Starter with dry yeast

[cjgenever]

Ok, so here is the deal. Everyone says just buy an extra packet, and that's what I've always done for higher gravity beers. I planned on brewing Sunday but when I lookedin the bag I was missing a packet of yeast. I always keep a lb of dme in the cupboard, so I made a starter.

This is apparently a bad thing, but it worked great! I pitched the whole starter directly into the wort while active. I saw a gravity change from 17.5bx to 14bx I'm the first 24 hrs. Everything tastes as clean as it can with us-05 and 4 oz late additions. It's bubbling away happily and averaging 3bx per 24hr. I'll post as this ferment progresses.

EDIT: here are some numbers for you! Thanks Mr malty!

-6.25g @ 1075,
-cells needed 430 billion
-Starting cell count assumed at 200 billion
-intermittent shaking since my stir plate is broken
- 2.85qt (us)needed,I used three quarts

EDIT#2; this is not to advocate making starters with dry yeast. In most cases that would simply be a waste of time at best. This is to say it can be done with great results

EDIT#3; the starter was approximately 24 hour old at beginning high Krausen.I tried to catch the yeast after peak density was reached before they completely moved on to fermentation rather than propagation

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[cjgenever]

This ferment went great. I've since repitched the slurry. It's going even better. I see no reason not to make a starter with dry yeast. I've posted on this because internet searches don't give much info.just a lot of "don't do it". Well,I did it.I'm just crazy like that.lol

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[jjw5015]

I think the argument for not needing it is because dry packs normally have enough cells as compared to liquid, so there's no need to multiply. But nothing wrong with doing it to make sure they are viable and get a jumpstart on fermentation

 

[kombat]

Dry yeast is packaged with the necessary reserves already built-in so they can get a "jump start" directly into the main batch of beer. When you use them in a starter, they spend those energy reserves on the starter wort, such that they're tired and stressed when they're finally pitched into the main beer.

My other objection regarding starters and dry yeast is that most "rebels" like the OP who went ahead and did it anway, against the advice of professional brewers, experienced homebrewers, and even the yeast manufacturers themselves, is that they prepare the starter, then dump the yeast directly into it. When you do this, you're pitching dry yeast directly into wort that it is not properly prepared for. The cell walls cannot regulate the passage of liquid in and out of the membrane, and cell viability drops substantially, reportedly as much as 50%. If the starter is otherwise successfully managed, the cell count will eventually grow back up to what you would have started with anyway, if you'd simply properly rehyrated the yeast and skipped the starter. Meaning you just wasted a day or two, and several ounces of DME.

If you're properly rehydrating your dry yeast before pitching it into the starter wort, then the latter argument does not apply. But the former still does.

TL;DR: It'll still work, but it's not optimal.

 

[JustLooking]

From White and Zainasheff's "Yeast" pg. 133:

Many experts suggest that placing dry yeast in a starter just depletes the cells reserves that the yeast manufacturer tries to build into their products. For dry yeast do a proper rehydration in tap water...

A typical pack of dry yeast has about 220 billion cells, all of which are viable if you re-hydrate. In your case, you weren't that far off with one pack. At best, you may have broken even with your starter.



edit..... kombat beat me to it

 

[Terek]

I think the argument for not needing it is because dry packs normally have enough cells as compared to liquid, so there's no need to multiply. But nothing wrong with doing it to make sure they are viable and get a jumpstart on fermentation

This is what I was going for, and it did work. I got great attenuation and fast ferment and only had a 8 hr starter. Just pitched the slurry from that batch with about a 4 hr starter and it's going nuts.

 

[cjgenever]

Been using dry yeast for the better part of a decade. That is what was available locally, so that's what I used. If I pitched one packet into 7 gal of 1072 wort I would have had one very estery beer. So no, one packet was no enough. To assume that I don't understand is insulting.

I did about a 24 hr starter @ferment temps and pitched the whole starter@high Krausen so the dme was not wasted. I did figure this dilution into my hop schedule. This has always worked for me with vials. I used Whites' calculations for intermittent agitation (my stir plate lost a magnet)and a starting count of 200 as stated by Zainasheff.

Of course I rehydrate my yeast! C'mon guys!

