Starter for a Pilsner (lager) Question

[Brulosopher]

[URL="https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/how-find-born-date-white-labs-yeast-249977/“]This[/URL] is how old the yeast is. Notice on the vial it says “best before” (i just happened to have a vial from the same batch, cool huh?)

Hah! What a coincidence.

 

[Brewskii]

If I recall correctly, the OP has been brewing for 10 years. This is his first Lager not his first brew... My guess is he has a grip on the importance of a good YCC.

... Just say'n

 

[Brulosopher]

Yes, these starters with pitifully low cell counts will make beer, but the final product will suffer and never be more than mediocre homebrew.

Hogwash, I say! I'm a huge advocate of yeast starters and proper pitch rates. That said, I've had a couple last minute brew days where I simply didn't have time to make a starter and I... wait for it... pitched a single vial of yeast. The last time I did this, November 2011, was with a porter that could have used a 1.5L starter. It turned out fantastic. In fact, my brewing friends and I all agreed it was better than many of the commercial porters we were drinking. I guess everyone's definition of "mediocre" is different.

Dogma limits...

Listen, if this Pilsner turns out and I deem it more than just mediocre, I'll be happy to send you a bottle! If it sucks, I'm not saying a thing

Cheers!

 

[Brulosopher]

If I recall correctly, the OP has been brewing for 10 years. This is his first Lager not his first brew... My guess is he has a grip on the importance of a good YCC.

... Just say'n

Thanks.

 

[Chefencore]

Listen, if this Pilsner turns out and I deem it more than just mediocre, I'll be happy to send you a bottle! If it sucks, I'm not saying a thing

Cheers!

I hunk your beers gonna suck too. Send me some!!

 

[SpeedYellow]

Well, its actually based on years of brewing science and microbiological yeast research. If you think those widely researched/published lager pitching rates are fiction, then you are divorced from reality.

Again, it comes down to the difference between what works, and what is optimal. Yes, these starters with pitifully low cell counts will make beer, but the final product will suffer and never be more than mediocre homebrew.

The way I see it, it comes down to this: Is the goal to make something that is drinkable/validated by casual friends (oh yeah dude, this is great stuff!), or is the goal to make beer that can win awards from professional/objective judges, and approach the commercial quality of the finest examples of the style?

The obvious fact that MANY people have won awards and made commercial quality beer after DRAMATICALLY "underpitching" should be proof enough that the formula isn't a must for homebrew. But since you seem to be the expert on the science and research, perhaps you could explain:
1. What was the goal of the YCC pitching formula? To complete fermentation in minimal days, like 3-5? To minimize risk of spoilage? Other?
2. If we can use a quarter of the recommended YCC (saving time & money) but still complete fermentation in 7 days, isn't that a fair tradeoff? How about 10 days?
3. Does underpitching by 50% result in off flavors necessarily? Even if fermentation completes quickly and completely?

Big picture: The formula is optimizing things homebrewers don't need to optimize. if you're a pro brewery with unlimited gallons of yeast on hand and shareholders to please, you pitch the optimal amount that minimizes risk and fermentation time, for economic reasons. No compromises. Homebrewers can compromise a little risk and a few fermentation days yet still get the same quality beer.

 

[g-star]

1. What was the goal of the YCC pitching formula? To complete fermentation in minimal days, like 3-5? To minimize risk of spoilage? Other?
2. If we can use a quarter of the recommended YCC (saving time & money) but still complete fermentation in 7 days, isn't that a fair tradeoff? How about 10 days?
3. Does underpitching by 50% result in off flavors necessarily? Even if fermentation completes quickly and completely?

1. The goal of the calculator is to help you pitch the correct amount of yeast for a healthy fermentation, no more, no less. This has been established by numerous outfits to be 0.75M cells/ml/*plato for ales, and 1.5M cells/ml/*plato for lagers. It has absoultely nothing to do with speeding up fermentation or making up for sanitation issues.

2. Again, you're off-base by only referring to speed of fermentation. Lower cell counts lead to stressed yeast and extended growth periods, which in turn results in development of off-flavor compounds (esters, sulfur, diacetyl, etc.).

