Smack Pack - have I been misled?

[Ridire]

http://byo.com/stories/item/1717-yeast-pitching-rates-advance-homebrewing

The more I learn, the more confused I become.

 

[stpug]

If we only need to pitch at half the "normal" rate for fresh, lab-grade yeast, that would seemingly also have implications for using dry yeast. In other words, I wonder if we are technically overpitching when we pitch 200+ billion properly rehydrated cells from a dry yeast packet?

As far as what the dry yeast manufacturers tell us, they are basically guaranteeing 6+ billion yeast cells per sachet. We are using other folks cell counts of rehydrated dry yeast and extrapolating the ~200 billion cell count number. If you couple this with lag times, which I'm not certain actually proves anything, the ~200 billion cell count number seems to coincide with what we've been told to expect in terms of lag time for a certain pitching rate. This is another one of those "sticky" areas where I think us homebrewers have created a collective opinion, which is not to say it's wrong - just that we have no guarantees of these numbers.

 

[IL1kebeer]

One smack pack is underpitching. You can listen to amateurs blither on about how they've used one smack pack for decades and blah blah blah, but the simple scientific fact is that one smack pack or vial does not - can not - contain enough cells to properly inoculate 19-20 liters of 1.060 wort.

That is a FACT supported by more brewing science than any of the "just pitch the one and it'll be fine" posters in this thread can even process.

It is a FACT that a proper inoculation is 1 million cells per ml of inoculated wort per degree Plato. The calculators are based on this paradigm. The calculators are RIGHT. People who say the calculators are wrong don't understand enough about the subject to have an opinion, or they'd realize the calculators are right.

Accepting as valid the "advice" that you can brew consistently excellent beer by ignoring how much yeast you're pitching is as stupid as listening to the fellow who says that a can of Blue Ribbon extract, a bag of sugar, bread yeast and a garbage can covered in cheesecloth will make consistently excellent beer. Would you just throw in a handful of hops? Or do you carefully calculate how many IBU you want and carefully measure your hops accordingly? Do you just toss in some malt? Or do you carefully tailor your grist to ensure the flavor, color, and OG you desire? Please. That's a no-brainer.

Long story short: Advice to pitch one smack pack is bad advice.

Cheers,

Bob

I would listen this guy. Time and time again I would like to have said what he said above, in almost the exact same way that he said it. Usually I am nice about it but it really gets on my nerves to see people giving advice saying that "underpitching is OK". Well, I agree, underpitching is OK... if you want to make poor beer. It's almost just like saying, "Oh you are baking a cake, its ok to use half the flour... you will still make cake...."

Do yourself a favor and pitch the proper amount of yeast. It is proven that pitching the correct amount of healthy yeast is necessary to produce the best quality beer. Of course other factors are at play, but you would be insane if you think that fermentation is not the most important part of the brewing process. The mash and boil produce wort, but its the yeast that produce beer. Unless you have serious recipe flaws or piss poor sanitation, then you will make excellent beer with a healthy fermentation. And there is no way on Gods green earth that you will have a healthy fermentation by underpitching. If you are content with that then so be it. Brewing is a hobby and people are free to brew how they choose.

I have brewed two batches of the same beer in the past. One batch was pitched using the correct pitching rate via a starter and the other batch was pitched with less than half of the recommended rate via a 2 1/2 month old white labs vial. I can tell you personally that it was like drinking two different beers. The one with the starter blew the underpitched one out of the water. Try it yourself.

 

[Ridire]

OK, now for a really remedial question: any harm in making a starter for dry yeast? If you are using dry yeast, and not making a starter, how can you be sure how much of the yeast is viable?

 

[boydster]

Do yourself a favor and pitch the proper amount of yeast. It is proven that pitching the correct amount of healthy yeast is necessary to produce the best quality beer.

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, and in fact I have been in the same camp as you and Bob for as long as I have been brewing - I've posted before about it in this thread and others, as a matter of fact. I'm not abandoning that camp just yet. But I'm not opposed to experimenting for the sake of making better beer.