A lot of the "reserves" are simply the stuff you add with o2 and yeast nutrient. Sure, the yeast have to work to utilize the nutrients, but that's what they do, isn't it? My yeast sure were'nt "tired". I've never had a ferment take off like that with dry yeast. And I detect less esters than if I pitched an equivalent cell count of dry. That's WITH pitching the starter, which is an estery goldmine! This of course is simply conjecture since I did not do a double blind taste test. Perhaps I'll do a ten gallon batch and test it.

All I'm saying is that the dry yeast are still yeast. They may have gone through a hellish process, but it's still the same organism you get in a vial of 1096 (I'm using us-05). Are you saying that I shouldn't make a starter with 1096 because it will be tired?

I agree that dry yeast is ready to pitch. I do not agree that you should never make a starter. It would have cost me time,$10 in gas, and $4 for the yeast. Instead I used $3 worth of dme and stayed home. The same procedures need to be followed as with vials. I think one of the biggest reasons that dry yeast are not to be used in starters is that it is assumed that someone using dry yeast doesn't have the know how or setup to make a proper starter and will botch it up. dry yeast is designed to be simple. that's why it says to pitch it directly into the wort on some packaging. can you seriously tell me that the biologists at these companies don't know that rehydrating is better for cell count. of course they know they're just trying to make it super simple for that guy at the lhbs trying to figure out which can of extract will give him a higher alcohol content...the porter or the stout.

I'm not saying that I discovered the holy grail or anything. All I'm saying is that I did what worked for me at the time and I got better results than by just doing what I'm told. You can make a starter with dry yeast. If done properly, you can see better results than with simply rehydrating and pitching.I did. It worked. Period.

If I had work right now I would have simply swing by the lhbs and picked up more yeast while I was out. Unfortunately, that is not the case @the moment. So travel is expensive and time it's a plenty.

FWIW, I'm not a bum. I'm a carpenter with a call back date.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[cjgenever]

This is what I was going for, and it did work. I got great attenuation and fast ferment and only had a 8 hr starter. Just pitched the slurry from that batch with about a 4 hr starter and it's going nuts.

Yeah, after collecting slurry and repitching it is no different from 1096.

From now on I'm using a common bitter with us-05. Slightly underpitch to get the esters I want. Collect and wash the slurry. I'm never buying 1096 again!

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[max384]

So, since he rehydrated the yeast first, and he needed more than one packet of dry yeast for his recipe, I'm not seeing the problem with him making a starter. I'm far from a yeast expert, but it seems that the arguments I hear against making a starter out of dry yeast is that there are already enough cells in a packet for most batches.

The other argument presented here doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever (though, admittedly, I may just need it explained to me better). Kombat said that if dry yeast is pitched into a wort starter, they'll use up the reserves that they're packaged with, and be stressed by the time that they're pitched into the actual wort. Shouldn't they be munching along on the starter wort happily as a starter? How would that be any different than making a starter out of liquid yeast, other than that the liquid yeast aren't packaged with extra "reserves?" Why would those reserves (or lack thereof) have any bearing on how stressed they are after they're already in a starter?

 

[kombat]

I don't know. Ask the guys who literally wrote the book on yeast (Chris White and Jamil Zainasheff) who recommend against making starters with dry yeast. Unless of course you don't care about things like "facts" and "science" and are convinced you know better than people who have actually studied this sort of thing in excruciating detail.

 

[big_len]

Surely, once properly hydrated in pure water and its packaged reserves are used up, yeast is yeast and for OPs purpose, increasing cell counts, a starter is a starter like any other?

 

[max384]

I don't know. Ask the guys who literally wrote the book on yeast (Chris White and Jamil Zainasheff) who recommend against making starters with dry yeast. Unless of course you don't care about things like "facts" and "science" and are convinced you know better than people who have actually studied this sort of thing in excruciating detail.

Why the sh!tty attitude? I was very clear that I wasn't an expert on this matter and was looking for answers. This is a discussion forum after all.

