MrMalty. I don't really like him.

[TimelessCynic]

I don't know whether to believe MrMalty. Does he account for yeast growth in the beginning stages of fermentation when the yeast consumes the oxygen and propagates?

I always try to follow his advice but even when i under pitch based on his calculation i have complete clean vigorous fermentation.

Let's assume i have 50 ml of yeast slurry with 2 billion cells per ml at 100% viability.

I want to make 5.7 gallons of lager beer at on OG of 1.055

He says i need 437 billion cells. If i use a wyeast smack pack or white labs vial i would have to have a 4.34 litre starter.

If i use my 50 ml yeast slurry which should be the equivalent in yeast cells as a wyeast pack or white labs vial then I would be short 168 ml of yeast slurry.

So based on my very shabby logic does that mean my 50 ml slurry should be able to grow into a 218 ml slurry with a 4.34 litre starter?

Pardon my language but that seems f'in impossible.

 

[RM-MN]

This is not an answer to your question, it's a question in itself. http://sciencebrewer.com/2012/03/02/pitching-rate-experiment-part-deux-results/

Note that the overpitch is about 5 times the calculated perfect pitch while the underpitch is about 1/8 of the perfect pitch. Read it carefully and draw your own conclusions.

 

[shtoive87]

Why does that seem impossible?

 

[clarksc4]

Seems like the TLDR version is this: it's hard to totally screw the pooch on pitching rate.
If your optimal rate is X, you have a range of .125x to 5x that will work out. As they say in canada "crose enough!!"

 

[day_trippr]

There's more to fermentation than just reaching FG. Under and over pitching often convey less than ideal flavor profiles...

Cheers!

 

[JPrather]

Pardon my language but that seems f'in impossible.

Everything yeast does seems f'in impossible.

 

[TimelessCynic]

Seems impossible because if i pour a wyeast pack into a large volume of 1.040 wort, let it sit on the stir plate for 24 hours then cold crash it for several days i do not get hundreds of millilitres of new yeast slurry.

 

[VT-NAV]

Seems impossible because if i pour a wyeast pack into a large volume of 1.040 wort, let it sit on the stir plate for 24 hours then cold crash it for several days i do not get hundreds of millilitres of new yeast slurry.

I believe it's implying you have to step it up to a 4L - as in doing 2-3 progressively larger starters. Not just pitch it into 4L of 1.040 starter wort and call it a day.

 

[rajun50]

I believe it's implying you have to step it up to a 4L - as in doing 2-3 progressively larger starters. Not just pitch it into 4L of 1.040 starter wort and call it a day.

+1

You can't just pitch the yeast into a larger amount of starter wort and expect it to be a true 4L starter. You have to step up to keep the yeast active and reproducing.

Look at it this way. If you could just pitch the yeast into a larger volume of wort and get the correct amount of yeast, you wouldn't need to make a starter at all because pitching directly into your fermenter would be the same thing.

 

[shtoive87]

I believe it's implying you have to step it up to a 4L - as in doing 2-3 progressively larger starters. Not just pitch it into 4L of 1.040 starter wort and call it a day.

+1

You can't just pitch the yeast into a larger amount of starter wort and expect it to be a true 4L starter. You have to step up to keep the yeast active and reproducing.

Look at it this way. If you could just pitch the yeast into a larger volume of wort and get the correct amount of yeast, you wouldn't need to make a starter at all because pitching directly into your fermenter would be the same thing.

I have to disagree with both of you... Looking at Brewing Classic Styles authored by Mr Malty, he describes how to make a starter. He explains that the starters he's talking about are one-step starters (i.e. you don't step up the starters... that will give you a different yeast count). From his book, putting 1 pack of yeast into a 2-liter starter, then stepping that up to a 4-liter starter (after cold-crashing and decanting) is the same is pitching one pack of yeast into a 9-liter starter.

As far as just pitching into your fermenter, the max yeast growth will only be about 4 times (e.g. 100 billion cells will grow to a max of 400 billion cells, even in a giant starter). When Mr Malty or anyone else recommends a certain starter size, they are assuming the yeast will grow in the fermenter after it's pitched. If you don't pitch enough cells to begin with, there won't be enough yeast reproduction to handle all of the wort properly.

Seems impossible because if i pour a wyeast pack into a large volume of 1.040 wort, let it sit on the stir plate for 24 hours then cold crash it for several days i do not get hundreds of millilitres of new yeast slurry.

