Liquid yeast - am I missing something?

[Gadjobrinus]

No, you can’t. Unless you’re very skilled in the art of counting cells with a microscope and following watertight procedures to collect representative samples, forget all about ‘cell number’. Mass or volume are much better surrogates and more doable for most home brewers. Just be consistent and determine empirically what works best for you. Note too that a 2L starter doesn’t automatically give you (by virtue of volume) 300 billions cells. Seeding an appropriate volume of starter wort with about 75 billion cells does.

Are you referring at least in part to the presumed density of a yeast cake, from a starter, after crashing, McMullan? I seem to recall reading somewhere parsing out your yeast amount from measuring the volume of the cake (or perhaps as a proportion of the spent starter wort on top of it), with a density as an estimate and going from there.

 

[HighVoltageMan!]

No, you can’t.

The key words in my post were "estimate" and " cell counts aren't entirely accurate". The point of the post was to use the same calculator as consistently as you can so you can achieve consistent and predictable results. It is in no way a good practice in a laboratory or even in a brewery.

I'm a home brewer and this method works very well. There's no need to over complicate this process by splitting hairs.

 

[McMullan]

Are you referring at least in part to the presumed density of a yeast cake, from a starter, after crashing, McMullan? I seem to recall reading somewhere parsing out your yeast amount from measuring the volume of the cake (or perhaps as a proportion of the spent starter wort on top of it), with a density as an estimate and going from there.

What we’re interested in is viable cells in an easily measured quantity, like mass or volume, that works (for our individual expectations) when we do things consistently. Density of slurry is irrelevant, because cell viability is independent of slurry density.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

What we’re interested in is viable cells in an easily measured quantity, like mass or volume, that works (for our individual expectations) when we do things consistently. Density of slurry is irrelevant, because cell viability is independent of slurry density.

Right, OK, thanks. I'd just thought I'd seem some description of the idea here or perhaps on Hoporific. I've long had a certain musing of a full lab, to include regularly running viability and counts (and a host of the things), something I have some experience with, but like most attempts to emulate the commercial brewery, likely misguided at best and not needed as a matter of practice, I've accepted now.

 

[McMullan]

Right, OK, thanks. I'd just thought I'd seem some description of the idea here or perhaps on Hoporific. I've long had a certain musing of a full lab, to include regularly running viability and counts (and a host of the things), something I have some experience with, but like most attempts to emulate the commercial brewery, likely misguided at best and not needed as a matter of practice, I've accepted now.

I own a nice microscope and cell densiometer calibrated for yeast cells. I don’t bother using them for gauging my pitching rate. It serves no genuine purpose. Hoporific? That rings a bell. How are the scallywags? All doing alright, I hope.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

I own a nice microscope and cell densiometer calibrated for yeast cells. I don’t bother using them for gauging my pitching rate. It serves no genuine purpose. Hoporific? That rings a bell. How are the scallywags? All doing alright, I hope.

That's great. Never had or used a densiometer - only hemacytometer, which was heavily prone to error it seems to me (judging an "in" and "out" of field could be too much of a judgment call and consistency was so vital). Last time I've done any of it was a long, long time ago, in the '90's, when I worked for Goose Island, a regional craft brewery in the States. Tons of assays and rewarding. But I've forgotten specifics, only recall broad strokes (dilutions, viability staining, counts, for instance. something about an in-bottle tester for CO2 or air, using NaOH; centrifuge and spectraphotometric IBU analysis, etc. Cool stuff and I'm glad I did it. Remember none too well, but it would still be great to learn it again....just to satisfy the itch).

 

[McMullan]

There's no need to over complicate this process by splitting hairs.

Who’s ’splitting hairs’?

forget all about ‘cell number’. Mass or volume are much better surrogates and more doable for most home brewers.

 

[dmtaylor]

<-- Owns 2 microscopes.
<-- Is a scientist.
<-- Has never counted yeast cells under a microscope, or sees a reason to.

 

[mac_1103]

<-- Owns a microscope, but doesn't remember where it is.
<-- Is a scientist.
<-- Has not counted yeast cells under a microscope since the last time someone paid him to.

 

[agentbud]

A small batch. Assuming you know the yeast is fresh.

It's not like the Constitution requires that we brew five gallons at a time.

Sounds like it's time for the 28th amendment!

 

[agentbud]

<-- Donated my Walmart microscope to Goodwill years ago.
<-- No where near smart enough to be a scientist.
<-- Count yeast cells? I'd drink too much while trying and have to start over too many times.

 

[Closet Fermenter]

I just meant that people claim that a stir plate isn't necessary. Shaking the starter vs using a stir bar produces similar results.

Makes perfect sense; I never shake or stir my fermenter, but just pour it in before closing the lid. Somehow, the little yeastie-beasts wake up, figure out what to do, get busy, and produce me a batch of wonderful beer! Cheers!

 

[McMullan]

 

[day_trippr]

Music to dogfight to, I'd love it if that was playing in the background during War Thunder furballs

 

[moreb33rplz]

This is why some of us use dry yeast. It's way cheaper, easier, less variable, and produces the same quality of beer as liquid

When I do liquid I use imperial brand because they have more cells than white labs. Supposedly

I used to make starters each brew, over build them, store yeast, etc. I now view that as wasted time. If you find it fun more power to you but my goal is to produce good beer, not intentionally complicate the process to feel like I'm making it 'better'

 

[redrocker652002]

<-- Never owned a microscope, unless you count a magnifying glass I used to kill ants as a kid
<-- Scientist? Oh hell no!!!!!!
<-- Count yeast? Can't get those little critters to line up in a straight line to count them

 

[AmarikinBrew]

<-- Microscope, I had an electron microscope, spilt beer on it and the light went out.
<-- Scientist, never got religion.
<-- Count yeast cells, never had enough brain cells for that.

 

[Closet Fermenter]

<—Microscope, My brother had one from the Sears catalog. It was cool to look at leaves.
<—Scientist, Maybe. One of my degrees has the word “Science” in it. (It did involve looking at some stuff with a microscope. ) But I prefer the religion over science.
<—Count yeast cells, never. I have faith, (see comment above about religion.)

 

[Gadjobrinus]

<—Microscope, My brother had one from the Sears catalog. It was cool to look at leaves.

I had the same one! Yes, prepared slides...coolest.