 

[TungstenBeer]

If I was choosing between under pitching or doing a starter with dry because I didn't have enough packages, I'd go for a starter everytime. The yeast health may not be quite as optimal as dry yeast rehydrated, but I'm all but certain it would be better than falling far short of cell count.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[kombat]

Why the sh!tty attitude? I was very clear that I wasn't an expert on this matter and was looking for answers. This is a discussion forum after all.

I guess because I've been here a while, and I'm getting tired of all the newbies who come in here and say, "I know all the literature, science, and experts say you should do it this way, but I did it this way and it still turned out fine."

 

[max384]

I don't know. Ask the guys who literally wrote the book on yeast (Chris White and Jamil Zainasheff) who recommend against making starters with dry yeast. Unless of course you don't care about things like "facts" and "science" and are convinced you know better than people who have actually studied this sort of thing in excruciating detail.

Okay, so I bought Yeast: The Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation and this is what they had to say about on this subject:

"Another case where you normally do not want to make a starter is with dry yeast. Dry yeast is inexpensive, and it is usually cheaper, easier, and safer to buy more dry yeast than to make a large starter. Many experts suggest that placing dry yeast in a starter just depletes the cell reserves that the yeast manufacturer tries to build into their product. For dry yeast do a proper rehydration in tap water; do not make a starter."

Notice that their advice is that you normally don't want to do a starter with dry yeast (not never). They then go on to give the reasons why, which are:
-cost
-ease
-safety (I'm assuming they mean less chance of contamination?)
They then also recommend against pitching dry yeast directly on the wort, which we already know to be the case.

So, after reading what these two guys wrote, I'm still not seeing how making a starter out of dry yeast is detrimental to the beer if more yeast than what are in a dry pack are needed for the fermentation. Sure, it may be easier, cheaper, and safer... But we're talking about making great beer here, not pinching pennies, right? And most here should be able to maintain sanitary conditions. And your explanation still doesn't make sense to me the way in which you explained it.

I'm a firm believer in facts and science. I have a bachelors of science degree in biology. Although I may not be an expert in zymology, I do have a solid science background. Just because an expert says something, doesn't mean it's a "fact." From what I've read on this, it appears this is a good example. The authors recommend against making a starter out of dry yeast, but their reasons for recommending against it don't appear to be motivated by the quality of the final product, but more so by the extra work and cost to get there.

 

[CB_in_Tokyo]

Okay, so I bought Yeast: The Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation and this is what they had to say about on this subject:

"Another case where you normally do not want to make a starter is with dry yeast. Dry yeast is inexpensive, and it is usually cheaper, easier, and safer to buy more dry yeast than to make a large starter. Many experts suggest that placing dry yeast in a starter just depletes the cell reserves that the yeast manufacturer tries to build into their product. For dry yeast do a proper rehydration in tap water; do not make a starter."

Notice that their advice is that you normally don't want to do a starter with dry yeast (not never). They then go on to give the reasons why, which are:
-cost
-ease
-safety (I'm assuming they mean less chance of contamination?)
They then also recommend against pitching dry yeast directly on the wort, which we already know to be the case.

So, after reading what these two guys wrote, I'm still not seeing how making a starter out of dry yeast is detrimental to the beer if more yeast than what are in a dry pack are needed for the fermentation. Sure, it may be easier, cheaper, and safer... But we're talking about making great beer here, not pinching pennies, right? And most here should be able to maintain sanitary conditions. And your explanation still doesn't make sense to me the way in which you explained it.

I'm a firm believer in facts and science. I have a bachelors of science degree in biology. Although I may not be an expert in zymology, I do have a solid science background. Just because an expert says something, doesn't mean it's a "fact." From what I've read on this, it appears this is a good example. The authors recommend against making a starter out of dry yeast, but their reasons for recommending against it don't appear to be motivated by the quality of the final product, but more so by the extra work and cost to get there.

You are correct sir, and all the dickishness in the world won't change that.

 

[cjgenever]

I guess because I've been here a while, and I'm getting tired of all the newbies who come in here and say, "I know all the literature, science, and experts say you should do it this way, but I did it this way and it still turned out fine."