How much slurry do you get? How big is a "large volume"? I'm interested because I use the calculator too, and I want to know if more research should be done to either back up or disprove his claims.

Also, with the original example, Mr Malty says you need to start with two yeast packs in your starter...

 

[VT-NAV]

I have to disagree with both of you... Looking at Brewing Classic Styles authored by Mr Malty, he describes how to make a starter. He explains that the starters he's talking about are one-step starters (i.e. you don't step up the starters... that will give you a different yeast count). From his book, putting 1 pack of yeast into a 2-liter starter, then stepping that up to a 4-liter starter (after cold-crashing and decanting) is the same is pitching one pack of yeast into a 9-liter starter.

Yeah.. you're right. And I knew that too.

I posted without actually looking at the MrMalty calculator to confirm the suppositions in the original post.

Upon actually going in to MrMalty and putting in his parameters, the OP seemed to have missed the fact that the calculator calls for 2 smackpacks/vials into a 4.95L starter.

As the OP states, 100 billion cells simply won't grow into over 400 in a simple 4L starter; however, that's not what MrMalty calls for. Putting 200 billion cells into 5L of starter wort could easily yield 440 billion cells.

 

[TimelessCynic]

I slide the growth factor bar until it only asks me to use 1 pack. I could be doing it all wrong.

Anyhow, I have really enjoyed everyone's input, and i like the link provided in the second post.

 

[shtoive87]

Looks like a bug in the mobile app's software. When I slide the bar on www.mrmalty.com, the volume of starter changes from 4.66 L to 11.57 L:

 

[TimelessCynic]

Not a bug. I have a stir plate. Different yeast growth with different equipment. I get the same screen as you when i switch to simple starter

 

[kh54s10]

Use mrmalty.com or yeastcalc.com. Get or make a stirplate so you can use smaller wort volumes. If you do your good beers will be better.

You CAN pitch one package of yeast and your beer will ferment. Not necessarily producing the best flavors.
Or you can pitch 2 or 3 packages of liquid yeast instead of saving $$. Yeast + dme for a starter is < the $ needed for multiple yeast packs.

 

[TimelessCynic]

I agree. I started with dry yeast then i built a stir plate

Then i moved to liquid yeast. I couldn't imagine just dumping liquid yeast into a batch of beer without a starter.

 

[progmac]

ok, awesome nintendo stirplate. i am so jealous.

gordon strong recently mentioned that he pitches his average gravity lagers with a smackpack and plenty of nutrients and oxygen. conversely, the JZ school would recommend at least a 3L starter for this, maybe more.

i don't know what to think any more. but i do know that i am suspicious of anyone who has "absolute" answers regarding yeast

 

[TimelessCynic]

I agree progmac.

I could not get the whole yeast pitching idea under control. That's sorta why I started this thread. I did really enjoy the link in the second post. It helped me
relax a lot on the pitching scenario.

The nintendo stir plate was a pretty fun project. Not too costly either. Just follow other stir plate builds and adapt to use a nintendo enclosure. Helps if you can solder too in order to preserve the power receptacle and power button and cool RED led. I bought rare earth magnets online instead of ripping them from old hard drives as suggested in the online instructions.

 

[Qhrumphf]

There's certainly disagreement. A number of folks have done similar experiments to Mr. Malty and come up with different numbers. Kai Troester's numbers are available in the Yeast Calc calculator, and I do believe they call for notably smaller starters than Mr. Malty/JZ come up with.

That said, I will absolutely trust someone who's done actual scientific research and their own cell counts over the anecdotal "this is what I do and it works for me" (as much as I respect Gordon Strong...)

 

[kh54s10]

There's certainly disagreement. A number of folks have done similar experiments to Mr. Malty and come up with different numbers. Kai Troester's numbers are available in the Yeast Calc calculator, and I do believe they call for notably smaller starters than Mr. Malty/JZ come up with.

That said, I will absolutely trust someone who's done actual scientific research and their own cell counts over the anecdotal "this is what I do and it works for me" (as much as I respect Gordon Strong...)

All the disagreement is on the size of the starter needed. There is not much of a disagreement on the need to do a starter.

IMO mrmalty may be a bit on the overkill side, but that is much better than underpitching. Lately I have been using yeastcalc.com since I am doing step starters from frozen yeast samples.

With all that said, unless you have a microscope and do a count you are always making an estimate on how much growth you have actually achieved.

