Large Starter for Lager

[Owly055]

I've been pretty successful with most of my beers, but am frustrated with lager yeast. I recently made a lager using w-34/70, and it took off slowly and in about 2 weeks didn't give the attenuation I am used to seeing. I tend to pitch heavily using top cropped yeast on my ales, and seeing airlock action within a couple of hours and full attenuation in 3 or 4 days.

There is a much repeated piece on "fast lagering" that probably everybody interested in making lager has read by now. It calls for starting out at low temps both in the fermentation and lagering process, then raising the temps after a period of time. Presumably in the fermentation the idea is to allow the yeast to propagate without producing undesirable fermentation / reproduction byproducts.

My thinking on this is that a heavy pitch from a large starter should benefit this phase. I was advised NOT to make a starter from a dry yeast for various reasons, most of which boiled down to the notion that you would utilize the nutrients in the packet making the starter instead of in the fermenter................. This just doesn't make sense to me at all..... Reproduction is reproduction........... If your cell count at pitch is high, it seems that you are short cutting the reproduction phase................. as they say 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.............

The other thing I keep asking myself is weather a lager yeast is really necessary?? The characteristics of lagers really amount to minimal yeast generated flavors.... "clean and crisp" being the oft repeated phrase. In this day of countless varieties of yeasts, there are clearly yeasts in the ale family (top fermenting) that at least closely approach this.
How much is dependent on the yeast, and how much is dependent on the lagering process itself after fermentation?? Mangrove Jacks M10 (an ale yeast) is described as follows:

"Suitable for brewing a range of styles from light lager to Baltic porter."

It is also said that Kolsch yeast and California Common yeast produce lager type character. In addition I have been cautioned about my tendency to "over pitch"..... reducing the yeast derived flavors...... which are obviously NOT wanted in a lager.

I'm proposing to do a few brews with M10.... the first one effectively being a "starter" for the following ones, it will be massively top cropped. The later to be "pseudo lagers" will be very heavily pitched to eliminate the reproduction phase for all intents and purposes.



H.W.

 

[g-star]

No ale yeast will make anything close to a true lager, no matter how "clean" the strain. Sacch C. is just a different animal than Sacch P.

I would urge you to try a true German liquid strain. The best course of action is to make a gallon starter from two tubes/smack packs of fresh yeast on a stir plate. Let it ferment out at room temperature and then crash it for a few days. Decant the starter beer and pitch the slurry using the fast lager procedure you referenced, and you'll have yourself a great lager.

 

[trentm]

My thinking on this is that a heavy pitch from a large starter should benefit this phase. I was advised NOT to make a starter from a dry yeast for various reasons, most of which boiled down to the notion that you would utilize the nutrients in the packet making the starter instead of in the fermenter.................

I'm not a lager brewer so I can't comment on that part of your thread. However, perhaps I can help clarify why not to use a starter with dry yeast. It's not about nutrients in the package, there are none. It is that dry yeast production takes advantage of yeast propagation through respiration. Yeast produced this way are chock-full of sterols due to the high oxygen environment of production. Yeast produced on a stir plate cannot reach that level of sterol production. Therefore, subjecting dry yeast to a starter actually reduces the level of sterols as each time a cell buds it shares it's sterols with the daughter cell. Since dry yeast is relatively inexpensive, buy more packs.

 

[giraffe]

A couple of comments. A clean ale yeast can sometimes get lager-ish, especially with a long period of cold conditioning, but its not really the same. A lager does have some trace esters, and sometimes a touch of sulfur. Its a different profile.

The cal common yeast is a lager yeast, just an odd one that can ferment warmer without being terrible. Its attenuation is on the low side for most lager styles though.

A kolsch or alt yeast are probably the best bet if you are going to use an ale yeast to make faux lagers. Id use a recommended pitch rate with an ale yeast, overpitching by a large amount, can effect attenuation negatively, etc. Id go with fermenting on the cold side of the yeasts range first.

