OG and necessity of yeast starter

[Hammy71]

I'm in the "always make a starter crowd" when it comes to liquid yeast. My logic is based on the fact I've invested a lot of time and material into making a brew. Why even take the chance of messing it up over a few bucks worth of DME? As far as the cell count, I guess I'm just assuming a higher cell count since I went from a meer dusting of yeast in the bottom of my flask from the vial, to a half inch or more the next day.

 

[joety]

The BYO experiment was just using dry yeast, from what I recall.

 

[Pezman1]

The BYO experiment was just using dry yeast, from what I recall.

You are correct. They figured it would be easier and more repeatable using dried yeast in the experiment. Pez.

 

[joety]

I'm in the "always make a starter crowd" when it comes to liquid yeast. My logic is based on the fact I've invested a lot of time and material into making a brew. Why even take the chance of messing it up over a few bucks worth of DME? As far as the cell count, I guess I'm just assuming a higher cell count since I went from a meer dusting of yeast in the bottom of my flask from the vial, to a half inch or more the next day.

In addition to greater cell count, I get jackrabbit starts to my fermentation by using a starter. The fastest starts come when I crash cool the starter a day or two in advance, decant off the spent beer first thing in the morning on brew day, and shake up the flask every half hour or so while I'm brewing. If I am using carboys to ferment, I can see activity usually within an hour or two after pitching. There was a greater lag time back in the days when I'd just pitch from the smack pack.

 

[teal]

"Great beer" or "good beer" can be rather subjective to one another's palate.

I've not made a ton of beer but I will admit to making bad beer.

I would ask this - has anyone ever tried someone's brew and without recipe and process discussion said "This beer was made with an underpitched yeast process"?

I don't know of anyone who can say that. Of anyone who can taste when a beer was made with yeast that was underpitched and nail it to that cause....

IMO - I think we would ALL love to pitch the exact perfect amount and I think most tend to work towards that but I don't really every worry too much about it. If I'm there - great, if not I'll work on it but I won't stop brewing. It's beer guys, not a cure for cancer. If it's great - super, if I have to dump it - so what? I'm out say 30 or 40 bucks. If 40 bucks breaks me - I'm doing a lot of other things wrong. Relax and enjoy the hobby.

 

[JDFlow]

Interesting, there's a video with a wyeast employee saying you don't need a starter under 1.060 with their smack packs. Above that he reccomended a 2 liter starter.

 

[kaconga]

I think there is a difference between needing a starter and recommending one. Technically you don't need 8+ hours of sleep. But that is the recommendation. Will you brew good beer without a starter? Probably, but I still recommend one.

 

[Denny]

I'd say you'll brew average to poor beer without a starter and using a starter will increase your chances of making a great beer.

 

[jaynik]

I'd say you'll brew average to poor beer without a starter and using a starter will increase your chances of making a great beer.

This is the sentiment I am trying to delve into. This is completely subjective as are most all the opinions I have read on here about this. I guess my point is that you can say I feel better about making a starter than not, but no one seems to have objective evidence that their starters are superior to a smack pack (<1.060) or dry yeast. I have never used vials so have never been in the realm of where the producers recommend a starter. I don't think any of my beers have been bad and also can't say they are any better than one with a starter.

 

[Bobby_M]

I'm all for questioning status quo but most conventional wisdom has basis in research. There really is nothing definitive in any aspect of brewing. The very least we can do is observe the behaviors of the most successful brewers. Jamil Z and Gordon strong for instance have had more NHC medals than most ever will. What do they do?

Better yet, do your own controlled experiments. You would be more likely to believe the results.

There are at least a dozen shortcuts you can take to brew what youd still call beer. Is this a game of how many you can get away with before its undrinkable?

The last thing I'll say is that performing a wort stability test will make it obvious why you dont want a half assed colony of yeast in there.

 

[Denny]

I have a lot of my own experience that proved to me that beers I used a starter for are always better than beers I don't use a starter. That's worth more to me than all the "science" I can read. Try it for yourself and make up your own mind. That's the best way to learn.

ETA: Bobby said it better!

 

[JoeBronco]

I see where your trying to go with this Jaynik, Yes, a persons "taste" of beer is subjective and that's why we have so many diffrent styles and flavors of beer. But your missing a few key points...

The definition of a "good" beer and a "great" beer is not subjective but outlined in the BJCP judging guidelines. Strained yeast give off flavors that a trained palate can detect. While most of us don't judge beer on a regular basis we typically fall into the beers that we like and compare our homebrew to there likeness.

Starters help for quicker fermentation's and the stronger yeast can fight off bacteria before it can become a problem. The quicker a fermentation starts, it betters your chances for the yeast to clean up there own mess and not stress about food consumption.

To each there own, if you are unperturbed about off flavors in your beer, that's your prerogative. But to say that making a starter doesn't "help" to make better beer unsubjectivly is apocryphal.

 

[dadnboys]

I see where your trying to go with this Jaynik, Yes, a persons "taste" of beer is subjective and that's why we have so many diffrent styles and flavors of beer. But your missing a few key points...

The definition of a "good" beer and a "great" beer is not subjective but outlined in the BJCP judging guidelines. Strained yeast give off flavors that a trained palate can detect. While most of us don't judge beer on a regular basis we typically fall into the beers that we like and compare our homebrew to there likeness.

Starters help for quicker fermentation's and the stronger yeast can fight off bacteria before it can become a problem. The quicker a fermentation starts, it betters your chances for the yeast to clean up there own mess and not stress about food consumption.

To each there own, if you are unperturbed about off flavors in your beer, that's your prerogative. But to say that making a starter doesn't "help" to make better beer unsubjectivly is apocryphal.

