222 replies to this topic

[BlKtRe]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Stout_fan]

I find the:

"there should be a 4:1 ratio between the size of the vessel and the amount of starter wort."

very interesting.  I supply air to the  flask from an aquarium pump/ HEPA filter when I use a stir plate.

As of late I haven't been doing much more than a liter in my 5l Erlenmeyers.

I would guess the reason for the ratio is to provide a sufficient supply of O2 for growth.

[Brauer]

Brauer, that makes a lot of sense.

 

Some conflicting things though. When you pitch you want more growth, not fermentation. 

Not really conflicting, as I see it. You want some, limited growth, but the starter size should be calculated to allow for that growth and the yeast are prepared for that with healthy glycogen and trehalose stores. The traditional pitching rates were determined to allow for that preferred amount of growth.

[SchwanzBrewer]

Not really conflicting, as I see it. You want some, limited growth, but the starter size should be calculated to allow for that growth and the yeast are prepared for that with healthy glycogen and trehalose stores. The traditional pitching rates were determined to allow for that preferred amount of growth.

 

But this starter method throws sand in the face of that and says cell count isn't as important as yeast health when pitching. IIRC from the AHA thread you are getting a lower cell count with the shake method, but higher quality cells. In relation to lagers I don't see any clear cut explanation for one way or the other.

 

Basically I think there needs to be some empirical evidence with some cell counts and fermentations that show the shake method has merit. I think it has potential, but I think there are tweaks that need to be addressed for lagers vs ales at least. 

[Brauer]

But this starter method throws sand in the face of that and says cell count isn't as important as yeast health when pitching. IIRC from the AHA thread you are getting a lower cell count with the shake method, but higher quality cells. In relation to lagers I don't see any clear cut explanation for one way or the other.

 

Basically I think there needs to be some empirical evidence with some cell counts and fermentations that show the shake method has merit. I think it has potential, but I think there are tweaks that need to be addressed for lagers vs ales at least. 

My point exactly. I believe the science supports the idea that fermenting out a starter produces more cells that are also better prepared for fermentation than the shake and underpitch method. Yeast don't become "unhealthy" just because they have passed the peak growth period. Instead, they use that time to store nutrients in preparation for the next opportunity they have to grow.

[SchwanzBrewer]

My point exactly. I believe the science supports the idea that fermenting out a starter produces more cells that are also better prepared for fermentation than the shake and underpitch method. Yeast don't become "unhealthy" just because they have passed the peak growth period. Instead, they use that time to store nutrients in preparation for the next opportunity they have to grow.

 

Exactly, so there is likely a sweet spot for pitching somewhere between high krausen and full floc and I'd say it's safe to argue it's strain dependent.

[Brauer]

Exactly, so there is likely a sweet spot for pitching somewhere between high krausen and full floc and I'd say it's safe to argue it's strain dependent.

There are mutants where glycogen is rapidly depleted at the end of growth, and it is always possible that any strain could develop a non-standard mutation. We may have selected against those mutations through the long tradition of repitching yeast after fermentation, which would have put selective pressure for yeast that maintain the processes that protect them between growth periods.

 

In normal yeast, glycogen stores are relatively stable for 5-6 days, so I imagine that the sweet spot is somewhere in the window of time between the start of flocculation and 5 days later. Chilling the cells once they flocculate will probably extend the sweet spot, though, by slowing autophagy and maintaining viability.

[denny]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

That was my initial thought.  The I decided if I didn't try it I'd never know.  Don't get stuck in the past.

But this starter method throws sand in the face of that and says cell count isn't as important as yeast health when pitching. IIRC from the AHA thread you are getting a lower cell count with the shake method, but higher quality cells. In relation to lagers I don't see any clear cut explanation for one way or the other.

 

Basically I think there needs to be some empirical evidence with some cell counts and fermentations that show the shake method has merit. I think it has potential, but I think there are tweaks that need to be addressed for lagers vs ales at least. 

 

Marshall Schott has reached a similar conclusion with what he calls a "vitality starter".  I have now done one ale and one lager with this method and am very happy with it so far.  Testing will continue.

[positiveContact]

so my lager using this starter method came out great.  n=1 for me.

 

10 gal of 1.051 wort.

 

2L of 1.040 starter with a fairly fresh vial of yeast pitched into it.  shook a lot and pitched around 20 hours (might have been post high krausen b/c I think the fermentation was fairly subdued).

 

There was quite a bit of lag between pitching the starter into the wort and seeing signs of high activity.  I can't really pin this on the starting method though.  It might have something to do with it and it might not.

 

I'll probably try it again the next time I use liquid yeast.

[denny]

so my lager using this starter method came out great.  n=1 for me.

 

10 gal of 1.051 wort.

 

2L of 1.040 starter with a fairly fresh vial of yeast pitched into it.  shook a lot and pitched around 20 hours (might have been post high krausen b/c I think the fermentation was fairly subdued).

 

There was quite a bit of lag between pitching the starter into the wort and seeing signs of high activity.  I can't really pin this on the starting method though.  It might have something to do with it and it might not.

 

I'll probably try it again the next time I use liquid yeast.

 

One ale and one lager for me so far with the method and both were winners.  I'm gonna keep doing it til it doesn't work...and I really don't expect that to happen.

[HVB]

One ale and one lager for me so far with the method and both were winners.  I'm gonna keep doing it til it doesn't work...and I really don't expect that to happen.

 

What size was teh lager starter, 1l also?