 

[Qhrumphf]

All the disagreement is on the size of the starter needed. There is not much of a disagreement on the need to do a starter.

IMO mrmalty may be a bit on the overkill side, but that is much better than underpitching. Lately I have been using yeastcalc.com since I am doing step starters from frozen yeast samples.

With all that said, unless you have a microscope and do a count you are always making an estimate on how much growth you have actually achieved.

That's kind of my point. I'll trust Chris White's analytical data (you know, the guy who runs a yeast lab) on the need to make starters over what Gordon Strong apparently says he does (pitching a single smack pack into a lager)

I frequently pitch less than what Mr. Malty says, but I'm also usually brewing Belgian and English beers where I'm trying to coax more esters out of them, however it still requires a starter and I do so in a controlled manner. With my cleaner beers, I'll absolutely trend towards more rather than less.

One thing I took from the Yeast book JZ and Chris White wrote was that the important thing is a consistent pitching rate as a baseline. Beyond that, you can manipulate it slightly to get certain outcomes. But the important thing is to start from a consistent point.

 

[RM-MN]

That's kind of my point. I'll trust Chris White's analytical data (you know, the guy who runs a yeast lab) on the need to make starters over what Gordon Strong apparently says he does (pitching a single smack pack into a lager)

I frequently pitch less than what Mr. Malty says, but I'm also usually brewing Belgian and English beers where I'm trying to coax more esters out of them, however it still requires a starter and I do so in a controlled manner. With my cleaner beers, I'll absolutely trend towards more rather than less.

One thing I took from the Yeast book JZ and Chris White wrote was that the important thing is a consistent pitching rate as a baseline. Beyond that, you can manipulate it slightly to get certain outcomes. But the important thing is to start from a consistent point.

Wait! What? Mr. Malty says you need at least a 2 liter starter for your lager or it won't turn out but Gordon Strong pitches a single smack pack but Yeast Calc says that isn't nearly enough but Gordon Strong wins competition with his beers but everyone says that isn't possible.

Maybe the quantity of yeast isn't as critical as it is made out to be. Maybe you can make some really good beer by pitching just a vial or smack pack.

 

[progmac]

Maybe the quantity of yeast isn't as critical as it is made out to be. Maybe you can make some really good beer by pitching just a vial or smack pack.

Maybe. I need to do a controlled test. I feel like my increased pitch rates came along with a lot of other good habits, so it is hard to isolate what is important and what I just think is important.

 

[TimelessCynic]

When yeast is rinsed do you want the yeast that stays in suspension the longest? When i rinse, after i mix everything up, i wait about 30 minutes. There is always a ton of yeast at the
bottom mixed with the trub and hops etc... I leave that where it is and go for the milky coloured soup. When that settles out in a mason jar i am left with about 50 ml of yeast slurry. Is this stuff better than the gunk at the bottom of the fermenter?

 

[RM-MN]

The idea is to take the yeast that settles out the quickest because that is selecting for the most flocculant yeast. If you do it your way you are selecting for a less flocculant yeast but you get cleaner yeast because the trub stays in the first vessel since it settles out first.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Wait! What? Mr. Malty says you need at least a 2 liter starter for your lager or it won't turn out but Gordon Strong pitches a single smack pack but Yeast Calc says that isn't nearly enough but Gordon Strong wins competition with his beers but everyone says that isn't possible.

Maybe the quantity of yeast isn't as critical as it is made out to be. Maybe you can make some really good beer by pitching just a vial or smack pack.

I haven't personally heard or read that Gordon Strong does it. Someone else in the thread said so. However, other folks say it on a regular basis. However, since I've never heard anyone of note recommend only pitching a smack pack or vial into a lager, I'm inclined to say that he was misinterpreted.

Edit: Looks like he actually did say it. Here: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=17065.45 and here: https://twitter.com/GordonStrong (6th of January).

 

[winvarin]

When Mr Malty or anyone else recommends a certain starter size, they are assuming the yeast will grow in the fermenter after it's pitched...

Truth there.

If you listen to Mr. Malty's podcast (which I do) he regularly indicates that an appropriately sized yeast starter is not enough yeast to, on its own, ferment your beer to the expected finishing gravity. He says that some moderate degree of growth is both expected, as well as necessary to produce the desired esters, aromas and characters that make beer beer, rather than just a carbonated ethanol solution.