 

[Owly055]

"yeast is yeast and nest is nest and never the mane shall tweet........."

I've had very good luck with dry yeast, and have posed the question about making a starter from dry yeast, and been told that some nutrients included in dry yeast would be "wasted on the starter" or something to that effect......... Which to my every questioning mind makes no sense at all "wasted"? Nutrients are presumably included to facilitate rapid reproduction. The obvious question is "does is matter weather this reproduction takes place in the starter or in the actual brew? The obvious answer...... obvious to me at least is NO........ We are trying to increase cell count, and it shouldn't matter where. Increasing the cell count in the starter means we hit the ground running................. Thats a good thing in my mind....

The interesting thing is that I really haven't heard any direct experience.... or second or third hand experiences related that would support the assertion that in some way making a starter from a dry yeast was a bad or unwise thing. It sounds like a typical "common wisdom" sort of thing...... much like the notion that it takes an hour to do a complete conversion.... Something I've repeatedly demonstrated not to be true..... but that's a different story.

We all tend to believe what we want and ignore or disregard what we don't like... I tend to question things more aggressively than a lot of people....I'm a non-conformist.... virtually always "out of step". One of my fundamental beliefs based on a lifetime of experience is that the majority is nearly always wrong......... Which is NOT the same as believing that I'm always right...... The logical corollary. In this as in other cases, my intent is to test ......... Is it true..or not.


H.W.

 

[Cyclman]

I think that the bigger part of not doing a starter with dry yeast is one of cost- dry yeast is cheap, so why go to the trouble of doing a starter when for a few bucks you can buy more yeast.

I think oxygen in lagers is important- if you are not injecting O2 that may in my experience cause underattenuation.

 

[MikeInMKE]

I've done four lagers, so I'm no expert. Last February, I propagated one smack pack of 2124, using a gallon pickle jar and a stir plate, in three steps, to 1073 billion cells. Once cold crashed, I split the slurry between a 1.070 Maibock (adapted from Braukaiser's recipe), and a 1.070 Märzen (Oktoberfest) that I brewed back to back.

The Märzen was good, but the Maibock was beyond any ale I've ever brewed.

This past August, I re-brewed the Märzen and Maibock, with a friend's garage refrigerator as a fermentation chamber, and using alphaomega's STC-1000+ firmware to automatically ramp the temps. Same result of the Märzen and Maibock. Either I need a better Märzen recipe (I may try the 2014 NHC Gold winning recipe), or I'll brew a double batch of the Maibock.

I love ales. But there is just something special about a solid lager that puts them in a different league. And that clean, malty, sweet smoothness of that Maibock, with an imperceptible 7%+ alcohol that goes strait to your brain, is just heaven in a glass.

Only tip I can give, stick the wort and the yeast in the same fridge, set to 47, for a couple days. Oxygenate, pitch the yeast, set the fridge to 48, and then be patient. Really. You'll be going nuts 2-3 days later, with not one bubble through the airlock. At a cool 48 degrees, the wort can absorb quite a bit of C02 before it reaches saturation and starts pushing bubbles through the airlock.

February is fast approaching. Time to start propagating another packet of 2124.

 

[Conehead]

I make 2 beers with the same malts. Pils and munich along with ale and lager yeasts. They taste totally different. My lager yeast is usually WLP833 and the ale yeast is Wyeast 1098, US-05 or Nottingham. The ales are fine, but no way do they taste like a Pils. It is all in the yeast in my opinion.

 

[Zepth]

Reading these posts is not helping one the "Hey Zepth, don't go and buy/build a ferm chamber" voices in my head. Sorry for contributing nothing of value to the thread.

 

[zacster]

I just pitched a batch using Wyeast Czech Pils. I made a 2 liter starter, it took 2 days and then cold crashed in the fridge with the already made batch. I haven't used dry yeast since my first batches almost 20 years ago. Making a starter is easy enough.

