Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => Yeast and Fermentation => Topic started by: denny on September 26, 2015, 06:34:11 PM

Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 26, 2015, 06:34:11 PM
Well, after all the times I've told S. Cerevisiae that I've tried it and didn't \care for the results, I decided it was time to give his procedure a fair trial.  Here's what happened....http://www.experimentalbrew.com/blogs/denny/old-dognew-tricks
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on September 26, 2015, 07:01:43 PM
That's my problem, timing high krausen. So, ive been using 2L oxygenated and shook wort, pitching the smack pack about 6pm before brew day. Brew morning, ~12 hrs later, I put it in the fridge. Then I end up decanting about 80% and pitching about 6pm after brewing two batches that brew day. That works great, but I'd be curious to know how the masters of this technique are timing it for a 1L high krausen total contents pitch.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 26, 2015, 07:05:55 PM
That's my problem, timing high krausen. So, ive been using 2L oxygenated and shook wort, pitching the smack pack about 6pm before brew day. Brew morning, ~12 hrs later, I put it in the fridge. Then I end up decanting about 80% and pitching about 6pm after brewing two batches that brew day. That works great, but I'd be curious to know how the masters of this technique are timing it for a 1L high krausen total contents pitch.

After discussing it with Mark, I'm not sure being exactly at high krausen makes a world of difference.  I was close and judging by the looks of things, it was close enough.  I was using a 3 month old smack pack and I wanted to be sure it had enough time.  I decided that was more important than being exactly at high krausen when I pitched.  I also decided that 1 qt. of starter wort in my beer probably wouldn't have much noticeable effect.  That part remains to be tested.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 26, 2015, 07:24:11 PM
While hitting the starter exactly at high krausen is ideal, there's a bit of leeway in the process. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 26, 2015, 07:30:21 PM
I also decided that 1 qt. of starter wort in my beer probably wouldn't have much noticeable effect.  That part remains to be tested.

I use Briess Light Pilsen DME.  That stuff is fairly neutral in flavor.   I usually use a percentage of dextrose and 1/4 tsp of Fermax as well.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 26, 2015, 09:07:57 PM
I also decided that 1 qt. of starter wort in my beer probably wouldn't have much noticeable effect.  That part remains to be tested.

I use Briess Light Pilsen DME.  That stuff is fairly neutral in flavor.   I usually use a percentage of dextrose and 1/4 tsp of Fermax as well.

Not certain of the brand but it was extra light DME.  A pinch of Wyeast nutrient as well.  3 oz. DME to a qt. of water.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on September 26, 2015, 10:06:17 PM
Mark, if you had to quantify a general time frame for predicting high krausen in a shook or oxygenated 1L starter with a fresh smack pack, what would it be? Would it be different for ale vs lager?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 26, 2015, 11:57:05 PM
Mark, if you had to quantify a general time frame for predicting high krausen in a shook or oxygenated 1L starter with a fresh smack pack, what would it be? Would it be different for ale vs lager?

FWIW, mine was there in about 20 hours.  That was a 3 month old smack pack.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on September 27, 2015, 12:07:49 AM
I think I'm in the ball park. My last starters were 6 day old 1056 that were in starters for 12 hrs before putting in the fridge. I gave them a little swirl and the wife saw it, thought they were going to explode. Then about 10 maybe 12 hrs later I removed from the fridge, decanted and pitched. Had blowoff in 12 hrs after that.

But I'm wondering if I should make my starters with 1L, morning of brew day, and pitch the whole thing that evening (12 hrs later) Maybe 2L for lagers 1L for ales.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 12:56:25 AM
Jim, it sounds like you have the process dialed-in for your environment.  As  much as I would like say that culture X pitched into 1L of starter wort is going reach high krausen at time X, yeast behavior just cannot be quantified to that level of precision in a general way, especially when things such as water composition, wort composition, incubation time, and incubation temperature are factored into the equation.  That's why I give a window of between 12 and 18 hours after inoculation.  The best thing that one can do is what you are doing; namely, inoculating, observing, and adjusting the incubation time frame per one's observations. 

