No starter effects

[kirbykollege]

I brewed using my first liquid yeast (wyeast Leuven pale) without a starter. Bubbled moderately for about 9 days and left me with only an inch in trub, which is unusual for me. I'm sure that using a starter is much more effective, but could my batch suffer from not doing so? What are the proven effects if not? Thanks

 

[Bricks41]

The trub layer cannot be readily used as a measure on how well the yeast performed. You may not have transferred as much cold/hot break into the fermenter, maybe you didn't use as many hops, etc.

What did you brew, what was the grain and hop bill, batch type, OG, etc.?

 

[Pratzie]

Most importantly what was the OG and how did the bag puff up after ur smacked it?

 

[kirbykollege]

"Le petite Orange" was the brew. OG was 1.060 (supposed to be less, but I only did 4 gal to raise it) and the bag swelled up nicely.

 

[ludomonster]

Wyeast contents that you should not need a starter. Mr malty contents that you would need about 167 billion cells. You're probably OK.

If you have a lot of diacetyl, fusel alchohols, esters, sulphur, or if your FG is higher than what you expect, consider using a starter. Since there is some disagreement about the pitching rate, you may find some diacetyl, fusel alchohols, esters, and sulphur; however, this will probably not be enough to ruin your beer. If you want the beer to be cleaner, pitch with a starter next time. Temperature control and aeration are also a factor.