Yeah,I get that. I knew this thread would start a debate. The thing is that I wanted a debate. I'm not saying the experts are wrong.I am saying that what works for Zainasheff, the self proclaimed king of analretentive brewing, may just be a guideline. He believes that if you are going to be making a starter, then you are using a vial anyway. His reasoning is that the vial is better than the dry yeast because us-05 has a slight peach off flavor. Yeah, dry yeast is ready to go. No, it is not necessarily better to pitch it without a starter. It just more convenient.

If put in my position I would bet that Zainasheff would have done the same thing. He's not unemployed trying to make good beer on a hacked together keggle system while making sure to pay the bills. I suppose I could do everything his way and just not pay my mortgage for a few months.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[boydster]

If you are starting with 220 billion cells and pitching it into a 1L starter with intermittent shaking (this would be a pretty common setup for someone just getting into making starters and wanting to experiment with making a dry yeast starter) then the number of new yeast cells is going to be very small. I'm pretty sure the last time I worked this out, it was a yield factor of 0.3. Since we're quoting CW&JZ from Yeast, you can turn to the page with the chart that shows yield rate with associated inoculation rates and you'll be able to come to your own conclusion about exactly where it falls in that yield spectrum. The point I'm trying to make is that only about 30% of the yeast cells will actually go through a cell division, so instead of getting a large number of daughter cells to complete the bulk of the fermentation, you're getting only a very small number of daughter cells (these are young, healthy, unscarred cells that are great for fermenting) and the bulk of the cells doing to work are older parent cells that will still probably go through a healthy fermentation but you're increasing the chance that something could go wrong. It's not going to ruin your beer, but it's also not adding anything very meaningful - you're only upping your pitch rate by 25-30% and that amount will make very little difference in the final beer. Basically, the end result is you just proofed your yeast. Palmer wrote about proofing yeast in the first edition of HTB, but retracted it, NOT because it would ruin your beer or destroy the yeast, but because it's unnecessary due to the high quality of dry yeast available to homebrewers today.

For someone using a stirplate and making a larger starter, the benefits would obviously be greater, but it does seem to outweigh the cost of just buying a second pack.

 

[cjgenever]

There is a decent homebrew community in Mexico. They are stuck with dry yeast in most places. Often it is stored poorly in heat. Should they just rehydrate and pitch? Should they use ten packets to make up for poor viability? Should they make a starter? I'd make a starter. I'm not a newb. I don't know everything. I have listened to every episode of brew strong more than once and very much respect Palmer, Zainasheff, and Tasty.

I started this thread because I couldn't find info on anyone making a starter with dry yeast. I have a feeling I'm not the first to do it. I might be the first with enough sac to say I did it and I liked the results. I have plenty of experience to compare these results to.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[jjw5015]

I guess because I've been here a while, and I'm getting tired of all the newbies who come in here and say, "I know all the literature, science, and experts say you should do it this way, but I did it this way and it still turned out fine."

And you are the one god given exception that was never a noob. Congratulations to you, our savior.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[kombat]

I have a feeling I'm not the first to do it. I might be the first with enough sac to say I did it and I liked the results.

*eyeroll* Yeah, you're a real Goddam hero.

Look, you keep doing whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, great, that's what this hobby is about. As long as you're happy with the resulting beer, good on ya. Nothing we say really matters.

But the experts, including 2 guys who OWN PROFESSONAL BREWERIES, literally wrote a book on the topic, and have done extensive research on the matter, say making a starter with dry yeast is at best a waste of time and money, and at worst depletes energy stores built into the yeast. So I'm going to take their word over some random anonymous hobby brewer on the Interwebs who's brewed a few batches that didn't turn out completely awful and thinks that makes him an authority on the subject.

 

[cjgenever]

And you are the one god given exception that was never a noob. Congratulations to you, our savior.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

It did sound kind of cockey, but he's got a point. He is, however, mistaken. I'm no noob. I just like making good beer and sharing my experiences.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[max384]

*eyeroll* Yeah, you're a real Goddam hero.

Look, you keep doing whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, great, that's what this hobby is about. As long as you're happy with the resulting beer, good on ya. Nothing we say really matters.

But the experts, including 2 guys who OWN PROFESSONAL BREWERIES, literally wrote a book on the topic, and have done extensive research on the matter, say making a starter with dry yeast is at best a waste of time and money, and at worst depletes energy stores built into the yeast. So I'm going to take their word over some random anonymous hobby brewer on the Interwebs who's brewed a few batches that didn't turn out completely awful and thinks that makes him an authority on the subject.