I use a 1 L yeast starter for 10 gal batches in most instances and have had faster initial fermentation as a result. I use a 40% DME/60% Wheat Malt Extract as there was an older article published that stated this provided more yeast nutrients. Back in the day, smack packs were not as fresh and viable as today. I do, however add 1 tsp of yeast nutrient to the starter wort at end of boil. Simply put, I liken fermentation to growing a nice lawn. The more grass seed/grass nutrients you have the grass are able to out compete the weeds. The best way to prevent weeds is to grow good grass. Wild yeast strains and bacteria are "the weeds". If I am less organized in my brew plan then I simply pitch the dry yeast or smack-nowadays with good results. I feel more confident and truer to recipe if I see bubbles quickly after pitching. I feel nervous and get results more variable from style when the bubbles take a long time to initiate. Because wort is such an excellent growth medium for whatever opportunist organism comes along, you are now wholly dependent on sound sanitation methods. I prefer the increased degree of freedom offered by the use of starters.

 

[joety]

I use a 1 L yeast starter for 10 gal batches in most instances and have had faster initial fermentation as a result. I use a 40% DME/60% Wheat Malt Extract as there was an older article published that stated this provided more yeast nutrients. Back in the day, smack packs were not as fresh and viable as today. I do, however add 1 tsp of yeast nutrient to the starter wort at end of boil. Simply put, I liken fermentation to growing a nice lawn. The more grass seed/grass nutrients you have the grass are able to out compete the weeds. The best way to prevent weeds is to grow good grass. Wild yeast strains and bacteria are "the weeds". If I am less organized in my brew plan then I simply pitch the dry yeast or smack-nowadays with good results. I feel more confident and truer to recipe if I see bubbles quickly after pitching. I feel nervous and get results more variable from style when the bubbles take a long time to initiate. Because wort is such an excellent growth medium for whatever opportunist organism comes along, you are now wholly dependent on sound sanitation methods. I prefer the increased degree of freedom offered by the use of starters.

I use a five quart starter for ten gallon batches on a stir plate. According to mrmalty.com you need two smack packs if no stir plate.

 

[jaynik]

Appreciate everyone's tolerance of the "debate". I'm truly trying to find evidence that I should add this step to my brewing. This is the point where I have to put up or shut up and I will give a starter a shot next time around.

I just want to make sure you guys understand that I never meant to imply that people dont make good beer with starters or that starters dont give a vigorous start to fermentation. My point is that I am looking for evidence or at least theory over opinion.

Because I can't stop thinking, I have to ask if you guys believe that pitching two dry yeast packs would have an equally superior result as does a starter? More expensive of course but it will help me understand if the point from most of you is that it improves the "health" of the yeast as the quantity. I have heard both arguments.

 

[iijakii]

I try to use a starter but I won't put off brewing if I didn't have the time to get one ready. I've never noticed an off-flavor in my brews from it but then again I brew stouts and IPAs mostly. I think forum group-think has led many posters in this thread to think it's imperative, not just potentially beneficial.

 

[JoeBronco]

Healthy yeast and quantity of yeast are not necessarily the same thing but they do go hand in hand. To be considered healthy yeast they need to start eating sugars, start reproducing and creating alcohol without stress. To keep yeast healthy when you put them into a area rich with food is where the numbers come into place.

I think it was Yooper that gave this example, Pitching without a starter is as if you have food for 100 people and only 10 show up and forcing the 10 people to finish all the food... Even if the people are healthy, they wont be when they are done.

But if 100 people show up to eat, you'll get the results your looking for.

 

[2PintsLow]

Started making starters a few months ago and I will never look back. I dont have the most refined palate in the world, but I can tell the difference in MY beers when I have not used a starter. In a geeky way, it adds more of a "mad scientist" element to brewing that I dig. I notice that it kicks into gear much quicker and ends up much cleaner in the end. Matter of fact, I just pitched a starter a couple hours ago in an ESB I made this afternoon and Im getting a few bubbles out of the blow off already.

 

[mb82]

I did my first starter the other day. I will never look back. Pitched the Yeast at 9PM into my latest porter, by 10:45PM I heard the first bloop from the airlock( yeah yeah I know airlocks don't mean anything)

 

[Denny]

Because I can't stop thinking, I have to ask if you guys believe that pitching two dry yeast packs would have an equally superior result as does a starter? More expensive of course but it will help me understand if the point from most of you is that it improves the "health" of the yeast as the quantity. I have heard both arguments.

It's unnecessary. There are about the same number of cells in a dry yeast pack. as you get from the average size starter.

 

[jaynik]

Thanks Denny. That is what I have been reading. So does this mean the rest if you are using liquid yeast? Without doing much in depth research about a year ago I switched to dry yeast because it is reportedly ready to rock.

So now, if I am using dry yeast, should I expect an improvement by switching to liquid with a starter?

 

[Denny]

Thanks Denny. That is what I have been reading. So does this mean the rest if you are using liquid yeast? Without doing much in depth research about a year ago I switched to dry yeast because it is reportedly ready to rock.

So now, if I am using dry yeast, should I expect an improvement by switching to liquid with a starter?

"Improvement" is kinda hard to define. Quality of fermentation should be about the same whether you use dry or liquid with a starter. Liquid of course offers much more variety, which is its biggest advantage IMO.

 

[jaynik]

I see. I will have to dive deeper into the world of yeast. I mostly brew iPa and pale ales so haven't had much desire for anything besides us 05.

 

[william_shakes_beer]

My first 6 batches or so I pitched rehydrated dry yeast or liquid tube without starter. Then I got a stir plate and a flask. Now that I have the ability to make a starter, why would I not do so for every batch?

 

[jaynik]

William, do you use liquid yeast exclusively now? If using dry, even mr malty says a starter for dry isn't a good idea.