Wyeast Bioligist recommends 18-24 Hour Starter MAX and 3 Packs of Yeast per 5 Gal Batch

[rhys333]

This is one of those homebrewer things. If your happy with "rather well" then you've succeeded. As I said above I'm aiming for professional product at home. I want to make a Pliny the elder clone and have mine chosen by a large group of people as the better version in a blind taste test. Maybe making a 5 litre starter only makes a 2% difference in the finished product that most can't taste. To me that 2% is worth the time and effort no matter how much time/effort/ money is required to get it. Don't take this as a elitist type thing I'm just saying we all have different end goals. My goal is 10/10 finished product. I would never and have never pitched a single vile into 5 gallons without at least a starter of some sort. Cheers

There's an assumption here that you can't get 10/10 great beer without a huge starter, or that a starter makes any positive difference at all. I'm not one to toot my own horn, but I'd take my beer over three quarters (or more) of the stuff brewed commercially. I've learned that yeast is very forgiving, and that if there are quality issues with the beer, yeast pitching rate is one of the least likely causes.

In my opinion, yeast starters should only be for big beers or high volume when one pack is definitely not enough. For run-of-the-mill 5 gallon 1.060 beers, I think starters need to be relegated to the 'homebrewing myths' archive.

 

[Blazinlow86]

There's an assumption here that you can't get 10/10 great beer without a huge starter, or that a starter makes any positive difference at all. I'm not one to toot my own horn, but I'd take my beer over three quarters (or more) of the stuff brewed commercially. I've learned that yeast is very forgiving, and that if there are quality issues with the beer, yeast pitching rate is one of the least likely causes.

In my opinion, yeast starters should only be for big beers or high volume when one pack is definitely not enough. For run-of-the-mill 5 gallon 1.060 beers, I think starters need to be relegated to the 'homebrewing myths' archive.

There's no doubt you might make good beer even if you under pitch but I think there's also no doubt you can also have a bad beer due to under pitching. It's like driving without your seat belt. It might never be a problem but why take the chance? Not to start a big huge debate here but I imagine the people winning the homebrew contests and the top pro brewers would disagree that pitching the correct amount of yeast is a myth. If wyeast GAVE you 3 packs of yeast and your choices were pitch 1 and throw the rest away or pitch 3 would you still choose to underpitch? I'm curious what you see as the advantage of doing it that way. Cheers

 

[rhys333]

There's no doubt you might make good beer even if you under pitch but I think there's also no doubt you can also have a bad beer due to under pitching. It's like driving without your seat belt. It might never be a problem but why take the chance? Not to start a big huge debate here but I imagine the people winning the homebrew contests and the top pro brewers would disagree that pitching the correct amount of yeast is a myth. If wyeast GAVE you 3 packs of yeast and your choices were pitch 1 and throw the rest away or pitch 3 would you still choose to underpitch? I'm curious what you see as the advantage of doing it that way. Cheers

I would use one pack and store the other two or give them away to friends. I wouldn't pitch two or more as I consider this an over-pitch that has, at least for me, resulted in loss of yeast character on British and Belgian styles.

The question is whether or not one pack is under-pitching, and I don't think it is going by Wyeast's recommendations and my own empirical evidence. Reason being, when I pitch a healthy pack directly to the wort, I see activity in a 6 to 18 hour window, which is right where I want it to be (its usually 12). Any sooner and there are so many cells available that new ones aren't being produced. Significantly longer, and there aren't enough. Interestingly, I typically see activity sooner without a starter. The only time I had a 2 - 3 day delay was with a starter. It's of course not confirmation that a starter delays the process, but it is an interesting thing I've noticed on my system.

That said, it really comes down to what a person feels comfortable doing more than anything. If it works, I say roll with it.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I would use one pack and store the other two or give them away to friends. I wouldn't pitch two or more as I consider this an over-pitch that has, at least for me, resulted in loss of yeast character on British and Belgian styles.