I am reading more information about yeast now than I have before and there is something about what Palmer says in the article St. Pug posted and what Chris and Jamil wrote about in Yeast that is clearly different than our standard "best practice." Those guys know their stuff, we quote them all the time. There also seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that pitching one smack pack or vial still yields a very good product (some will passionately tell you it is every bit as good as beers they have made with 2 vials or packs). I think it is worth exploring the idea that a fresh, healthy lab culture might actually be able to do a good job in the way Wyeast and White Labs tell us. That doesn't mean I believe or disbelieve it. It means I want to see whether the book learnin' can be turned into applied knowledge, or if the theory that you can pitch a single fresh, healthy vial and make equally as good of a beer falls apart in practice.

From a business standpoint, why would Chris White endorse a statement that encourages you to buy less yeast from his company? From a legitimacy standpoint, why would Chris, Jamil, and Palmer all stand behind a statement they don't believe to be accurate? I'm just saying that they may be on to something, and if so, we owe it to ourselves to find out because I, for one, am currently adding 2x as much fresh, healthy, lab-grown yeast as they say I need to be using.

Edit: Sean Terrill did an experiment on one vial vs. two vials, and his results are not in line with the "50%" advice from Palmer, Chris, and Jamil. In fact, he reports the same results we would traditionally expect in an underpitched beer. Link: http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/

 

[boydster]

OK, now for a really remedial question: any harm in making a starter for dry yeast? If you are using dry yeast, and not making a starter, how can you be sure how much of the yeast is viable?

This has recently become another point of contention, too. The usual advice is that you should not make a starter with dry yeast because unless you are making a very large starter (I think 1.5 gallons or larger?) you will do more harm than good due to the large number of yeast cells already in the packet. However, there was a thread on here recently discussing the fact that the Fermentis packets say the guaranteed cell viability is something to the tune of 69 billion cells per 11.5 gram packet, whereas Mr. Malty and other sources have reported viable cell counts upwards of 230 billion (quoting that # from memory, it may have been 220 billion, not sure).

I am of the mindset that a fresh packet that has been properly handled and rehydrated will yield the 200+ billion viable cells and that the 69 billion figure is the guaranteed baseline for a yeast packet that is close to the expiration date, but I can't say that I have scientific proof one way or another.

 

[IL1kebeer]

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, and in fact I have been in the same camp as you and Bob for as long as I have been brewing - I've posted before about it in this thread and others, as a matter of fact. I'm not abandoning that camp just yet. But I'm not opposed to experimenting for the sake of making better beer.

I am reading more information about yeast now than I have before and there is something about what Palmer says in the article St. Pug posted and what Chris and Jamil wrote about in Yeast that is clearly different than our standard "best practice." Those guys know their stuff, we quote them all the time. There also seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that pitching one smack pack or vial still yields a very good product (some will passionately tell you it is every bit as good as beers they have made with 2 vials or packs). I think it is worth exploring the idea that a fresh, healthy lab culture might actually be able to do a good job in the way Wyeast and White Labs tell us. That doesn't mean I believe or disbelieve it. It means I want to see whether the book learnin' can be turned into applied knowledge, or if the theory that you can pitch a single fresh, healthy vial and make equally as good of a beer falls apart in practice.

From a business standpoint, why would Chris White endorse a statement that encourages you to buy less yeast from his company? From a legitimacy standpoint, why would Chris, Jamil, and Palmer all stand behind a statement they don't believe to be accurate? I'm just saying that they may be on to something, and if so, we owe it to ourselves to find out because I, for one, am currently adding 2x as much fresh, healthy, lab-grown yeast as they say I need to be using.

The only evidence that need is below. If other people like the taste of their beer that was pitched with half the recommended yeast then that's great... who am I to tell their taste buds what to like. But I know what I like and I know that properly pitched beer tastes better to me, so I that is the advice that I will give when someone posts here asking about pitching rates. I will disagree with anyone giving advice saying that underpitching will yield great results.

I have brewed two batches of the same beer in the past. One batch was pitched using the correct pitching rate via a starter and the other batch was pitched with less than half of the recommended rate via a 2 1/2 month old white labs vial. I can tell you personally that it was like drinking two different beers. The one with the starter blew the underpitched one out of the water. Try it yourself.

