Does a starter really make better beer?

[Darwin18]

For myself, the answer to the title of this thread is "yes". I always make a starter with liquid yeast for whatever style of beer that I'm making because I have noticed a sizable improvement in the quality of my beer since doing so. It's very easy to do and I really can't think of a reason why I wouldn't do it.

Now, I don't particularly care you if use starters for your beer. It's your beer. Do whatever you want with it. Just don't be posting the daily topics like "Haven't seen fermentation in X hours" or "Fermentation stalled, OMG". Those are topics posted by people who don't use starters.

 

[boydster]

The Wyeast slap packs have more yeast than a white labs tube.

Both Wyeast and White Labs cultures leave the production line with ~100 billion cells from everything I have seen/heard/read.

 

[jalmeida]

I am not sure about the better beer part with one versus the other. But I do know that if you have enough yeast that is already active when pitched you leave less chance of infection. Like inoculating. The extended time that the yeast takes to start becoming active will leave opportunity for other things to take over.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[fmr_army]

I make starters because I'm a cheap SOB. I make a starter and put in about a tsp of yeast (accurately measured by the dollop poured out) into it, slap it on a stir plate and grow those yeasties.

Thus, I get about eight or ten batches out of a vial.

I use a 2 liter flask because my son broke my 1 liter one, and it was only a couple more bucks to get the 2l replacement, and it works better on my stirplate.

Anecdotally, I think that my fermentations have gotten better (quicker, more complete) since I started making starters, and since I started making bigger starters. However, I'm sure that my general technique is getting better so it could be that.

My opinion (which is decidedly unscientific) is that starters probably make sense in a lot of cases, but aren't necessarily vital in all. They work for me, so I use them.

 

[Orthobrewsky]

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

Specifically, "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."

Now I remember reading that previously and it is certainly very interesting, since, especially for a lager, that would be far below the popular recommendations, even for a fresh pack or vial. I'm sure it would depend on what he goes on to describe about his process, especially the long lagering period preceded by a slow ramp down. He stresses not rushing the process.

I know the standard pitch rate recommendations are highly influenced by brewery practices which, for obvious reasons, usually involve making their beer as quickly as possible.

 

[Braufessor]

I don't claim that this is equivalent to a scientific, side-by-side experiment. However, my personal experience in regard to lagers indicates that starters are of benefit. Over the last two years, almost all of my lagers that have been at their best have actually been second generation repitches/starters of lots of yeast.

My general practice now, with lagers, is to use a smack pack or vial to make a 1-2L starter, that I decant and make a second 1-2 liter starter with (on stir plate). I will use this to make a smallish 1.04-1.045 helles or pils. I will then harvest yeast and use about a 1/3 of a quart - a pint of thick yeast slurry to make a starter. 1.5-2 L. Then I will use this to make my 1.045-1.06 lagers. This second set of lagers is ALWAYS better than the first. They consistently do much better in competitions - regularly scoring in the 38-42 range in big comps.

When I would attempt to brew/enter 1.05ish lagers with a smack pack and a single 2L starter, they were much more inconsistent, and almost all of my "no-so-good" lagers were from this smaller type pitching.

Again - my personal experience. Not holding it up for absolute science.

 

[stpug]

This is how far I can pee:

.
 .
  .
  .
   .
   .
   .
  ....

Darn, I lose!
Next time I tell you, next time

 

[Orthobrewsky]

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.

Yes, I guess I'd be speaking with more precision by saying "against the necessity of using starters, but I erroneously assumed I would be taken that way. No one seems to be saying it hurts to make a starter, though from what I've heard, it is possible to overpitch and that is what I thought of when reading in this thread about the experiment where someone was using substantial starters with dry yeast packs on mid gravity beers.

It sounds like Strong may have changed his mind. In the book, he explains that unless he is reusing yeast, he "will almost always make a starter," whereas in 2013 (referenced above) he says that even for lagers "I typically use a smackpack of Wyeast or make a 1L starter with a vial of White Labs." The only way for these statements not to imply a change of mind is if he "almost always" doesn't use Wyeast. Perhaps that is the case, but then it is odd to mention Wyeast first in that case.

I don't happen to be a part of the "always use a starter" faction, though it seems that I always do use one with liquid vials. However, I rarely get a really fresh vial. It certainly seems to be a consensus among experts that you don't really need a starter for a fresh vial in an average strength ale.

I think we all agree that it is possible to have too little yeast and that, if you have too little yeast, a starter can be the remedy. The reason some people make blanket statements that we should always use starters probably arises from another apparent consensus that overpitching is generally less dangerous than underpitching.

 

[Orthobrewsky]

My general practice now, with lagers, is to use a smack pack or vial to make a 1-2L starter, that I decant and make a second 1-2 liter starter with (on stir plate). I will use this to make a smallish 1.04-1.045 helles or pils. I will then harvest yeast and use about a 1/3 of a quart - a pint of thick yeast slurry to make a starter. 1.5-2 L. Then I will use this to make my 1.045-1.06 lagers. This second set of lagers is ALWAYS better than the first. They consistently do much better in competitions - regularly scoring in the 38-42 range in big comps.