For fermentation, I pitch cold, at 45, and raise the temp 1 degree per day for a week, then if the gravity is OK I'll do a diacetyl rest. This is the Pilsner Urquell method and who am I to argue with it. The d-rest is probably not needed since I use cold temps, but it doesn't hurt and gets the fermentation complete.

I do mostly lagers at this point since everyone likes them. Ales, especially heavy, hoppy ones, aren't as popular with my crowd even though I like them. I can't finish a 5 gallon keg by myself (or maybe I could, but then I'd get even fatter than I am).

 

[Conehead]

zacster, your brewing regime is exactly like mine. I pitch cold and let it slowly rise to 50 F and don't touch it for 3 weeks. IPA"S? Naw, I just go and buy them.

 

[kombat]

The interesting thing is that I really haven't heard any direct experience.... or second or third hand experiences related that would support the assertion that in some way making a starter from a dry yeast was a bad or unwise thing. It sounds like a typical "common wisdom" sort of thing......

Then you obviously haven't read the book "Yeast," which was co-authored by Chris White, founder of Whitelabs yeast.

But by all means, continue to believe that your own common sense is as equally valid as the research and experience of a published scientist/author who owns one of the world's most successful yeast companies.

Or maybe read the book and exercise a little humility.

 

[skw]

It is also said that Kolsch yeast and California Common yeast produce lager type character. In addition I have been cautioned about my tendency to "over pitch"..... reducing the yeast derived flavors...... which are obviously NOT wanted in a lager.

Technically, the California Common strain is a lager yeast (s. pastorianus). In my limited experience, even when fermented cold, it still has it's own flavor that's distinct from other lager strains. They say that Kölsch yeast or Nottingham can produce "lager-like" beers, but to me there's still a long way between a clean ale yeast and a lager yeast.

I've heard that Saflager 34/70 is hesitant the first time it's used, but if you harvest and repitch, it's supposed to take off properly.

 

[Owly055]

Then you obviously haven't read the book "Yeast," which was co-authored by Chris White, founder of Whitelabs yeast.

But by all means, continue to believe that your own common sense is as equally valid as the research and experience of a published scientist/author who owns one of the world's most successful yeast companies.

Or maybe read the book and exercise a little humility.

Should I perhaps point out that yours is the first actual reference to a published work by an expert? Other comments didn't reference anything but the accepted wisdom.

Thanks for the reference.......... I'll pick up a copy next time I venture into "civilization".

That said, the jury is definitely out on many things regarding brewing...... Recently the topic of hot side aeration was brought up and there were deeply conflicting references on the subject. Efficiency is another one..... with folks repeatedly suggesting that high efficiency results in crappy astringent beer......... something that is simply not borne out in the real world. To transfer or not to transfer into a secondary....... With concerns expressed about beer sitting on trub versus the risk of contamination. And the Aussies are doing "no chill"..... I've demonstrated to my satisfaction that a full and highly fermentable mash can be completed in as little as 20 minutes in the conversion zone, and that full conversion occurs in as little as 10 minutes at around 155.... resulting in about 3/4 or one percent less alcohol in the finished product, and a bit more body .....And of course there are many more........... In brewing, there are few things that are carved into stone.

I've always been an iconoclast.... I'll be 60 this year, so chances are I always will be. I question and challenge the common wisdom constantly... sometimes I'm right, sometimes I end up with egg on my face....... I know this habit irritates some folks.... and that doesn't bother me. As the old saying goes.... You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs..... Sometimes I end up wearing it ;-). You don't provoke thought and discussion by *****footing around worrying about offending convention. The cage needs to be rattled from time to time.

As I said, I will look for that book..... probably next week. In the meantime I have a starter going with a dry yeast, and it will be used in my brew Saturday AM. The first test of my ultra crude home made stir plate.....using a quart wide mouth mason jar. I'm curious to see how much yeast sediment I get in that amount of time. That by the way will be my 6th brew of 2015............ And my 50th brew since I started last February.

