles, but the advantages of a stir plate are too big to ignore. I get much more predictable results since I started using one."

He may have changed his mind since writing that book, but he hasn't won any more Ninkasi awards since then, so, right or wrong, we can't argue against starters from his Ninkasi awards.

 

[RM-MN]

Can you repost the link, it's not working? THANKS Not that I don't trust your summary...

No way I can keep with responding to all the good points made. But, one I do want to make is regarding newbies. Personally, I don't think a starter will make a beer not brewed properly "better". I routinely see guys stir plating and using bottled oxygen that pay no regard to water chemistry/wort pH.

Great info guys :rockin: Heck, we haven't even talked hefe's or belgians yet

Sorry but that site's address seems to be blocked but here's a link to the original quotation right from Gordon Strong, reply #51.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=17065.45

 

[progmac]

And on page 87 "You can make starters in growlers and plastic bottles, but the advantages of a stir plate are too big to ignore. I get much more predictable results since I started using one."

He may have changed his mind since writing that book, but he hasn't won any more Ninkasi awards since then, so, right or wrong, we can't argue against starters from his Ninkasi awards.

He didn't change his mind and nobody in this thread is 'against' making a starter. People are just saying that it isn't the end-all be-all and that it isn't something to be dogmatic about. Our common ground is that we all agree that yeast health is very important. The disagreement is on yeast quantity.

Six pages and not one person who has actually done a side-by-side.

 

[cjgenever]

One small pack in a 1070 beer? I've pitched a single pack of us-05 into that gravity and experienced esters that are not present with two packs or a starter. That is twice the numbers of a smack pack.

A starter is not all that important. It is the numbers pitched that make a difference. The reduced lag time a starter gives makes me happy and does reduce the possibility of infection. This lag time can be circumvented by feeding the yeast some wort ahead of time, but that defeats the purpose of avoiding a starter in the first place.

If you don't care about perfection and want good beer simply use rehydrated dry yeast art the correct numbers. Your better off with that than underpitching to avoid making a starter.

I don't think there is overkill in making a starter if your trying to brew great beer. I do think that there is overkill in worrying about infection from excess processes. Good technique and proper pitching rates will ensure that there is no infection.

Btw, tell your friend a single starter from a smack pack is good for a 1060 beer, unless viability is in question.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[thegreatmaibockaddict]

Do you guys think a starter makes BETTER beer. Seriously? Like side by side brew avg gravity 10G, split into 2 carboys, smack pack into one and a stir plated starter based on web based yeast calcs into the other. I think the starter might go a bit faster but have a hard time thinking it will make a noticeable improvement on quality.

Reason I ask as I have a buddy doing a 2 step starter from an activator pack that is pretty fresh and the beer is 1.060ish. I told him it was overkill and he thought I was crazy. Personally, I think there is larger chance he will pickup an infection.

While I think it is good advice to make a starter for big beers, lagers, old yeast, but it seems like there a large amount of guys that obsessing over starters. Made them for a while, then got away from it and am just pitching the Activator packs and I have no issues. That includes a 1.070ish house IPA. Heck, one time I forgot my yeast and just pitched the dregs of a homebrew and it turned out fine. Am I just lucky?

The Wyeast slap packs have more yeast than a white labs tube. And you can see by the pack bulging that the yeast is active. White labs, you dont know if the yeast has been mistreated (I have had bad tubes a handful of times) and as starter will tell you if your yeast is good, as well as increase the population to get a better jump on your beer.

My local shop cant carry the slap packs because wyeast charges an arm and a leg to ship, so you need to order more than you can sell to make it priced so you can sell it.