That sounds like a lot of yeast in both cases. Maybe it is the issue of later generations performing better in some strains. I've had some pretty lousy low to mid gravity lagers (but I drank them!) with 2 packs of W-34/70, but they've always been great when I've repitched the yeast. I'm thinking of using one pack with a starter the next time I try that yeast to see if I get better results.

 

[seabass07]

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.


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.

As far as dogfishhead goes, the only batches I've heard of them dumping were things like the 120min where they are knowingly taking a risk by pushing yeast well beyond what they want to do. This would not normally happen with a reasonable gravity beer unless there was human error involved.

For the mindless statement you mentioned, I agree. It's mindless. Much like the "3-4 week primary" one.

 

[AnOldUR]

You don't seem to realize that yeast are very predictable and consistent. This is the reason that commercial beers are so consistent.

As far as dogfishhead goes, the only batches I've heard of them dumping were things like the 120min where they are knowingly taking a risk by pushing yeast well beyond what they want to do. This would not normally happen with a reasonable gravity beer unless there was human error involved.

Link

Mr. Calagione tells us that Dogfish Head dumps about $100,000 of beer every year because it “just didn’t go exactly the direction we wanted. That happens with brewers all the time. You’re dealing with living organisms and sometimes they don’t do what they are expected to do.”

edit:

And Sam Calagione can somb. Anyone claiming to be the ambassador of an entire industry is simply arrogant.

Ball sucking? Well that changes everything. You win!

 

[Orthobrewsky]

Link
Mr. Calagione tells us that Dogfish Head dumps about $100,000 of beer every year because it “just didn’t go exactly the direction we wanted. That happens with brewers all the time. You’re dealing with living organisms and sometimes they don’t do what they are expected to do.”

I wish they'd just sell it for 50% off. I'd give it a try.

 

[raouliii]

....Main reason I ask is I am going to try a new house strain WL007 and I think it will be wise to step it up first since it is my first WL use. But after that, I'll have fresh yeast to harvest.

My experience with WL007 Dry English Ale is that it drops out hard. In a stir plated starter it flocs into egg drop soup. Even with a starter, I've once had it not reach expected FG. YMMV

 

[seabass07]

Link

Again, when you're pushing those living organisms well past their limits, you run into problems. Most breweries don't run into those problems, and if they do, it's usually because of mutations over several generations or other issues relating to human error. If they were so inconsistent, the brewing industry would be very dramatic. You'd just cross your fingers and hope fermentation went well.

One of the main reasons yeast are so consistent is what wyeast and whitelabs are doing. They preserve strains to keep them consistent. This isn't wild yeast we're talking about.

And Sam Calagione can somb. Anyone claiming to be the ambassador of an entire industry is simply arrogant.

 

[gr8shandini]

Here's my 2 cents on the matter. I rarely make a starter, but I do routinely re-use a portion of a previous yeast cake. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference and I do prefer a higher pitching rate. However, it's a minor effect that won't keep me from using a single vial or smack pack for the initial batch with a particular yeast strain.

In my experience, underpitching doesn't spawn off flavors so much as has an effect on the head retention and mouthfeel. I believe this is because the reproduction of yeast is consuming proteins that would otherwise remain in the beer. The whole idea that underpitching "stresses" the yeast sounds like BS to me since I don't know of another organism on the planet that gets stressed out because it has more food than it knows what to do with and few competitors.

All in all, my experience jibes with the experiment posted earlier. Most people won't be able to tell the difference, but those who can prefer the "proper" pitching rate. For me, the effect is small and I'm OK with cutting a few corners to get a beer that's a 9.6 out of 10, but will step it up when it matters. Your mileage may vary.

 

[zwiller]

Thank you all for your insight and for keeping it civil. :rockin:

 

[g-star]

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.

The statement was based on a standard 5.25gal batch the vast majority of homebrewers are making. You're trying to bend reality to fit a willfully ignorant bias with the 3.5 gallon batch concept. Nevertheless, a fresh smack pack into 3.5gal is still not enough yeast by more than 30%.

Sources? Why don't you start looking for articles on proper pitch rates here:

http://www.nonprofitjournals.org/journals/brewing_chemists.htm

or here:

http://www.ibd.org.uk/publications/jib-online/132/the-journal/

or maybe here:

http://www.brewingscience.de/

instead of relying on internet forum chatter/hearsay or some random dude's blog post.

 

[kombat]

Isn't the question of starter or not really irrelevant? Don't we all agree that the real issue is pitching an ample quantity of active, healthy yeast? Whether you get there by growing up a starter, or pitching multiple packets of dry or liquid yeast, is really irrelevant, isn't it? Yeast don't care whether they came from a starter or a smack pack or a dry pouch. As long as there is the appropriate number of healthy, viable cells, isn't that all that matters? A starter is merely usually the most cost-effective way of attaining that quantity, but there are obviously other ways that would result in identical beer.