Here's another fun experiment. Brew two beers, one with the right amount of yeast and one with half the recommended amount. Enter those beers into three competitions to get a decent scoring sample and I'm sure the results will speak for themselves.

 

[boydster]

I have brewed two batches of the same beer in the past. One batch was pitched using the correct pitching rate via a starter and the other batch was pitched with less than half of the recommended rate via a 2 1/2 month old white labs vial. I can tell you personally that it was like drinking two different beers. The one with the starter blew the underpitched one out of the water. Try it yourself.

Your results sound similar to the results Sean Terrill wrote about in the link I posted earlier, and I've always believed that to be true. I'll probably do a test batch or two, just to prove it to myself. It is interesting to find so much conflicting information from sources that we generally give a lot of credence to, though. I wouldn't have taken the time of day to even consider that pitching one vial would be an acceptable pitch rate if I hadn't just read about it yesterday. I still find it hard to believe that it will make a beer that is as good or better than my normal pitch rate. I really only shared the quote from the book because it seemed wrong to withhold relevant information from the debate.

 

[PRE66_6TART]

here's my irritation with both Wyeast and White Labs' products- in order to compensate for underpitching, they tell you to pitch too warm and hold the fermentation temperature at a higher point until it starts going and then lower the temperature appropriately.

Well, by the time fermentation gets going, the yeast reproduction phase is over and the esters will have been formed. Also, yeast perform great when warmed, but not as well when cooled, and to do this is counter to many expert's advice to do the exact opposite!.

This seems like and important point. I always thought it was very strange that the instructions on my white labs vials were exactly the opposite of what everything else I've ever read. I just checked my vial of 002 in the fridge. It says to keep it at 70 to 75 until fermentation begins, usually 5 to 15 hours. Then they say it again to make sure - keep it above 70 at all times! I checked the optimum ferment temperatures on their website and it was 65-68.

So according to these instructions I should keep it as high as 75 while I watch it like a hawk for up to 15 hours until it starts doing something and then suddenly drop the temperature by as much as 10 degrees? I've never heard advice like this, and it seems like a lot of unnecessary hassle unless you were trying to get away with using the least possible amount of yeast.

I'm fairly new to this, but the reasoning I've heard behind pitching lower and letting the temperature slowly rise after time makes a lot of sense. I think I will chose to err on the side of higher pitch rates and this

 

[PRE66_6TART]

Thus not have to worry about crazy temperature schedules.

(Accidentally hit send) doh!

 

[Bob]

Thanks for the information about the fresh lab culture vs. harvested slurry. I was not aware of that information and will be digging into it to see if a modification of my thinking is in order. I suspect it won't, if only because how rare it is to get a truly fresh lab culture through the homebrew supply chain. But when new information comes to light, I'm the first to embrace being proved wrong.

I have some reading ahead of me. Thank you!

OK, now for a really remedial question: any harm in making a starter for dry yeast? If you are using dry yeast, and not making a starter, how can you be sure how much of the yeast is viable?

When I did cell count comparisons, I counted cells in the rehydrated state. The best part about it was the dry yeast gave predictable yields Every. Single. Time., where liquid yeasts were all over the map depending on the age of the sample. And remember, this was back when we didn't have the superb range of dry yeasts we have today.

I don't see as there's any more harm in doing a starter with dry yeast vs. liquid. It's just kind of silly, as dry yeast is so much less expensive than liquid. You can predict you'll get X cells in Y grams, so buy that many grams of dry yeast. I mean, if you were going to be super-mega-parsimonious, you could start up some dry yeast. But that's not just "kind of silly", it's full on stupid. At least false economy; if you're amortizing hundreds of dollars in stir plates and Ehrlenmeyer flasks and DME and TIME to save $4, you're a special kind of snowflake. On the other hand, if you're building a starter not to save money but because you love building starters, I don't see any harm in building a dry-yeast starter. Once you get active cells, there's no real difference in cells.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[boydster]

Again, I blame Mr. Malty for confusion about yeast! He has two references to starters being bad for dry yeasts, although there is nothing to back up the claim other than the unnamed "experts" that he mentions.

