Yeast Starter for big beer

[Dancy]

In the last year or so, I’ve made three AG recipes of Belgian Dark Strong Ale starting at 1.090+ and pitch direrectly two packs of Mangrove Jack’s M41. Fermentation started quickly and was very vigorous with final gravity in the single digits. The yeast manufacturers are fine with no starter being made and purchasing a 2nd pack is cheap versus making a starter, which is an extra step I’d rather not take. When I decide to use liquid yeast for a BDSA, I’ll make a starter.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Anecdotals can lead to curiosity which can lead to "citizen science" which can lead to ...

no one has tried to answer this question formally

As I mentioned earlier, the ancedotals (a starter with dry yeast results in better home made beer for some people) are out there. So those stories have been shared.

It's reasonable to believe that home brewers have run the "citizen science" experiments to their satisfaction.

So, if there is a next step, a working definition of "answer this question formally" may entice those home brewers to share their results.

 

[davidabcd]

Mangrove Jack’s M41

I'm a big fan of that one.
I do two packs also and beer comes out great.

 

[GoodTruble]

I second (third) M41 for big belgian beers. I used it in a strong blonde ale last year that went from 1.100 to 1.010, and still tasted great/smooth (Made a starter).

I am also a fan of M42 for stouts. Adds a slightly nutty flavor that plays well off maris otter. (Also made a starter both times).

 

[McMullan]

So, if there is a next step, a working definition of "answer this question formally" may entice those home brewers to share their results.

Sure, how about a well-designed scientific comparison, e.g., with yeast behaviour and fermentation performance quantified?

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

How about a ~3dl 1.035-1.040 vitality starter made the night before? I am gonna brew this weekend, a 1.050 stout at about 14L in the FV. Might try making a small vitality starter the night before.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Sure, how about a well-designed scientific comparison, e.g., with yeast behaviour and fermentation performance quantified?

Document it so that so that others can give it a try and let us know what you find.

 

[McMullan]

How about a ~3dl 1.035-1.040 vitality starter made the night before? I am gonna brew this weekend, a 1.050 stout at about 14L in the FV. Might try making a small vitality starter the night before.

It's difficult to say, not knowing what's in there, yeast wise. I'm not even sure what a vitality starter is supposed to be. An assessment for the presence of live yeast? It might surprise how little viable yeast slurry makes 3dL look busy. It's only Tuesday, so plenty of time to do that then make a proper starter If it's supposed to wake up the yeast then I think I'd prefer to do that in the FV wort on brew day, given I know whatever I'm going to be pitching is up to the task of fermenting my wort.

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

Meant more of a SNS type starter, and pitch it while it is still fermenting.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

How about a ~3dl 1.035-1.040 vitality starter made the night before? I am gonna brew this weekend, a 1.050 stout at about 14L in the FV. Might try making a small vitality starter the night before.

Nothing wrong with running your own comparison.

Be sure to document the processes well so that others can recreate your comparison if they are interested.

 

[McMullan]

Meant more of a SNS type starter, and pitch it while it is still fermenting.

Regardless which method is used to culture the yeast the cells have to go through a lag phase, remodelling their biochemistry to adapt to the new conditions presented by the FV wort, including initial uptake of wort O2. The presence of glucose and sucrose in the fresh wort promotes a shift away from the metabolic profile they had in the active starter. In my opinion, it's like waterboarding yeast. Worst case is they get shocked and it takes a day or two before they enter lag phase.

 

[DBhomebrew]

Meant more of a SNS type starter, and pitch it while it is still fermenting.

I've been using Saccharomyces' SNS method for my last dozen or so fermentations in lieu of my previous direct pitching of harvested slurry. I typically transfer to FV and pitch at night once the kids are asleep. With SNS, I reliably wake up the next morning to a layer of krausen. Reliable, clean, and thorough.

Note: "[Saccharomyces'] method is not the do all, be all yeast starter method, but it provides a simpler, lower cost way of making a starter that performs just as well, if not better than one made using a stir plate."

https://www.experimentalbrew.com/blogs/saccharomyces/shaken-not-stirred-stir-plate-myth-buster
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/blogs/saccharomyces/yeast-cultures-are-nuclear-weapons

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

I have done that before while I still used liquid yeast once in a while, but now I live too far out in the bush and deliveries take too long so I am more or less confined to dry yeast.
Do you reckon a SNS starter would be a good idea for a pack of dry yeast, or is it just a waste of time?