Jesus man. Are you always this uptight? Holy crap.

 

[kh54s10]

Yeast is fairly hardy stuff. You can underpitch by a lot and it will ferment your beer. You can make a starter with dry yeast and you MAY have actually increased the cell counts, and it will ferment your beer. You can make a starter for 4 hours and get virtually NO cell count increase and it will ferment your beer.

If you pitch the correct amount of healthy, unstressed yeast for the gravity of the recipe the beer has the best chance of being as good as possible.

Just because it ferments your beer does not mean what you did was any improvement. IMO the OP fermented his beer, and this is about all that happened. If there was an increase in cell counts with the procedure used, it was probably insignificant.

The object of a starter has two aims. 1) to increase cell counts to a number that is optimum for fermenting the gravity of the recipe. 2) to save money by not purchasing multiple vials or packages of LIQUID yeast.

 

[CB_in_Tokyo]

*eyeroll* Yeah, you're a real Goddam hero.

Look, you keep doing whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, great, that's what this hobby is about. As long as you're happy with the resulting beer, good on ya. Nothing we say really matters.

But the experts, including 2 guys who OWN PROFESSONAL BREWERIES, literally wrote a book on the topic, and have done extensive research on the matter, say making a starter with dry yeast is at best a waste of time and money, and at worst depletes energy stores built into the yeast. So I'm going to take their word over some random anonymous hobby brewer on the Interwebs who's brewed a few batches that didn't turn out completely awful and thinks that makes him an authority on the subject.

If you are going to use the opinion of experts to to attack other's opinions, it is likely best you both understand the opinion the person you are attacking, and the opinion of the expert. You appear to do neither and just like to *****.

If you assume the OP built a proper starter and treated their dry yeast properly, not even the "experts" you like to claim to speak for would say that the OP reduced their viable yeast cell count. In fact done properly, it would increase it.

Could have this been accomplished by using a second hydrated dry pack? Sure. Could the OP have potentially made an error making the starter? Sure. But nowhere are the experts arguing that the OP made a misstep. That is solely on you.

The experts say it is usually not required. I agree with them.

 

[cjgenever]

Yeast is fairly hardy stuff. You can underpitch by a lot and it will ferment your beer. You can make a starter with dry yeast and you MAY have actually increased the cell counts, and it will ferment your beer. You can make a starter for 4 hours and get virtually NO cell count increase and it will ferment your beer.

If you pitch the correct amount of healthy, unstressed yeast for the gravity of the recipe the beer has the best chance of being as good as possible.

Just because it ferments your beer does not mean what you did was any improvement. IMO the OP fermented his beer, and this is about all that happened. If there was an increase in cell counts with the procedure used, it was probably insignificant.

The object of a starter has two aims. 1) to increase cell counts to a number that is optimum for fermenting the gravity of the recipe. 2) to save money by not purchasing multiple vials or packages of LIQUID yeast.

If I underpitched I would know it from the off flavours. That is a known through experience.

To say that any increase in cell count was insignificant show you to either be trolling or an arse. How can you say that with no information on the size of the starter I used? Your statements simply show that you are in no intellectual position to be giving advice. Furthermore, to say that a pitch of dry yeast will note propagate in a starter is like saying it won't bud in the beer. Why the h@&ll do people need to argue by making up "facts" that work to their benefit?

People are citing White and Zainasheff. What they say is there is no reason for it because dry yeast is cheap and ready to go, add well as the fact that a starter could hurt things. This is because a starter is not going to make the yeast any stronger, but if done wrong it could be detrimental. I've never heard either day that a properly done starter would hurt dry yeast. I'm not arguing with what the pros are saying.in fact, I am agreeing with them. I'm only adding that it is possible to get good results from a dry yeast starter.

I have stated that my results were as good or better than pitching two packages. To say I underpitched and simply have my beer a stressed ferment after I've stated otherwise it's too say I'm full of it and a liar. I have words if this weren't a family safe forum.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[boydster]

How big was the starter you made? What was your estimated starting cell count?