From Mr. Malty: http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php

In fact, with most dry yeasts, placing them in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into the yeast.

http://www.mrmalty.com/starter_faq.php

Another case where you generally don't want to make a starter is with dry yeast. It is usually cheaper and easier to just buy more dry yeast than it would be to make a starter large enough for most dry yeast packs. Many experts suggest that placing dry yeasts in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into their product. For dry yeasts, just do a proper rehydration in tap water, do not make a starter.

In looking deeper into it, assuming dry yeast cell counts are at or near the 20 billion per gram figure that anyone who has done a cell count seems to agree with, you would need to do at least a 1L starter to get any real growth (and even then, minimal - 200 billion cells would only grow to 224 billion...) and around 3L starter to get peak yield factor (67million/ml innoculation rate, cell count would increase ~1.8x, peak yield factor means most growth while still ensurinig optimal yeast health). The innoculation rate and yield factor figures are from Yeast pg. 140. While the book is discussing propagating liquid yeast, as long as you are using similar innoculation rates in a nutrient-rich growth medium (like wort) it stands to reason that a dry yeast starter would result in healthy yeast.

 

[dpatrickv]

Im probably not in the vast majority here, but almost all of my first 20 or 30 batches had just a smack pack or vial pitched(Even bigger beers)....and I never had an issue. As long as you oxygenate well and the smack pack is relatively fresh you should be fine.

 

[peterj]

http://www.mrmalty.com/starter_faq.php

Another case where you generally don't want to make a starter is with dry yeast. It is usually cheaper and easier to just buy more dry yeast than it would be to make a starter large enough for most dry yeast packs. Many experts suggest that placing dry yeasts in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into their product. For dry yeasts, just do a proper rehydration in tap water, do not make a starter.

This is reason you shouldn't make a starter with dry yeast. The reliable and high cell count of dry yeast is also a good reason, but the above is why it can actually be harmful. Some of the experts he's talking about are the yeast manufacturers. They state that they put enough lipids in the membranes of the yeast to last for a number of generations of reproduction. This is why they also say you don't need to aerate your wort, because the yeast doesn't need the oxygen to create the lipids for their membranes because they have enough to last for all of the reproduction they will need to do. If you make a starter you will be depleting these lipids ahead of time with unnecessary reproduction.

 

[stpug]

IMO, the "cheaper" aspect is no longer relevant. Dry yeast is not as cheap as it was back when Mr Malty was published. It used to run in the $1.50 range and has since gone up about 3-fold ($4.50+). If I want to pay $9+ dollars for 2 sachets of yeast, I'll buy a liquid yeast for ~$7 and step it up with a little DME. I'll probably land about the same price point but I'll have many more choices of yeast to choose from plus not run the risk of viability loss upon pitching.

The rest may be true regarding built-in lipids and higher cell count as long as you're rehydrating. In you're not rehydrating then there's too much evidence to suggest a significant reducing in cell count viability to count that as a benefit; which is NOT to say that you won't make good beer.

Edit: I've used a few different dry sachets of yeast and rehydrated every time, and the only sachet than has produced what I would consider a "cream" was Nottingham (the only Danstar I've used). It truly came out a creamy consistency - like thick whipping cream out of a carton. All other dry yeasts I've used (US05, S04, MJ US West Coast, MJ British Ale, Brewferm Blanche) have simply turned into a mostly watery consistency with the obvious dissolved yeast.

 

[boydster]

This is reason you shouldn't make a starter with dry yeast. The reliable and high cell count of dry yeast is also a good reason, but the above is why it can actually be harmful. Some of the experts he's talking about are the yeast manufacturers. They state that they put enough lipids in the membranes of the yeast to last for a number of generations of reproduction. This is why they also say you don't need to aerate your wort, because the yeast doesn't need the oxygen to create the lipids for their membranes because they have enough to last for all of the reproduction they will need to do. If you make a starter you will be depleting these lipids ahead of time with unnecessary reproduction.