 

[DBhomebrew]

I have done that before while I still used liquid yeast once in a while, but now I live too far out in the bush and deliveries take too long so I am more or less confined to dry yeast.
Do you reckon a SNS starter would be a good idea for a pack of dry yeast, or is it just a waste of time?

I don't have much experience at all with dry yeast. Last time was a single pack of Notty pitched directly into 3.5G of 1.095 RIS. Take off was a bit longer than I like and fermentation got pretty sluggish in the last 1/3. Next time, I'd first rehydrate according to the manufacturer's directions. I think the high gravity wort killed off a good number of original cells during rehydration. With a small or normal strength beer, I'd just pitch the manufacturer's recommended amount dry and direct.

 

[McMullan]

I've been using Saccharomyces' SNS method for my last dozen or so fermentations in lieu of my previous direct pitching of harvested slurry. I typically transfer to FV and pitch at night once the kids are asleep. With SNS, I reliably wake up the next morning to a layer of krausen. Reliable, clean, and thorough.

Note: "[Saccharomyces'] method is not the do all, be all yeast starter method, but it provides a simpler, lower cost way of making a starter that performs just as well, if not better than one made using a stir plate."

https://www.experimentalbrew.com/blogs/saccharomyces/shaken-not-stirred-stir-plate-myth-buster
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/blogs/saccharomyces/yeast-cultures-are-nuclear-weapons

What you describe is typical for pitching a fresh starter, regardless how it was made, shaken, stirred or left to its own devices on a counter top. The key is pitching enough fresh yeast at pitching temperature, not the shaking as such. Most of the yeast cells are going to be beneath the aerated foam, in reality. The logic used to explain the SNS method is flawed by gross assumptions about yeast and their biology. That’s not to say we shouldn’t aerate starter wort, of course.

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

I think I'll just stick to rehydrating then, I have found that actually makes a difference even for normal gravity worts.
This will be my first forray into kegging aswell, then next up is a Brown Ale, Bitter and a Mild to get a pipeline going.

 

[McMullan]

I have done that before while I still used liquid yeast once in a while, but now I live too far out in the bush and deliveries take too long so I am more or less confined to dry yeast.
Do you reckon a SNS starter would be a good idea for a pack of dry yeast, or is it just a waste of time?

I see what you mean, now. Give it a go. You don’t need to aerate the starter wort, as dry yeast are conditioned with O2 before being dried. But the FV wort needs aerating, because you’ll then be pitching wet yeast. For a standard batch I was planning to use 1 pack (11g) dry yeast in 1L 1.040 starter wort. Dry yeast are in shock mode from the drying process and usually show a prolonged delay once activated. I’d prep a starter a few days before brew day, even though it‘s likely to finish sooner. At least do this until you know how they behave in a starter.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I don't have much experience at all with dry yeast. Last time was a single pack of Notty pitched directly into 3.5G of 1.095 RIS. Take off was a bit longer than I like and fermentation got pretty sluggish in the last 1/3. Next time, I'd first rehydrate according to the manufacturer's directions. I think the high gravity wort killed off a good number of original cells during rehydration. With a small or normal strength beer, I'd just pitch the manufacturer's recommended amount dry and direct.

How did the finished beer taste?

 

[DBhomebrew]

How did the finished beer taste?

Tastes absolutely fine. A bit sweeter than I'd like (~10pts higher FG than target*), but I know much of that will age into something more pleasant and velvety. It's still pretty young at 7mo in the bottle.

It wasn't a dumper, far from it. But I know fermentation could have been healthier, more vigorous, more thorough. Next time.

*Edit: AA came in at 70%

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

~10pts higher FG than target

So for those who plan to write-up and perform the side-by-side comparison, what is your thought on measuring the actual ferment-ability of the wort that was created? Personally, I don't have a problem with these comparisons using software estimates - just note which software (and perhaps which version) was used.

 

[DBhomebrew]

So for those who plan to write-up and perform the side-by-side comparison, what is your thought on measuring the actual ferment-ability of the wort that was created? Personally, I don't have a problem with these comparisons using software estimates - just note which software (and perhaps which version) was used.

Software FG prediction is notoriously inaccurate. Most don't take into account grist makeup.

 

[PotRoastMan]

.