3. Underpitching by 50% changes the flavor profile of the beer (usually for the worse), relative to a correctly pitched beer. For an extreme example, try altering pitching rates on a hefeweizen. You'll get two completely different beers when holding all other variables constant.

If saving money or time is your goal as a homebrewer, then keep under-pitching...you'll almost assuredly end up with drinkable beer. That's not something that interests me, but I guess YMMV.

 

[osagedr]

The obvious fact that MANY people have won awards and made commercial quality beer after DRAMATICALLY "underpitching" should be proof enough...

Have you personally dramatically underpitched and made award-winning beer? What awards did your underpitched beer win?

 

[Chefencore]

Have you personally dramatically underpitched and made award-winning beer? What awards did your underpitched beer win?

Best turn around? The comeback kid?

 

[SpeedYellow]

Have you personally dramatically underpitched and made award-winning beer? What awards did your underpitched beer win?

Instead of moving toward ad hominem attacks, let's stick to the issue for a moment. So you're saying that nobody has ever made award-winning or commercial-quality beer after underpitching?

 

[g-star]

So you're saying that nobody has ever made award-winning or commercial-quality beer after underpitching?

That is not prove-able, but highly unlikely. Years of collective experience and brew science have proven the benefits of a correct pitch rate time and again.

Look, under-pitching is generally bad brewing practice. End of story. If you're happy with the way your under-pitched beers are turning out, great. That doesn't mean it is the best possible practice, or that those beers can't be better.

 

[Brulosopher]

I'm brewing this beer on Sunday and was wondering what others thought about how I should approach the water issue. I've got pretty great water in my city, though I'm willing to manipulate it (I've got Gypsum, Epsom, Calcium Chloride, and Chalk). Here's my standard water:

Ca: 4.0
Mg: 0.9
Na: 10
SO4: 6.0
Cl: 2.0
HCO3: 27

Using an online calculator, that puts my residual alkalinity at 14... not the greatest for a Pilsner, right? According to the calculator, if I add 2 grams each of Gypsum and Calcium Chloride to my mash, my RA will be -175. Is that okay? Since my sulfate is higher than my chloride naturally, which lends to a more bitter beer, I'm thinking I should add similar amounts of the 2 salts to keep the ratio the same.

Anyone's thoughts are very much appreciated!

 

[Brulosopher]

Alrighty...

 

[SpeedYellow]

Some gypsum and calcium chloride would help get your Ca to a more typical brewing range, but I wouldn't add it for RA reasons. An RA of 14 is fine... even 50-80 will do fine for this style IMHO.

You didn't post your resulting profile, but I'd think 0.1 tsp per gal, or about 1gram CaCl / 0.6 gram gypsum would be a safer starting point. Don't overdo it here, especially if you're just trying to lower the RA (which, again, you don't need to do).

 

[Brulosopher]

Some gypsum and calcium chloride would help get your Ca to a more typical brewing range, but I wouldn't add it for RA reasons. An RA of 14 is fine... even 50-80 will do fine for this style IMHO.

You didn't post your resulting profile, but I'd think 0.1 tsp per gal, or about 1gram CaCl / 0.6 gram gypsum would be a safer starting point. Don't overdo it here, especially if you're just trying to lower the RA (which, again, you don't need to do).

Right on, thanks! I'll leave the water alone this round.

 

[SpeedYellow]

Right on, thanks! I'll leave the water alone this round.

But keep in mind that your water has practically no Calcium. I've read that you need some calcium for a few reasons (mash, yeast, boil). I've never brewed with such soft water, but you should investigate.

I'd probably lean toward a little CaCl and Chalk myself (since chalk will help offset the ph shift of CaCl, plus chalk doesn't add SO4). Just enough to get Calcium around 50ppm, which doesn't take much.

Just my 2c. YMMV.

 

[Yooper]

I use 100% RO water for Bohemian pilsners, which is very typical for that type of beer. There is some calcium in malt, so even though 50 ppm of Ca is a recommended amount, you're fine without adding any CaCl2 or CaSO4 for a pilsner. And you most certainly do NOT want to add chalk. I'd leave the water alone.

 

[Brulosopher]

I use 100% RO water for Bohemian pilsners, which is very typical for that type of beer. There is some calcium in malt, so even though 50 ppm of Ca is a recommended amount, you're fine without adding any CaCl2 or CaSO4 for a pilsner. And you most certainly do NOT want to add chalk. I'd leave the water alone.