H.W.

 

[mkeckjr]

In addition to Chris White's book, which is a pretty good balance between technical and homebrewer-practical information on the subject, you can check these experimental results. There are also technical references on the first page; not sure if they are still up

http://seanterrill.com/2011/04/01/dry-yeast-viability/
http://seanterrill.com/2011/07/29/dry-yeast-viability-take-two/

This guy's website is awesome, and is doing some principled experiments at the perceptual level challenging common assumptions.

http://brulosophy.com

 

[Owly055]

In addition to Chris White's book, which is a pretty good balance between technical and homebrewer-practical information on the subject, you can check these experimental results. There are also technical references on the first page; not sure if they are still up

http://seanterrill.com/2011/04/01/dry-yeast-viability/
http://seanterrill.com/2011/07/29/dry-yeast-viability-take-two/

This guy's website is awesome, and is doing some principled experiments at the perceptual level challenging common assumptions.

http://brulosophy.com

WOW..... Good stuff. Now the question is why? Obviously rehydrating in wort or pitching directly into wort should logically amount to the same thing..... What happens to viability when pitched into wort as opposed to water?? Clearly rehydrating is a step in and of itself. My thinking after reading this is that IF one chooses to make a starter, the yeast should be rehydrated first. This is EXACTLY what I was looking for, and what was not being offered........

My theory in this case is that the issue has to do with osmotic pressure... the dry yeast is trying to draw water through a permeable cellular membrane. Something it can do far more easily and efficiently with pure water than in a sugar solution.

Note an analog with dried beans..... we soak them in pure water before putting them in a stew or whatever...... it's a practice that has been in use forever, and probably for a very similar reason. They need to reach an osmotic equilibrium.... Well maybe not exactly.

The conclusion I draw is that it is desirable to first rehydrate in water........ after which I have a "liquid yeast"..... at which point a starter should work just fine.


H.W.

 

[kombat]

What happens to viability when pitched into wort as opposed to water??

It's diminished, because the yeast cells are unable to regulate the movement of nutrients and minerals across the cell membranes.

Seriously dude, just read the book. You are not the first person to have these questions. They've all been extensively studied scientifically, and conclusively answered.

Clearly rehydrating is a step in and of itself. My thinking after reading this is that IF one chooses to make a starter, the yeast should be rehydrated first.

Correct, but what's the point? Dry yeast is so cheap, why waste the DME and time prepping a starter for it? Why not just rehydrate and pitch 2 packets? Or don't rehydrate, and pitch 4 packets.

Get the book, it's a very approachable explanation to all of this stuff.

 

[masaba]

Honestly, the supposed experts on yeast contradict each other all the time. For example, White and Zainasheff wrote the "Yeast" book together. White's company makes the WLP830 strain of yeast and on the packaging it states that the optimum fermentation temp is 50-55 degrees. But...if you listen to Zainasheff's podcast he says that WLP830 is his "go-to" lager strain and that he thinks it ferments best at 48, and that he never let's it get above 50.

Another great example is the one where a yeast manufacturer recommends just pitching their dry yeast into the wort, but then multiple other experts say that this immediately kills 50% of the yeast.

I don't blame people for arguing on this stuff when the supposed experts seem to be inconsistent.

 

[kombat]

White's company makes the WLP830 strain of yeast and on the packaging it states that the optimum fermentation temp is 50-55 degrees. But...if you listen to Zainasheff's podcast he says that WLP830 is his "go-to" lager strain and that he thinks it ferments best at 48, and that he never let's it get above 50.

I don't think that's contradictory. Whitelabs might be telling you the range within which you can expect the optimal attenuation, or most rapid fermentation. Perhaps at lower temperatures, attenuation is diminished, or fermentation takes longer, but ester production is subdued, which might appeal to Jamil.

Another great example is the one where a yeast manufacturer recommends just pitching their dry yeast into the wort, but then multiple other experts say that this immediately kills 50% of the yeast.