The ideal is to pitch enough yeast so that the yeast is not stressed by trying to increase its population so greatly and quickly that it produces off flavors and aromas associated with under pitching. Likewise, you don't want to pitch a larger volume of yeast than is necessary to ferment your batch of beer. You prevent the beer from creating those compounds that give your beer it's stylistic character.

The way mr malty and John Palmer describe it, it's more of a "Goldilocks" thing. Too little is bad. So is too much. Thankfully for most homebrew recipes, the range for "just right" is pretty broad, and not too difficult to hit if you're willing to put in the effort.

 

[cervid]

I have to disagree with both of you... Looking at Brewing Classic Styles authored by Mr Malty, he describes how to make a starter. He explains that the starters he's talking about are one-step starters (i.e. you don't step up the starters... that will give you a different yeast count). From his book, putting 1 pack of yeast into a 2-liter starter, then stepping that up to a 4-liter starter (after cold-crashing and decanting) is the same is pitching one pack of yeast into a 9-liter starter.

As far as just pitching into your fermenter, the max yeast growth will only be about 4 times (e.g. 100 billion cells will grow to a max of 400 billion cells, even in a giant starter). When Mr Malty or anyone else recommends a certain starter size, they are assuming the yeast will grow in the fermenter after it's pitched. If you don't pitch enough cells to begin with, there won't be enough yeast reproduction to handle all of the wort properly.



How much slurry do you get? How big is a "large volume"? I'm interested because I use the calculator too, and I want to know if more research should be done to either back up or disprove his claims.

Also, with the original example, Mr Malty says you need to start with two yeast packs in your starter...

Most of the stuff in Brewing Classic styles is wrong. All the IBU calculations are way off. I haven't brewed a recipe out of there in a while, but there is a lot on inconsistency in there.

Innoculation rate is an important factor for making a starter. You wan to maximize the number of healthy cells. If your inoculation rate is too high, they don't need to multiply that much to eat all the food. If it's too low, they multiply too much and some will both die off and also be less healthy.

I use Brewer's Friend for my yeast calc. I find it is the best middle ground for all of them and the way the stirplate is calculated from kai seems to be more accurate.

Mr. Malty's repitching from slurry is for repitching from a yeast cake that has undergone complete fermentation. There will be more dead cells in that sample than from a simple starter crashed after high krausen.

I just made a 2L then 5L starter with WL810. My recollection was that my calculations came out to giving me about 333 billion cells per jar I separated it into. I split it three ways, pitched one and saved 2. At first, I have over 100ml of slurry in it, now it is under 100 after condensing. I needed about 200-250 for my brew and after pitching one jar I had fermentation in 5 hours and high krausen the next morning and it lasted for about 2-3 days. I just divide the number, calculate for a little bit of overpitch to account for decreased viability after being in the fridge for a month, and then pitch the smaller container of the 3 or 4 I make into the current brew. It seems to be correct.

It just depends to which side you move that slider to. I trust the number of cells divided more than what I think the thickness of the slurry is on a scale of 1-4.5. That's just too subjective for me. Also, there are no hops in the trub of a starter and there are less dead cells, especially if you crash it after the krausen falls instead of let it go for a while after krausen.

 

[LandoLincoln]

Wait! What? Mr. Malty says you need at least a 2 liter starter for your lager or it won't turn out but Gordon Strong pitches a single smack pack but Yeast Calc says that isn't nearly enough but Gordon Strong wins competition with his beers but everyone says that isn't possible.

Maybe the quantity of yeast isn't as critical as it is made out to be. Maybe you can make some really good beer by pitching just a vial or smack pack.

Maybe. And maybe your beer will come out with some unexpected off-flavors. Less cost vs. more predictability.

 

[cervid]

The issue I had with yeastcalc was how it determines viability of older yeast. It seems to do it the same way as Beersmith.

This is the site I use: http://www.brewersfriend.com/yeast-pitch-rate-and-starter-calculator/

This is the site Kai has a link to on his page, it gives more info for it's methods compared to yeastcalc. The only thing I can come up with in regards to the viability is that beersmith and yeastcalc figure it based on monthly deterioration whereas malty and brewer's friend figure it daily, but that might be wrong. No idea why they are so different. But, the way BF and Malty figure it aligns with what Wyeast says right on their page regarding viability..

I figure by using Brewer's friend and figuring viability as a worst case scenario and using Kai's data is the best way to get a realistic number. The way Kai figures it makes a lot more sense and how White and Jamil did their 'analytical' data as one poster mentioned on stir plates is, well, non existent. Because they didn't do any data on a stir plate. All they did was take the growth curve of a simple starter and multiply it by x.