[positiveContact]

some other comments (from me) cut and pasted from the beer recipe thread:

 

the starter method seems to have worked this time.  I didn't like the lag I experienced but that could just be the yeast/cool ferm temps or maybe I shocked the yeast by not chilling it enough prior to pitching it in the wort.  one thing I don't like is the amount of guess work involved.  since I mash over night this method also means that I have committed to making beer before I know for sure that the starter is going to go as planned.  I can't say I enjoy that aspect.  I do like the smaller starter size and the ability to not have to plan ahead quite as far.

[denny]

What size was teh lager starter, 1l also?

Yep. I cast my fate to the winds and decided that vitality was more important than size. Like many thngs in life, now that I think about it....

[Brauer]

Yep. I cast my fate to the winds and decided that vitality was more important than size. Like many thngs in life, now that I think about it....

I haven't seen anything that supports the argument that the yeast is somehow more vital in a periodically shaken starter during fermentation, and you didn't measure anything that would indicate that the yeast were somehow more vital. The published research I have read indicates that vitality is actually higher during flocculation than during fermentation. Take it from someone who has run a few thousand experiments in his life, and been burnt by trying to read more into the results than was actually there, that you need to be careful that your conclusion is supported by your experiment. 

 

A supported conclusion from your experimentation (n=2) might be that you can get acceptable fermentation with slightly underpitching, at least 2 out of 2 times.  I think we all knew that was true, from our early days in brewing, at least most of the time. 

 

The experiment that I would like to see would be to periodically pull an equal volume from a shaken and a stirred starter, pitched into an equal volume of wort, to actually determine the method and stage that produces the shortest lag. 

[positiveContact]

I haven't seen anything that supports the argument that the yeast is somehow more vital in a periodically shaken starter during fermentation, and you didn't measure anything that would indicate that the yeast were somehow more vital. The published research I have read indicates that vitality is actually higher during flocculation than during fermentation. Take it from someone who has run a few thousand experiments in his life, and been burnt by trying to read more into the results than was actually there, that you need to be careful that your conclusion is supported by your experiment. 

 

A supported conclusion from your experimentation (n=2) might be that you can get acceptable fermentation with slightly underpitching, at least 2 out of 2 times.  I think we all knew that was true, from our early days in brewing, at least most of the time. 

 

The experiment that I would like to see would be to periodically pull an equal volume from a shaken and a stirred starter, pitched into an equal volume of wort, to actually determine the method and stage that produces the shortest lag. 

 

how about once they have completely flocculated (like when chilling and then decanting the starter beer)?

 

it would be great to know about how long ahead of time I should be making my starters.

[Brauer]

how about once they have completely flocculated (like when chilling and then decanting the starter beer)?

it would be great to know about how long ahead of time I should be making my starters.

There's a paper where they measured cell density, wort sugar, cellular glycogen and cellular trehalose levels during growth, through fermentation and afterwards. After peaking, once the sugar was gone, it was slowly and gradually depleated. They had lost 10% glycogen, maybe a bit more after 5 days. Still, they were above the levels measured during most of the active fermentation. Probably nothing to fret much about, especially within a few days of starting to flocculate.

[positiveContact]

There's a paper where they measured cell density, wort sugar, cellular glycogen and cellular trehalose levels during growth, through fermentation and afterwards. After peaking, once the sugar was gone, it was slowly and gradually depleated. They had lost 10% glycogen, maybe a bit more after 5 days. Still, they were above the levels measured during most of the active fermentation. Probably nothing to fret much about, especially within a few days of starting to flocculate.

 

perhaps next time around I'll make my starter a little earlier so I can maybe see activity before I start my overnight mash.

[denny]

I haven't seen anything that supports the argument that the yeast is somehow more vital in a periodically shaken starter during fermentation, and you didn't measure anything that would indicate that the yeast were somehow more vital. The published research I have read indicates that vitality is actually higher during flocculation than during fermentation. Take it from someone who has run a few thousand experiments in his life, and been burnt by trying to read more into the results than was actually there, that you need to be careful that your conclusion is supported by your experiment. 

 

A supported conclusion from your experimentation (n=2) might be that you can get acceptable fermentation with slightly underpitching, at least 2 out of 2 times.  I think we all knew that was true, from our early days in brewing, at least most of the time. 

 

The experiment that I would like to see would be to periodically pull an equal volume from a shaken and a stirred starter, pitched into an equal volume of wort, to actually determine the method and stage that produces the shortest lag. 

 

If you mean lag after pitching into finished wort, I really don't care....as long as it's less than a few days it's all good.  As I've often said to Mark, I care a lot less about science and numbers than I do results.

[Brauer]

If you mean lag after pitching into finished wort, I really don't care....as long as it's less than a few days it's all good.  As I've often said to Mark, I care a lot less about science and numbers than I do results.

It's just that lag would be an easy measure of the proposed improved vitality. As it is, you're just demonstrating that underpitching is sufficient, most of the time, not generating experimental evidence supporting the argument that there is something special in this "new simplified starter procedure", which seems to be the claim in all these threads. Lag of a few days is going to cause a lot of brewers problems, eventually.

[denny]

It's just that lag would be an easy measure of the proposed improved vitality. As it is, you're just demonstrating that underpitching is sufficient, most of the time, not generating experimental evidence supporting the argument that there is something special in this "new simplified starter procedure", which seems to be the claim in all these threads. Lag of a few days is going to cause a lot of brewers problems, eventually.

 

I guess at this point I'm not trying to "prove" anything to anyone other than myself, and post the results for others who want to try it for themselves.  To me, what's special about the method is that I've made two batches of beer that were at least as good and more easily made than the same beers using my previous method.