Fermentation with Starter

[chanson16]

How quick should fermentation start if you're using a starter? My starter was fermenting pretty good when I dumped it in and it's been six hours and I have nothing.

 

[CharlosCarlies]

6 hours is really, really soon. 48-72 hour lag times are not that uncommon depending on strain, temperature, etc.

Be patient.

 

[smizak]

I disagree. 48 to 72 hrs with an insufficient pitch of yeast. That is way too long.

I use Mr. Malty to calculate my starter size and have NEVER had a beer start in more than 12 hrs. Lagers, ales, different strains, take your pick. That 48 to 72 thing has been quoted on this site for years to calm nervous noobs who pitched a 2 yr old yeast packet from their Coopers kit. It doesn't mean its optimal at all.

IMHO, if your beer is taking three days for fermentation to start, you need to review your pitching rates and yeast health.

 

[CharlosCarlies]

48 to 72 hrs with an insufficient pitch of yeast. That is way too long.

As a blanket statement, this is completely false. As with anything, it depends.

I just made a fakey "lager" w/ Nottingham pitched at 52F and let it rise to 57F. It took 48 hours to see significant blowoff, and I promise my pitch rate was just fine. I actually over-pitched to compensate for fermenting below "optimal" for the strain.

 

[CharlosCarlies]

And the main point is that 6 hours is really, really short in almost all cases.

 

[MBTB]

I wonder if you shocked your starter. (too much of a difference in temp between starter and wort) I brewed 2 lagers a couple of weeks ago using triple stepped starters. I added about an ounce of wort to the decanted starter and swirled to mix, and repeated a few times to "temper" the starter. Both beers had dense 1/4" kreusen in 4-5 hours.

 

[Calder]

I'm of the opinion that you really don't want it starting before 6 hours. I get concerned if it starts too quickly, that I've over-pitched and the yeast have not properly created all the pre-cursers for the esters.

My beers generally start between 8 and 14 hours, but I've had them start as quick as 3.

 

[smizak]

And the main point is that 6 hours is really, really short in almost all cases.

I've had plenty beers take off in less than that and had them win medals.

 

[itsme6582]

I've had plenty beers take off in less than that and had them win medals.

Then you should know that 6 hours is a short time to see signs of fermentation.

OP: Your beer could fully ferment and show no signs. It happens. It could also take off like crazy tonight while your sleeping.

 

[smizak]

Then you should know that 6 hours is a short time to see signs of fermentation.

OP: Your beer could fully ferment and show no signs. It happens. It could also take off like crazy tonight while your sleeping.

I'm just saying, as MTBT and Calder before me have also alluded to, that six hours is not "really, really " short.

 

[CharlosCarlies]

six hours is not "really, really " short.

It's significantly shorter than average, so in that sense...yes it is really, really short.

Putting it another way: telling an obviously new(ish) brewer that a 6 hour lag time is "normal", is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[helibrewer]

I always use a starter and typically have good activity the morning after I pitch (I usually pitch in the evening after my wort is down to about 65F (Ales).

 

[CharlosCarlies]

have good activity

That's the other issue. "Activity" is completely relative. Just because somebody isn't seeing signs of fermentation doesn't mean it hasn't started.

 

[Hermit]

I'm of the opinion that you really don't want it starting before 6 hours. I get concerned if it starts too quickly, that I've over-pitched and the yeast have not properly created all the pre-cursers for the esters.

My beers generally start between 8 and 14 hours, but I've had them start as quick as 3.

I've been thinking about re-reading my yeast book cuz of this. I'm pretty sure White says that too short of a lag time is sub-optimal. I think another cause is too little oxygen in the wort causing it to go anaerobic too soon.

 

[chanson16]

Thanks for all the input. It was going pretty strong this morning. Since I had never done a starter I just assumed it would take off faster. I pitched at about the same temp as the starter fermentation temp. The starter was 1.75L from rinsed yeast.

 

[MBTB]

It's a beautiful thing, ENJOY!

 

[thewalkingboss]

I made a 1 1/2 Liter starter with the 2308 Munich Lager yeast and pitched it 24 yours later when there was obvious activity in the airlock on the flask and a good bit of sediment (I occasionally took the airlock off and swirled it around good to get some oxygen in, the airlock is mostly so I know if there is activity). I pitched the entire starter and had activity in the wort within an hour. It went into the 50 degree fridge immediately.

On the other hand, before I knew about starters, I once pitched a pack of the 2206 Bavarian Lager directly into a wort and got activity, finally, about 3 days later. That was the beer I called the "diacetyl disaster".

 

[Etnabrews]

A couple things:

I made a wort the other day with a OG of 1.077, a Lager, I made a starter the day before using s-23
and kept in my refrigerator so that it would be at optimal temperature. I cooled my wort to high 60s before
pitching the starter, which was still showing excellent activity. I put the beer in my bulkhead (which keeps beers around the low end of lagering range, indicated on those stick on thermometers) and left for three days.
I came home and the beer was showing no movement in the airlock, not swirling of yeasties, and no kraussen.
There were lots of what appeared to be floating clumps of yeast on top. Not knowing what to do I pitched
a dry packet of 34/70 because I happened to have in the fridge. the beer is fermenting now but what happend to my starter? shock?

also:

Why would dry pitching a yeast like walkingboss said with limited activity give you diacetyl problems?