You can find links to Kai's studies on Brewer's Friend.

 

[ArcLight]

>>how White and Jamil did their 'analytical' data as one poster mentioned on stir plates is, well, non existent. Because they didn't do any data on a stir plate. All they did was take the growth curve of a simple starter and multiply it by x.

How do you know this? Did they say that or write that, or are you just speculating?



>.Most of the stuff in Brewing Classic styles is wrong. All the IBU calculations are way off. I haven't brewed a recipe out of there in a while, but there is a lot on inconsistency in there.

The stated IBUs might not be correct but are you saying the recipes aren't very good? Jamil Zainasheff did win some Ninkasis and open his own brewery. The books says these are gold medal winners. Maybe a few recipes are slightly off, buy many of them?
Which of the recipes have you brewed that you don't like?

I've brewed six, of which I liked five. The 6th was ok, not bad, just that I wouldn't rush to brew it again.

 

[cervid]

The fact that the IBU's are off in that book is well known Arc. But, once again, you will get proved wrong...

Google 'IBU's off on brewing classic styles'. It's widely reported. In the beginning, they say they use the Rager method, but no programs come up with the same calculations using that equation. Furthermore, a lot of those recipes were adapted to extract only, the book was written for the beginning brewer who uses extract. Lastly, my recipes are more detailed than three steps. I'm sure his are too, but they don't give it all up.

He does a great job talking about the styles and in that regard I think Jamil is right on. I actually only brewed one recipe from that book.. I quit extract brewing after 2 batches of extract beer. Coincidentally, I quit bottling after those 2 batches too.. I'm sure I'll adapt his Pliny clone, although Vinnie has changed that a few times.

Back to the discussion... You say maybe a few recipes are off, but many? Yes many. Literally every one I ran through Beersmith and Beer Tools is off. I didn't do them all, but again, this complaint is widespread and it's well known. The book has been out a while now.

Here's the links on yeast you need. http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2012/11/03/estimating-yeast-growth/

http://www.brewersfriend.com/yeast-pitch-rate-and-starter-calculator/

Scroll down and read 'Yeast Growth Equations' in this link. I'll link it for you, since you didn't follow my links in the other post you wanted to argue in. Are you trying to follow around my posts and start ****?

The remaining growth factors are based on an empirical study done by Chris White, which is detailed in:
White, Chris, and Jamil Zainasheff. Yeast: The Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation. Boulder, CO: Brewers Publications, 2010. 139-44. Print.
This model is based on an inoculation rate leading to a yeast growth factor. We approximated results from that study and fitted it to an equation provided below. There are some caveats to the model to be aware of.

The maximum growth factor is 6 (the starter will never grow past that amount).

The saturation point for a starter is 200 million cells/ml (the starter not grow at that inoculation rate).

The growth curve is geared for a starter gravity of 1.036 (9 ° P).

The initial study did not address stir plates or shaking methods. However, anecdotally, aeration and stirring are said to provide positive benefits. We do not have a citation for this unfortunately, but if you can point us towards one we would be happy to update this page and the calculator logic.

At this point the yeast calculator is quite conservative: no aeration: no adjustment, shaking regularly: +0.5 boost to growth factor, stir plate: +1.0 boost to growth factor.

Data points extrapolated from Chris White's experiment: Inoculation Yeast
Rate (B/L): Growth Rate:
----------------------------------
5 5
6 4.5
7.4 4
9 3.57
10 3.36
11.1 3.15
12.5 2.93
14.2 2.71
16.6 2.45
20 2.17
22.2 2.02
25 1.86
28.5 1.69
33.3 1.51
40 1.31
44.4 1.2
50 1.08
57.1 0.96
66.6 0.82
80 0.68
90.9 0.57
100 0.51
111.1 0.44
125 0.37
142.8 0.28
166.6 0.2
200 0.1

Running that through a polynomial solver gave us:
G = (12.54793776 * x^-0.4594858324) - 0.9994994906
(where x is the inoculation rate)

 

[ArcLight]

>>Back to the discussion... You say maybe a few recipes are off, but many? Yes many. Literally every one I ran through Beersmith and Beer Tools is off. I didn't do them all, but again, this complaint is widespread and it's well known. The book has been out a while now.


As I said, the IBUs may differ, but are the ingredients off?
Are you saying all the recipes are wrong and that none taste good as stated?