If you rehydrate before pitching into the starter wort and use a stir plate, I don't see how the yeast would have any trouble building a larger healthy colony? The wort and O2 should give them all the nutrient they need shouldn't it? Can you help me understand?

I don't make starters with dry yeast. But I am interested in learning more about the little buggers whenever possible.

 

[Ridire]

IMO, the "cheaper" aspect is no longer relevant. Dry yeast is not as cheap as it was back when Mr Malty was published. It used to run in the $1.50 range and has since gone up about 3-fold ($4.50+). If I want to pay $9+ dollars for 2 sachets of yeast, I'll buy a liquid yeast for ~$7 and step it up with a little DME. I'll probably land about the same price point but I'll have many more choices of yeast to choose from plus not run the risk of viability loss upon pitching. The rest may be true regarding built-in lipids and higher cell count as long as you're rehydrating. In you're not rehydrating then there's too much evidence to suggest a significant reducing in cell count viability to count that as a benefit; which is NOT to say that you won't make good beer. Edit: I've used a few different dry sachets of yeast and rehydrated every time, and the only sachet than has produced what I would consider a "cream" was Nottingham (the only Danstar I've used). It truly came out a creamy consistency - like thick whipping cream out of a carton. All other dry yeasts I've used (US05, S04, MJ US West Coast, MJ British Ale, Brewferm Blanche) have simply turned into a mostly watery consistency with the obvious dissolved yeast.

So, all other variables being equal, are you saying dry yeast produces a more watery beer?

I have only ever used dry yeast but have a batch with liquid yeast bubbling right now ( the batch that led to this thread being created ). I am hoping it has a little more body than the extract porter I brewed as my first ever beer.

 

[boydster]

Jamil and Palmer talk about pitching a single vial/pack into a 5 gallon 1.040 ale being OK if it is very fresh off the line on a podcast I just listened to: http://s125483039.onlinehome.us/archive/bs_starters12-22-08.mp3 around 9mins into the podcast.

They go on to say "Pitch less to get esters, pitch more to get a cleaner beer." Again, this is not what I've done in the past with liquid yeast - I have made starters - but it jives with the book by Chris and Jamil as well as the article by Palmer that was posted earlier. I guess the real test is to get some "fresh-off-the-line" yeast from Wyeast or White Labs and try it out - there's the rub. Buying at a LHBS, you'll get something that almost necessarily isn't the freshest possible, and shipping to either your house or LHBS carries with it the risk that the yeast wasn't handled perfectly on the voyage. Hence, probably, why it is generally sound advice to make a starter... also, I don't make a lot of 1.040 beers, so there's that.

 

[stpug]

@ridire: No, sorry about giving that impression. I was referring to the actual yeast slurry that's created when re hydrating yeast being watery. The beers themselves have all been great, or as good as the recipe and process was that I used. I happen to be drinking a cream ale created with one of the mangrove jack yeasts right now and it's got great mouthful for a lightish beer with virtually no noticeable yeast character (British Ale m07). I dryhopped with 3/4 oz of Belma in hopes of boosting the head retention and giving a subtle strawberry/melon aroma. So far the head retention is incredible for such a light beer but not much fruit aroma, but it's only been dryhopped for 4days so there's time.

 

[logan3825]

IMO, the "cheaper" aspect is no longer relevant. Dry yeast is not as cheap as it was back when Mr Malty was published. It used to run in the $1.50 range and has since gone up about 3-fold ($4.50+). If I want to pay $9+ dollars for 2 sachets of yeast, I'll buy a liquid yeast for ~$7 and step it up with a little DME.

Where the heck do you buy your yeast? That is way expensive. You can get US-05 for $3.29 a pack at Northern Brewer. Figure half a pound extract for a starter at about $1.80 and you are looking at either $6.58 for 2 packs of yeast or $5.09 for one with a starter. You don't even need more than one pack in most cases. For $1.50 I am not messing around with a starter.