First of all, they're in the business of selling yeast, so the cynic in me is not surprised that they would recommend a process that requires you to buy/pitch more yeast.

Secondly, I don't know of any yeast manufacturer that ONLY describes pitching the dry yeast directly into the wort. The procedures I've read do indeed say you can sprinkle directly, but they also describe an optimal rehydration procedure. I've always interpreted that as them trying to keep brewing approachable to newcomers, yet providing a slightly more complicated procedure to improve the outcome, for more experienced brewers.

I don't blame people for arguing on this stuff when the supposed experts seem to be inconsistent.

Again, I don't see any inconsistencies at all in what you described.

 

[Owly055]

I don't think that's contradictory. Whitelabs might be telling you the range within which you can expect the optimal attenuation, or most rapid fermentation. Perhaps at lower temperatures, attenuation is diminished, or fermentation takes longer, but ester production is subdued, which might appeal to Jamil.



First of all, they're in the business of selling yeast, so the cynic in me is not surprised that they would recommend a process that requires you to buy/pitch more yeast.

Secondly, I don't know of any yeast manufacturer that ONLY describes pitching the dry yeast directly into the wort. The procedures I've read do indeed say you can sprinkle directly, but they also describe an optimal rehydration procedure. I've always interpreted that as them trying to keep brewing approachable to newcomers, yet providing a slightly more complicated procedure to improve the outcome, for more experienced brewers.


The important thing is UNDERSTAND..... Understand why we are told to do things the way we are told. There's a reason for everything. As far as making a starter from dry yeast......... The story we were told initially had to do with nutrients included with dry yeast. An illogical explanation considering the fact that the yeast would benefit from those nutrients just as well in a starter. Now a member has posted a couple of excellent links showing statistics on survival rates with water rehydrated yeast as compared to wort rehydrated yeast. Statistics that are dramatic.....but don't shed a light on the why.

The conclusion is obvious..... There is nothing fundamentally wrong with making a starter from a dry yeast....but the yeast should be rehydrated first in plain water. It's also clear that pitching into wort is NOT optimal..... rehydrating in water first is going to give your yeast double the cell count as compared to pitching into wort.
Dry yeast is "cheap"......but does it make sense to pitch double the number of packets as opposed to rehydrating in water?? Obviously not.


H.W.

 

[g-star]

Don't confuse the idiot-proof instructions yeast manufactuers put on their packaging with optimal practices preached by the likes of JZ and others who rely on scientific evidence rather than anecdotal experiences or limited data points.

Again, like many other things in brewing, it comes down to "good enough to work" to "best practice for an optimal product". If you want the best beer you can possibly make, re-hydrate your dry yeast, make big healthy sitr plate starters with liquid strains, use pure oxygen, pitch and ferment at the correct temperatures. These are well-established practices with mountains of scientific data to support them....not really up for debate.

 

[trentm]

Again, like many other things in brewing, it comes down to "good enough to work" to "best practice for an optimal product". If you want the best beer you can possibly make, re-hydrate your dry yeast, make big healthy sitr plate starters with liquid strains, use pure oxygen, pitch and ferment at the correct temperatures. These are well-established practices with mountains of scientific data to support them....not really up for debate.

Preach on Brother! With this philosophy, we can move homebrewing into the realm of excellence.

 

[Owly055]

Earlier this week I brewed a lager using Saflager 34/70 dry yeast. I made a quart starter for a 2.5 gallon brew. The result was a much faster fermentation than my previous lager where I simply sprinkled the yeast on the wort.

I followed the directions of making a "cream", and left the cream sit much longer than what they had intended. The "cream" is just yeast and water, and I got very vigorous fermentation of the cream suggesting that the yeast packet contains some sugars as well as nutrients. It was quite impressive.

