Liquid Yeast
#1
Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:53 PM
#2
Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:25 AM
#3
Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:27 AM
#4
Posted 03 March 2010 - 05:44 AM
#5
Posted 03 March 2010 - 10:18 AM
Why would you think that "pro brewers" recommend the size of smack packs? I don't know of any pro brewers who use smack packs. At least not the size smack packs that homebrewers do. Most of the "smack packs" I've seen for pro brewers are a qt. or more. Then they will propagate those. Putting more yeast into a homebrewer size smack pack means more $$. Are you willing to pay more?given my lagerfumble, i started wondering....why don't they put more yeast in a vial or smackpack?? why do they put out 25 billion and 100 billion packs that pro brewers have apparently recommended and yet homebrewers know are not enough? would it be that hard to put... 200 billion? 3?
#6
Posted 03 March 2010 - 11:31 AM
#7
Posted 03 March 2010 - 02:28 PM
from wyeast labs website: "The Activatorâ„¢ package contains a minimum of 100 billion cells in a yeast slurry.. The Activatorâ„¢ is designed to directly inoculate 5 gallons of standard strength ale wort (1.034-1.060 SG) with professional pitching rates."also, if you read the smackpack it says, and I won't quote because it's not in front of me but I read it just a couple days ago: This package is designed to inoculate up to 5 gallons of wort up to 1.060 OG based on the pitching rates recommended by professional brewers.If this isn't a reason to think that "pro brewers" recommend the size of smackpacks then what is? If I didn't come on these forums I wouldn't have known and why question the advice of the company that supplies you with your culture?Jimmy - I get that, it makes sense. The weird thing is that according to the Mr. Malty calc I find even these smaller beers are technically underpitched with only a single vial or smackpack but attenuate just fine when using 001 or 1056, of course problems arise elsewhere but it still seems odd to toe the line on just enough yeast when it can't cost them that much to increase the volume slightly.Why would you think that "pro brewers" recommend the size of smack packs? I don't know of any pro brewers who use smack packs. At least not the size smack packs that homebrewers do. Most of the "smack packs" I've seen for pro brewers are a qt. or more. Then they will propagate those. Putting more yeast into a homebrewer size smack pack means more $$. Are you willing to pay more?
#8
Posted 03 March 2010 - 03:36 PM
The first products those companies made were high-attenuators. Lager strains and other funky stuff that can be problematic in getting full attenuation didn't come until later, when the format was already set. White Labs stuff was available in 50mL Corning screw-cap conicals locally in San Diego before the vials, because that 50mL tube is what is cheap and easily available. Most likely these guys wouldn't change formats unless their hand was forced, as those brewers that really need more yeast will simply make a starter or buy multiple tubes/packs. It could be an opening for a 3rd player, but think of the amount of infrastructure, distribution network and in-licensing that would be required to compete - and nothing would stop White/Wyeast from launching a high-gravity wort size to respond...Plus, I think these guys have been in an arms-race to get the most/best strains, get bugs/sour mixes and other stuff we want, so packaging is not the focus of their efforts.according to the Mr. Malty calc I find even these smaller beers are technically underpitched with only a single vial or smackpack but attenuate just fine when using 001 or 1056, of course problems arise elsewhere but it still seems odd to toe the line on just enough yeast when it can't cost them that much to increase the volume slightly.
#9
Posted 03 March 2010 - 03:49 PM
#10
Posted 04 March 2010 - 10:56 AM
Because it's a lot cheaper to just write "Pitchable Tube" on the label.given my lagerfumble, i started wondering....why don't they put more yeast in a vial or smackpack?? why do they put out 25 billion and 100 billion packs that pro brewers have apparently recommended and yet homebrewers know are not enough? would it be that hard to put... 200 billion? 3?
#11
Posted 04 March 2010 - 11:00 AM
While this is true, wouldn't it kind of be false advertising to make people think that they can simply pitch from the pack/tube and that they are pitching the proper number of cells? Clearly more cells are needed, otherwise we wouldn't need to make starters. Right?Because it's a lot cheaper to just write "Pitchable Tube" on the label.
#12
Posted 04 March 2010 - 11:53 AM
Yes.While this is true, wouldn't it kind of be false advertising to make people think that they can simply pitch from the pack/tube and that they are pitching the proper number of cells? Clearly more cells are needed, otherwise we wouldn't need to make starters. Right?
#13
Posted 04 March 2010 - 11:54 AM
#14
Posted 04 March 2010 - 11:59 AM
It's aight though. Without them we wouldn't have the ability to make these quality beers that we can make at home. So I aint too mad at them.Yes.
#15
Posted 04 March 2010 - 01:38 PM
Valid point. They make a big mess that we have to clean up though.It's aight though. Without them we wouldn't have the ability to make these quality beers that we can make at home. So I aint too mad at them.
#16
Posted 04 March 2010 - 01:44 PM
At first I was like but then I was likeValid point. They make a big mess that we have to clean up though.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users