 

[stpug]

Where the heck do you buy your yeast? That is way expensive. You can get US-05 for $3.29 a pack at Northern Brewer. Figure half a pound extract for a starter at about $1.80 and you are looking at either $6.58 for 2 packs of yeast or $5.09 for one with a starter. You don't even need more than one pack in most cases. For $1.50 I am not messing around with a starter.

From my LHBS. I don't live anywhere near Northern Brewer or Midwest or Austin or Rebel or Farmhouse or .... well you get the idea. I think you'll find that most of us lowly folk, living in the nether regions of the US, are not as fortunate as you are to get cheap yeast . If I factored in shipping on a sachet of yeast I'd be looking at a really ridiculous price.

Just called my LHBS, US05 is $3.50 and Nottingham is $4.50. I feel much better knowing they're at least somewhat competitive.

I use 3.4 oz of dme for a 1L starter. Even if the pound of DME cost me $5, I'd be looking at about $1.06, plus a liquid yeast ($7), for a grand total of $8.06. If I buy two sachets of dry yeast for a 1.075 batch then I'm looking at $7 for US05 or $9 for Notty. And, like I said, with liquid I get many more options to tailor my beer.

I guess we're different . I love making starters. I love ranching yeast. I've got 10 strains frozen (25 vials of ~90b cells each). I've got new 2 strains in my fridge ready for freezing. I've got two more new strains in my fridge that I'm building to freezing status (conan is spinning right now ). I've brewed two beers with my frozen yeast that both turned out great. And, I've got two fermenters full with yeast I will be harvesting. That'll make 16 strains of yeast to play with or pass along.

I guess this really is a hobby. If I didn't love it, I wouldn't do it

 

[boydster]

Just to add on to stpug's post, you need to do a 2L to 3L starter to get an appreciable gain in yeast cell count. That means more DME per starter.

 

[logan3825]

From my LHBS. I don't live anywhere near Northern Brewer or Midwest or Austin or Rebel or Farmhouse or .... well you get the idea. I think you'll find that most of us lowly folk, living in the nether regions of the US, are not as fortunate as you are to get cheap yeast . If I factored in shipping on a sachet of yeast I'd be looking at a really ridiculous price.

I don't live any of those either. I live at least half an hour from the nearest LHBS so I frequently order online. I always tack on a pack of US-05 or two so I have dry yeast without any extra shipping being added.

I use US-05 for just about anything except English styles(S-04), Wheats(where the yeast can drive the flavor), or Belgians(yeast drives the flavor again).

 

[stpug]

I don't live any of those either. I live at least half an hour from the nearest LHBS so I frequently order online. I always tack on a pack of US-05 or two so I have dry yeast without any extra shipping being added.

I use US-05 for just about anything except English styles(S-04), Wheats(where the yeast can drive the flavor), or Belgians(yeast drives the flavor again).

I'm within about 4 minutes of my LHBS so ordering online only happens when I need something special that I can't live without. Plus, the more I can support my local shop the better for them and me. I also try to tack on some dry sachets of yeast when ordering from an online store; it's just that I don't order online all too ofter. I usually end up at product-specific sites rather than full-blown supply shops.

I also use US05 and S04; both good yeasts from my perspective. As you're aware, yeast can give a subtle (or not-so-subtle) nuance that can help or hurt a beer, and while using fairly neutral yeasts is straight-forward and frequently the preferred choice for many styles, there are times when I want a little more. I want to experience the range of characteristics that yeast has to offer. This doesn't mean that I want 1968 in my AIPA, but german ale yeast or Pacman or Odell house yeast are all good in an AIPA, and each brings it's own spin on the same recipe. Or using 1028 London Ale in an ordinary bitter or stout really brings out the nutty/biscuitiness aspect of the beer versus the usual fruitiness you might get from 1968, and to a lesser extent S04.