I then pitched the "cream" into a starter solution and ran it on my crude stir plate for 2 days. The lager I pitched it into had significant airlock activity within about 12 hours. I would say the starter was a success, but next time I will try just pitching the cream. I don't ever intend to pitch dry yeast directly to wort again, though it does work adequately with ale yeasts.

My normal methodology is to pitch top cropped yeast when making ales. I use wide mouth fermenters which makes it easy. It's not a matter of being cheap as much as the fact that I get strong fermentation rapidly.


H.W.

 

[schematix]

If you want a really great crisp clean lager, at a MINIMUM you MUST:

1. Pitch substantially
2. Oxygenate thoroughly
3. Maintain cold temps the entire time (~50F)

If you skip any of these steps you won't get a crisp clean lager. Sure it'll be beer, and might even be good beer, but it won't be as good as it could have been.

A lot of home brew vendors preach KISS methods so as to not scare off potential customers. Their advice is not necessarily the best. It's to get people into the hobby and keep them coming back.

I won't even touch a lager anymore without doing a 2 step build up. I pitch 2 packs into 3L, run that to completion on the stir plate. Crash, decant, and pitch that to 6L and again run to completion on a stir plate. I then crash, decant, and pitch that to 10G. Anything less is noticeably estery or buttery.

 

[Owly055]

If you want a really great crisp clean lager, at a MINIMUM you MUST:

1. Pitch substantially
2. Oxygenate thoroughly
3. Maintain cold temps the entire time (~50F)

If you skip any of these steps you won't get a crisp clean lager. Sure it'll be beer, and might even be good beer, but it won't be as good as it could have been.

A lot of home brew vendors preach KISS methods so as to not scare off potential customers. Their advice is not necessarily the best. It's to get people into the hobby and keep them coming back.

I won't even touch a lager anymore without doing a 2 step build up. I pitch 2 packs into 3L, run that to completion on the stir plate. Crash, decant, and pitch that to 6L and again run to completion on a stir plate. I then crash, decant, and pitch that to 10G. Anything less is noticeably estery or buttery.

I "pitch substantially", and have a suitable fermentation environment........ Oxygenation is another matter...... One I haven't seriously addressed. What is your methodology? Are you using bottled oxygen? If so what is your procedure. I've considered using a pump to circulate cooled wort and injecting air or oxygen on the suction side of the pump....... there is a term for using a pump as a mixer.... though I can't seem to remember it. High shear pumps are used in numerous mixing applications including homogenization of milk and other products, but an ordinary pump does quite a good job. I have bottled oxygen in large bottles for my cutting torch.... out at the shop. Wheeling one over to the house for brewing is feasible as I always have at least one spare.

H.W.

 

[schematix]

I recirculate my bk until the chiller output is cold enough to where I can divert to ferms. At the output of the chiller I attach a cross with 2 hose barbs and an O2 stone. I gently aerate the full transfer (about 7-10 mins).View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1423843364.081698.jpg

 

[Owly055]

I recirculate my bk until the chiller output is cold enough to where I can divert to ferms. At the output of the chiller I attach a cross with 2 hose barbs and an O2 stone. I gently aerate the full transfer (about 7-10 mins).View attachment 256114

I'm trying to understand the function of the cross....I presume one side goes directly to the fermenter without an air stone, and the other goes to the airstone??

H.W.

 

[schematix]

Nope its all aerated.

Port 1: Wort In
Port 2: O2 In
Port 3: Wort Out
Port 4: Wort Out



Make sense?

 

[Owly055]

Nope its all aerated.

Port 1: Wort In
Port 2: O2 In
Port 3: Wort Out
Port 4: Wort Out

View attachment 256458

Make sense?

Now I get it.... the stone is right inside the Tee...... I was wondering. A great idea! An "O2 back"....... ;-)

H.W.

 

[schematix]

Just to be clear, i'm only aerating when i'm running to ferms. I recirculate from the chiller, back to the BK, until my chiller output temperature is sufficiently low. Once i reach that point i take the recirc hose off and attach the cross piece, then continue to run it out.