Is the only thing wrong that the IBUs are off? OR do all the recipes need to be changed?

 

[Brewerforlife]

With all that said, unless you have a microscope and do a count you are always making an estimate on how much growth you have actually achieved

Well said!!!!

 

[cervid]

You didn't say anything about the ibus being off, i did..

I meant exactly what I said. You should work on your reading comprehension. So far, in two different threads, you've tried to attack me. Before, you had trouble reading and understanding books, articles, and quotes. Now, you can't seem to understand what I say, even when the print is right in front of you..

Get a life and quit wasting my time..

 

[Qhrumphf]

The issue I had with yeastcalc was how it determines viability of older yeast. It seems to do it the same way as Beersmith.

This is the site I use: http://www.brewersfriend.com/yeast-pitch-rate-and-starter-calculator/

This is the site Kai has a link to on his page, it gives more info for it's methods compared to yeastcalc. The only thing I can come up with in regards to the viability is that beersmith and yeastcalc figure it based on monthly deterioration whereas malty and brewer's friend figure it daily, but that might be wrong. No idea why they are so different. But, the way BF and Malty figure it aligns with what Wyeast says right on their page regarding viability..

I figure by using Brewer's friend and figuring viability as a worst case scenario and using Kai's data is the best way to get a realistic number. The way Kai figures it makes a lot more sense and how White and Jamil did their 'analytical' data as one poster mentioned on stir plates is, well, non existent. Because they didn't do any data on a stir plate. All they did was take the growth curve of a simple starter and multiply it by x.

You can find links to Kai's studies on Brewer's Friend.

Way to misphrase and misquote me while railing into someone else for not paying attention.

This data is based upon data done by Chris White, no? The quotation you provided says so. That was what I was referring to. I didn't mention stir plates. They provided data, in the book referenced, on growth of yeast, the amount of times it can reproduce, and how one smack pack often can't multiply enough to give you the appropriate amount of cells. It was in the direct context of Gordon Strong pitching only a smack pack into an average gravity lager.

That said, I don't have a citation handy and am not pretending that I do, but I was under the impression that a lot of the Mr. Malty forumulas came from Jamil making starters and counting with a hemocytometer. If that's not the case, then I apparently misunderstood.

 

[cervid]

The comments towards Arclight aren't your concern. He's going after me in another post and followed me here, so it's a culmination of two issues..

Secondly, I didn't misphrase or misquote anything you said. I didn't quote you at all.. You said you'd trust Chris White, you know, the guy who runs a yeast lab over the other sites. What I'm showing you is the study that White and Jamil did was limited in scope. It didn't include starters on a stir plate, it inferred those results. That's not a study on anything other than a simple starter. I know the book you brought up and the study that was the basis for it.

If you're only making simple starters, you're all good.

I'm sorry, I'm confused though.. How did I misphrase or quote anything you said? I provided an alternative site and links that give some info on how that site works.

RM-MN was the one quoting you. Not a single one of my comments were directed towards you or anything you said..

 

[Qhrumphf]

The comments towards Arclight aren't your concern. He's going after me in another post and followed me here, so it's a culmination of two issues..

Secondly, I didn't misphrase or misquote anything you said. I didn't quote you at all.. You said you'd trust Chris White, you know, the guy who runs a yeast lab over the other sites. What I'm showing you is the study that White and Jamil did was limited in scope. It didn't include starters on a stir plate, it inferred those results. That's not a study on anything other than a simple starter. I know the book you brought up and the study that was the basis for it.

If you're only making simple starters, you're all good.

I'm sorry, I'm confused though.. How did I misphrase or quote anything you said? I provided an alternative site and links that give some info on how that site works.

RM-MN was the one quoting you. Not a single one of my comments were directed towards you or anything you said..

They were, and you did, and you're doing it again. But I'm not willing to keep arguing it. So carry on.

 

[Komocabo]

It sounds like we all need to RDWAHAHB. Relax folks. Let's move on and talk about yeast and starters. I wish I had more input at the moment... I am trying to learn in a collaborative environment. Not listen to pety arguments. Move on please and let's talk about beer. About to unsubscribe to this one if it stays like this. Sorry for pooping on the high horse parade, this stuff just bugs me.

 

[cervid]

I'm starting to realize that's how the bulk of the community is here. If you have the opposite opinion if the wrong person, they take it personal and attack you. I'm about to quit these forums and join the aha's. I'm glad i didn't pay this site for support, the community sucks, for the most past.