I just kegged a 10.4% Belgian Dark Strong (1.092-1.014) that used previously-frozen, built up bottle dregs from a bottle of Westmalle Tripel (3787). The whole time this thing was fermenting I kept thinking how it must get it's pace of life from the monks themselves. It took a day and a half to really get going, and when it did, it moved slowly and took it's time. It moved slow but deliberate. They krausen raised up the side of the fermenter for 5 days before peaking. It increased it's internal temperature almost without effort on my part to the general range I was hoping to achieve (pitched at 64F stopped at ~71F), and it took about 6 days to get there. Once there I simply wrapped it with a blanket and it maintained its temperature for another week+. I had my fears that this beer was going to stall higher than 1.020 but it's got right down to where I had hoped it would. The sample I pulled the other day was fantastic; rich; malty; lightly sweet; hints of fruit; an alcohol warmth; and packs a punch. I'm eagerly awaiting getting this one on tap (6-12 months from now).

I did a similar thing with a 9.4% Belgian Golden Strong (pappers recipe) about 2 months ago using the built-up dregs from a bottle of PranQster. The results are delicious but it's still got a month or two before I'll put it on tap. It's a totally different story than above, but I'll save that for a different day

Anyway, I guess my point is that I really enjoy the variability I can get from yeast and enjoy the hobby of ranching, building-up, storing various strains for future use. And although I can buy Wyeast 3787 from my LHBS, it was much funner being able to drink a Westmalle Tripel and harvesting the yeast. I'm certain that my results would have been different had I used 3787 from the LHBS, but it was much funner the say I did it . BTW, I scavenged a pint of the sludge from the bottom of the fermenter for a Dubbel I have planned for next week

I guess my "yeast play" is what fills in the time between brewing batches :fro:

 

[Bob]

That's one of the most wonderful thing about our hobby: There are so many niches you can explore!

You're clearly process-oriented. You like to fiddle with gadgets, explore the lab-grade science of yeast ranching, and growing yeast from tiny dregs cultures left in bottles. From that you brew outstanding beer which is usually ever so slightly different. That's brilliant!

I am goal-oriented. I only care about the process insofar as it lets me consistently brew excellent beer. I don't color outside the lines much; I brew what I like and the overwhelming majority of what I like is style-based.

There are others who love to experiment with waaaaaay out of left field stuff. All they brew is Belgian Imperial Pumpkin Black Super IPA and stuff. That's pretty cool, too, even though I wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole.

I guess my point is there's room for all of us. And that's pretty neat.

Now I'm going to have another beer.

 

[stpug]

So true, Bob!

I too am having a (half-)pint. A miserly, pee yellow, lowish ABV, cream ale that tastes very good IMO; perhaps a bit mellow on all fronts but I guess that's what a cream ale really is

Cheers!

 

[boydster]

Bringing this thread back to life because Jamil got back to me about the "When pitching a fresh, laboratory culture grown with aeration and good nutrition, a brewer can use up to 50% lower pitching rate" issues we were discussing earlier in the thread. Here is what I asked him and his reply:

Me:

Hi Jamil,

I am reading the book you wrote with Chris White, and it discusses a pitch rate of ~1 million cells per milliliter per degree plato (.75 million for ales and 1.5 million for lagers) and then states that when using a fresh laboratory culture you can actually pitch at about half that rate. I also read a BYO article by John Palmer that states basically the same thing. On the Mr. Malty calculator, my understanding from using it is that it is telling me to pitch at the suggested rate for harvested yeast even if I am using a fresh vial or smack pack.

If I am making 5 gallons of beer (ale, for the sake of argument) with an OG of 1.060, and assuming I intend to purchase brand new, well-handled yeast, should I pitch 1 vial with ~100 billion cells (as the book seems to indicate would be appropriate) or should I be pitching closer to 200 billion cells either by making a starter or pitching a second vial (as the website seems to indicate)?

Love the book so far, and I hope you have a minute to read my email and set me straight!

Thanks,
Geoff

Jamil:

Geoff,
Really, there is no excuse for not making a starter every time. There is no "well-handled" yeast that doesn't result in some loss of viability. Making a starter is easy, and pretty much guarantees great results.


Jamil Zainasheff

So the general wisdom holds.

 

[JustLooking]

Interesting, but I'd like to see Chris White's response to the same email.

 

[boydster]

Interesting, but I'd like to see Chris White's response to the same email.

Make it happen, cap'n!