When I brew a new style, I usually like to leave the water alone just to see how things go, then I can play from there. I was just a little anxious given my low Ca, but I'll take your word that it should be fine. 24 more hours....

 

[Yooper]

When I brew a new style, I usually like to leave the water alone just to see how things go, then I can play from there. I was just a little anxious given my low Ca, but I'll take your word that it should be fine. 24 more hours....

You can trust me on this! I'm not really much of a water expert at all, but I've been working on perfecting Bohemian pilsner, and taking advice from AJ deLange on this and the pilsners have been perfect.

 

[makomachine]

You can trust me on this! I'm not really much of a water expert at all, but I've been working on perfecting Bohemian pilsner, and taking advice from AJ deLange on this and the pilsners have been perfect.

AJ's water primer is the difference between good beer and excellent beer in my experience. Listen to Yoop, she's spot on with her recommendation from my experience. I do insure I add some Wyeast nutrient for my pure RO water beers as well.

 

[Brulosopher]

You can trust me on this! I'm not really much of a water expert at all, but I've been working on perfecting Bohemian pilsner, and taking advice from AJ deLange on this and the pilsners have been perfect.

You're talking about leaving the water alone, eh? Great!!

 

[Brulosopher]

Changed it up... 100% Pilsner malt and moved the 10 min Mt. Hood addition to 20, with all the others. Here goes nothing!!

 

[Brulosopher]

Just finished brewing this baby- cooled it to about 80F and threw it in the ferment freezer at 48F. Plan to decant and pitch yeast tomorrow morning.

 

[Brulosopher]

Decanted about 4L and pitched with wort at 50F. Fingers crossed!

 

[Brulosopher]

11 hours after pitching, first check, and it's bubbling...

 

[OldWorld]

I had very good results with Safale S23 and I didn't even make a starter but my gravity was low. Good luck.

 

[SpaceJunk]

I know what the calculations say, but I'm perfectly happy with 2L starters. Yes, I'm a heretic, and you may call me ignorant and nuts, but 2L starters work fine for my lagers, typically around 1.050. I can't even fathom how anyone could suggest your beer will be crap because you used a 4.5L starter.

I am with you, it blows my mind someone would recommend a gallon starter for five gallons of beer decanted or not. I have brewed half a dozen black lagers with two liter starters and the fermenter started bubbling within twelve hours every time Course the only lager yeast I have used so far is WLP830 which might be a more vigorous strain but I am still only starting with that small vial.

 

[solavirtus]

There's more to a good fermentation than just starting to bubble quickly. I would argue that how a fermentation ends is just as important, and affected by the pitching rate. But if you're happy with the beers you get at your pitching rates, then cheers!

 

[Brulosopher]

There's more to a good fermentation than just starting to bubble quickly. I would argue that how a fermentation ends is just as important, and affected by the pitching rate. But if you're happy with the beers you get at your pitching rates, then cheers!

This is my first lager beer. I usually pitch 1-2L starters for my ales. I am ease with those beers, have been for 10 years. I won't lie about this one if it blows

 

[Chefencore]

I am with you, it blows my mind someone would recommend a gallon starter for five gallons of beer decanted or not. I have brewed half a dozen black lagers with two liter starters and the fermenter started bubbling within twelve hours every time Course the only lager yeast I have used so far is WLP830 which might be a more vigorous strain but I am still only starting with that small vial.

If you reads the earlier posts, you'll see that the size of the starter was based upon not just the beer that was being brewed, but the viability of the yeast as well. Since the yeast was 4 months past production, the larger stater was needed to get the right cell count (which is of the utmost importance to a successful fermentation - did my sarcasm show through?). The cell count could have been achieved with a smaller starter, though. A 2L starter fully fermented, chilled, decanted and restarted at 2L again could have also produced nearly the same results.

It's just how people brew. Some people don't ever use starters. Some people still use funnel to transfer cooled wort to fermenter. Some people still use ice baths to chill their wort. Is this for you? Maybe, maybe not. I lift 5+ gallons of near-boing water over my head each time I brew. Some people think that is absurd. That's just how I roll.