The question is whether or not one pack is under-pitching, and I don't think it is going by Wyeast's recommendations and my own empirical evidence. Reason being, when I pitch a healthy pack directly to the wort, I see activity in a 6 to 18 hour window, which is right where I want it to be (its usually 12). Any sooner and there are so many cells available that new ones aren't being produced. Significantly longer, and there aren't enough. Interestingly, I typically see activity sooner without a starter. The only time I had a 2 - 3 day delay was with a starter. It's of course not confirmation that a starter delays the process, but it is an interesting thing I've noticed on my system.

That said, it really comes down to what a person feels comfortable doing more than anything. If it works, I say roll with it.

Maybe in the specific style examples you've given underpitching would help. The conversation I was having was more specific to making lagers with a pretty substantial underpitch from the more standard method. Say your making a 1.050 lager. White labs GIVES you 5 packs of yeast free with the catch that you can ONLY use them for that single batch. You can't save them or give them away. Would you still choose to underpitch and throw the remaining packs away or would you pitch them all? I only asking as it seems to me the only reason to underpitch is it's less work and or less cost? Cheers

 

[rhys333]

Maybe in the specific style examples you've given underpitching would help. The conversation I was having was more specific to making lagers with a pretty substantial underpitch from the more standard method. Say your making a 1.050 lager. White labs GIVES you 5 packs of yeast free with the catch that you can ONLY use them for that single batch. You can't save them or give them away. Would you still choose to underpitch and throw the remaining packs away or would you pitch them all? I only asking as it seems to me the only reason to underpitch is it's less work and or less cost? Cheers

The example I gave isn't an under-pitch situation.

 

[Blazinlow86]

The example I gave isn't an under-pitch situation.

Sorry to clarify i was under the impression originally that you were replying to mine and mongooses discussion specifically regarding pitching a 1L starter into a 5gallon lager using his process. I felt it was a under pitch but its working well for him. i have always went on the high side and would have gone with a 4L in a 5 gallon batch of lager but i dont pitch warm so that could make the differance. Your example wouldnt be a underpitch as its over the minimum recomendation by 18 billion cells and i can see why you would choose to pitch closer to the minimum rate of 82 billion cells rather than the optimum rate of 293 billion if your trying to get the yeast flavor in those specific british and belgian styles but would you still pitch a single vial into say a pale ale your trying to get a clean profile in? whats your opinion on lagers? to clarify im not challenging you. just seeing what works for people. cheers

 

[rhys333]

Sorry to clarify i was under the impression originally that you were replying to mine and mongooses discussion specifically regarding pitching a 1L starter into a 5gallon lager using his process. I felt it was a under pitch but its working well for him. i have always went on the high side and would have gone with a 4L in a 5 gallon batch of lager but i dont pitch warm so that could make the differance. Your example wouldnt be a underpitch as its over the minimum recomendation by 18 billion cells and i can see why you would choose to pitch at the minimum 82 billion cells rather than the optimum rate of 293 billion if your trying to get the yeast flavor in those specific british and belgian styles but would you still pitch a single vial into say a pale ale your trying to get a clean profile in? whats your opinion on lagers? to clarify im not challenging you. just seeing what works for people. cheers

I meant ales, so sorry for the confusion if you thought I meant lagers. The closest I come to it is Kölsch, and I pitch just the one smack pack. The last one I did a couple months ago kicked off in just 6 hours and made a beautiful beer. As for typical ales with a neutral profile, I do the same pitching rate and it works very well for me. The only time I do a starter is if the pack is old, swells slowly, or if I'm reusing stored yeast slurry that's been in the fridge for quite a while.

 

[Blazinlow86]

The more I think about it im not sure id bother making a starter if I was making a lower gravity 5 gal ale and had a fresh pack of yeast either. In my case because I always do 12-18 gallons and always start with a single pack of yeast I have to build it up regardless. I have a good stirplate and 5l flask so I figure might as well build it to the higher end. Cheers

 

[Comfort_Zone]

Ignoring the fact that cell count calculators are HORRIBLY inaccurate, I really only do vitality starters these days. Only ever had one comment about yeast character in a beer, though it was definitely an issue of butyric acid so I guess YMMV.