 

[kh54s10]

If I underpitched I would know it from the off flavours. That is a known through experience.

To say that any increase in cell count was insignificant show you to either be trolling or an arse. How can you say that with no information on the size of the starter I used? Your statements simply show that you are in no intellectual position to be giving advice. Furthermore, to say that a pitch of dry yeast will note propagate in a starter is like saying it won't bud in the beer. Why the h@&ll do people need to argue by making up "facts" that work to their benefit?

People are citing White and Zainasheff. What they say is there is no reason for it because dry yeast is cheap and ready to go, add well as the fact that a starter could hurt things. This is because a starter is not going to make the yeast any stronger, but if done wrong it could be detrimental. I've never heard either day that a properly done starter would hurt dry yeast. I'm not arguing with what the pros are saying.in fact, I am agreeing with them. I'm only adding that it is possible to get good results from a dry yeast starter.

I have stated that my results were as good or better than pitching two packages. To say I underpitched and simply have my beer a stressed ferment after I've stated otherwise it's too say I'm full of it and a liar. I have words if this weren't a family safe forum.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

You have quoted no facts supporting your position and it goes against most current studies.

I agree to disagree with you.

 

[cjgenever]

Btw, I used Mr malty to find the cell counts needed and also to find the size of the starter needed. I based all my calculations on Zainasheffs' numbers on dry yeast. He quotes 220/11.5g I figured on 200 to be conservative. I then used the calculator and put the vial cell count as 200 (two vials). If dry yeast is soooooooo good and ready to go it should propagate better than a vial. It has reserves built in to put it in a position to reproduce well in the face of poor oxygenation, low nutrients, and overall bad practice. If dry yeast is treated with the same TLC as wet it will give great results.

Haha! I'm being bashed for giving results based on good calculations and records. And I based my numbers on what Zainasheff publishes and says. I am using his info which he had never even substantiated. He says he's seen dry yeast cell counts this high over and over again, but has never shown ANY RESEARCH on it. But apparently this is gospel. Damn hypocrites.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[max384]

You have quoted no facts supporting your position and it goes against most current studies.

I agree to disagree with you.

What about my quote of the book 'Yeast: The Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation,' which seems to be the book that is the ultimate source of why a starter shouldn't be made of dry yeast? The reasons the authors recommend against using a starter have been discussed here in this thread.

Could you link a "current study" about making a starter out of dry yeast? Thanks.

 

[max384]

Btw, I used Mr malty to find the cell counts needed and also to find the size of the starter needed. I based all my calculations on Zainasheffs' numbers on dry yeast. He quotes 220/11.5g I figured on 200 to be conservative. I then used the calculator and put the vial cell count as 200 (two vials). If dry yeast is soooooooo good and ready to go it should propagate better than a vial. It has reserves built in to put it in a position to reproduce well in the face of poor oxygenation, low nutrients, and overall bad practice. If dry yeast is treated with the same TLC as wet it will give great results.

Haha! I'm being bashed for giving results based on good calculations and records. And I based my numbers on what Zainasheff publishes and says. I am using his info which he had never even substantiated. He says he's seen dry yeast cell counts this high over and over again, but has never shown ANY RESEARCH on it. But apparently this is gospel. Damn hypocrites.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

Before you get your panties in too tight of a wad, keep in mind that you should have posted all of this in your OP, since you knew this would be controversial. Rather, you're feeding us little bits and pieces at a time, all the while getting more frustrated as you go. Personally, I'm with you on this... But your posts are getting pissier and pissier, and you still haven't told anyone how big your starter was.

 

[boydster]

Clayton Cone has done cell counts, as has Sean Terrill and many others, so the fact that JZ comes up with the same cell density is irrelevant. How did you arrive at your estimated cell count? Was it based on the age and storage of the yeast? How many cells were you trying to get to? If you are reporting results for everyone's benefit, these are relevant questions.

 

[cjgenever]

*eyeroll* Yeah, you're a real Goddam hero.

Look, you keep doing whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, great, that's what this hobby is about. As long as you're happy with the resulting beer, good on ya. Nothing we say really matters.