 

[cjgenever]

Many years ago...i pitched a single fresh sachet of us-05 (or was it still 56 at the time?) DIRECTLY into a 1.085 iipa. The ester profile WAS BAD ENOUGH THAT I WAS TOO EMBARRASSED TO LET ANYONE TASTE IT! Ferm temps were controlled.

This is a gross underpitch, but to say that underpitching isn't a problem is complete b.s. I wish people wouldn't mislead like that. A more truthful statement would be "over/under pitching, WITHIN REASON, is not a problem for the average brewer since the differences in the final beer are negligible". Of course, those 'negligible' differences could be a couple of points in competition, do take it for what it is. What works for one may not work for another. Brew what you want how you want, but don't anyone go cry when I tell you your banana ipa sucks

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[AnOldUR]

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.

You're trying to bend reality to fit a willfully ignorant bias with the 3.5 gallon batch concept. Nevertheless, a fresh smack pack into 3.5gal is still not enough yeast by more than 30%.

Sources? Why don't you start looking for articles on proper pitch rates here:
. . . .
instead of relying on internet forum chatter/hearsay or some random dude's blog post.

So, you're saying that you haven't read any creditable blind taste studies comparing a measured 30% direct under pitch with a measured "correct" pitch from a starter. Which, by the way, is what is mentioned in Yeast as being equivalent.

The “bent reality” was a legitimate example of a way of achieving a desired pitch rate while direct pitching and not having to buy two pack. Any “willfully ignorant bias” is coming from you by making blanket statements. This thread is a constructive debate. Please take your insults somewhere else.




edit:
This is how he takes it somewhere else.

"Willfully ignorant" people choose to ignore the hard science and mountains of work done over the years by people a lot smarter than themselves becuase (1) they have no respect for it or (2) it clashes with their limited personal experience and/or subjective biases.

I never should have believed that Chris White. He's such an ignoramas.

 

[y2jrock60]

I recommend reading "Yeast", which is part of the brewing element series. I never turkey grasped the importance of proper pitching rates until I read the book. I noticed an improvement in my beer quality after I began using a stir plate and pitching calculators. The addition of a temperature controlled fermentation chamber greatly improved my quality as well. I was able to construct a stir plate for under $30. The biggest expense was the 5L flask which was $40. I wish I would have made proper starters from the beginning of my brewing career. There are son many recipes I've made that I know would have turned out great if I pitched the proper amount of yeast and controlled the temperature.

 

[g-star]

So, you're saying that you haven't read any creditable blind taste studies comparing a measured 30% direct under pitch with a measured "correct" pitch from a starter. Which, by the way, is what is mentioned in Yeast as being equivalent.

The “bent reality” was a legitimate example of a way of achieving a desired pitch rate while direct pitching and not having to buy two pack. Any “willfully ignorant bias” is coming from you by making blanket statements. This thread is a constructive debate. Please take your insults somewhere else.

I'm saying that commonly accepted pitch rates used by the reputable calculators have been arrived at by decades of study, experimentation, and statistically sound blind triangle test sampling. This subject is hard science, and not up for "debate", as some like to frame it.

"Willfully ignorant" people choose to ignore the hard science and mountains of work done over the years by people a lot smarter than themselves becuase (1) they have no respect for it or (2) it clashes with their limited personal experience and/or subjective biases.

Don't mistake directness for an insult.

Cheers.

 

[stpug]

I'm saying that commonly accepted pitch rates used by the reputable calculators have been arrived at by decades of study, experimentation, and statistically sound blind triangle test sampling. This subject is hard science, and not up for "debate", as some like to frame it.

"Willfully ignorant" people choose to ignore the hard science and mountains of work done over the years by people a lot smarter than themselves becuase (1) they have no respect for it or (2) it clashes with their limited personal experience and/or subjective biases.

Don't mistake directness for an insult.

Cheers.

 

[boydster]

OP, starters are generally made to boost your cell count, thus increasing your pitch rate. I think that point has been established already, but I mention it again to bring the conversation back to a place where most of us can agree. Here are several experiments that have been done on pitch rate (some admittedly better than others). Read through, and perhaps search for others if you feel so inclined. Read critically - pay attention to the pitch rates and how much they differ. While you are reading, keep in mind the standard pitch rate for ales is between 750,000 and 1,000,000 cells per ml per *P. You'll be able to arrive at your own conclusion about whether starters make better beers, and you'll be able to better gauge when one may or may not be necessary. From there, if/when you've got your process down and you can make consistently good beer, do some experimenting of your own to see how different pitch rates affect your beer.

http://sciencebrewer.com/2012/03/02/pitching-rate-experiment-part-deux-results/
http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2012/06/09/pitching-rate-experiment/
http://byo.com/blogs/entry/pitching-rate-experiment
http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=2196.0;wap2
http://freshbeereveryfriday.blogspot.com/2010/05/pitching-rate-experiment.html

 

[zwiller]