But the experts, including 2 guys who OWN PROFESSONAL BREWERIES, literally wrote a book on the topic, and have done extensive research on the matter, say making a starter with dry yeast is at best a waste of time and money, and at worst depletes energy stores built into the yeast. So I'm going to take their word over some random anonymous hobby brewer on the Interwebs who's brewed a few batches that didn't turn out completely awful and thinks that makes him an authority on the subject.

In response to your last post I said how I see your point. I also stated that I am not new to this. I read Palmer's how to brew in the first edition when it was fresh to the shelves. I was being kind to you and saying that I understand where your coming from with the been around here a while comment. At this point you have proven yourself to be arrogant and foolish. Anyone who thinks what you have to say is worth reading is foolish as well.

I'm not misleading, I've said that pitching rehydrated yeast is good and I also said I would have if the situation warranted.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[cjgenever]

I will edit my original post to give actual numbers. I am putting them there so it is easily found above all this b.s.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[cjgenever]

I've sent an email to Jamal. Waiting a response.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[sandyeggoxj]

*eyeroll* Yeah, you're a real Goddam hero.

Look, you keep doing whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, great, that's what this hobby is about. As long as you're happy with the resulting beer, good on ya. Nothing we say really matters.

But the experts, including 2 guys who OWN PROFESSONAL BREWERIES, literally wrote a book on the topic, and have done extensive research on the matter, say making a starter with dry yeast is at best a waste of time and money, and at worst depletes energy stores built into the yeast. So I'm going to take their word over some random anonymous hobby brewer on the Interwebs who's brewed a few batches that didn't turn out completely awful and thinks that makes him an authority on the subject.

Brewing professionally for a profit and brewing for fun at home are completely different. Jamil and Chris know what they are doing but they measure useful ideas in dollars a lot differently than the op.

I see the points you are trying to make bit seriously take a chill pill. This is home brewing. Where you experiment and have fun. Who cares if it turns out different or bad. I've thrown stuff away because I screwed up. It happens. Let the op have some fun going against convention. It is great to think outside the box!

 

[kombat]

And you are the one god given exception that was never a noob.

Of course I was a noob. But I read as much as I could, both books and here on HBT and took advantage of the wealth research and experience rather than questioning stuff that's already been tested to death like pitching rates and fermentation temperatures, and started making great beer rate out of the gate instead of bragging about how I was the first person with enough "sac" to ignore proven methodologies and admit it.

 

[kombat]

If you assume the OP built a proper starter and treated their dry yeast properly, not even the "experts" you like to claim to speak for would say that the OP reduced their viable yeast cell count. In fact done properly, it would increase it.

Marginally. By about 30%, according to the charts in the book "Yeast."

So if he properly rehydrated a packet of yeast containing 200 billion cells and grew it in a 1L starter, he'd end up with 260 billion cells.

Could have this been accomplished by using a second hydrated dry pack? Sure.

No. A second hydrated pack would be another 200 billion cells, making his total 400 billion, which is substantially more than the 260 billion he got by making a pointless starter.

But nowhere are the experts arguing that the OP made a misstep.

Yes, they are. As already quoted, White/Zainasheff advise against making starters with dry yeasts. It's already been quoted in this very thread. They say, "Many experts suggest that placing dry yeast in a starter just depletes the cell reserves that the yeast manufacturer tries to build into their product. For dry yeast do a proper rehydration in tap water; do not make a starter."

So if the OP made a starter, then yes, it is indeed directly against the advice of the experts who wrote the book on the subject, own professional breweries, and have brewed thousands and thousands of gallons of beer on a commercial scale. But somehow, you don't think that's a "misstep?"

That is solely on you.

No, as I just said, the experts advise against it.

Why is this so hard? It's right there in black and white!

 

[kombat]

Jesus man. Are you always this uptight? Holy crap.

Can you blame me? He said "I might be the first with enough sac to say I did it and I liked the results." Come on, who says s**t like that? Like he's some kind of courageous pioneer and everyone else in the past 4,000 years of brewing history has been too cowardly to admit they went against expert advice and liked the results. Gimmie a friggin' break. The attitude, geez.

 

[kombat]

I've sent an email to Jamal. Waiting a response.

Good call. But I hope you didn't call him "Jamal."