In your case, I would feel comfortable making the starter in the morning and pitching 12 hours later.  The worst case scenario is that you have to place a chilled batch of wort in your fermentation chamber for a few hours.   The one area where Wyeast absolutely blows White Labs out of the water is that one knows something about how the culture will perform before pitching it into starter wort. Wyeast smack packs have built-in proofing.  If the pack swells, the culture is good.  The rate at which the pack swells also provides insight into the condition of the culture as well as to how well it will respond when pitched into starter wort.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on September 27, 2015, 02:54:26 AM
Jim, it sounds like you have the process dialed-in for your environment.  As  much as I would like say that culture X pitched into 1L of starter wort is going reach high krausen at time X, yeast behavior just cannot be quantified to that level of precision in a general way, especially when things such as water composition, wort composition, incubation time, and incubation temperature are factored into the equation.  That's why I give a window of between 12 and 18 hours after inoculation.  The best thing that one can do is what you are doing; namely, inoculating, observing, and adjusting the incubation time frame per one's observations. 

In your case, I would feel comfortable making the starter in the morning and pitching 12 hours later.  The worst case scenario is that you have to place a chilled batch of wort in your fermentation chamber for a few hours.   The one area where Wyeast absolutely blows White Labs out of the water is that one knows something about how the culture will perform before pitching it into starter wort. Wyeast smack packs have built-in proofing.  If the pack swells, the culture is good.  That rate at which the pack swells also provides insight into the condition of the culture as well as to how well it will respond when pitched into starter wort.
Sweet. I think I'm close enough, but I'll keep making small tweaks.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: jeffy on September 27, 2015, 02:42:44 PM
I used the shaken method last weekend and pitched a very active 1.6 liter starter (with 160g of dme) pitched about 18 hours after making the starter.
I was surprised at the gravity reading I took yesterday, 6 days after brewing, which had gone from 1.048 to 1.020.  I really expected it to be finished by now.
It's a Belgian Witbier recipe that I've made a dozen times or so using Wyeast 3944, fermented in the mid 60'sF.
So that's one variable that would be measurable, if it's not an anomaly.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 27, 2015, 03:33:07 PM
I used the shaken method last weekend and pitched a very active 1.6 liter starter (with 160g of dme) pitched about 18 hours after making the starter.
I was surprised at the gravity reading I took yesterday, 6 days after brewing, which had gone from 1.048 to 1.020.  I really expected it to be finished by now.
It's a Belgian Witbier recipe that I've made a dozen times or so using Wyeast 3944, fermented in the mid 60'sF.
So that's one variable that would be measurable, if it's not an anomaly.

Interesting info, Jeff.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Steve Ruch on September 27, 2015, 04:12:02 PM
So, basically this way I can use a smaller starter and still be good.
I usually use dry yeast, but this easy smaller starter method would make using more liquid yeast a good option.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 04:46:39 PM
I used the shaken method last weekend and pitched a very active 1.6 liter starter (with 160g of dme) pitched about 18 hours after making the starter.
I was surprised at the gravity reading I took yesterday, 6 days after brewing, which had gone from 1.048 to 1.020.  I really expected it to be finished by now.
It's a Belgian Witbier recipe that I've made a dozen times or so using Wyeast 3944, fermented in the mid 60'sF.
So that's one variable that would be measurable, if it's not an anomaly.

How big was the container in which you prepared the starter?  The container has to be at least four times the volume of the starter.   
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 05:05:36 PM
So, basically this way I can use a smaller starter and still be good.
I usually use dry yeast, but this easy smaller starter method would make using more liquid yeast a good option.

The smaller starter volume comes from pitching at high krausen. As I mentioned above, it is important to use a vessel that is at least four times the volume of the starter, and the media must be shaken until there is more foam than liquid, preferably as much foam as the media can produce (it is very difficult to shake a starter that vigorously without a screw on cap).    For example, using a 2L flask to prepare a 1L shaken, not stirred starter is a no-no, and so is using a 1 gallon jug or 5L flask to prepare a greater than 1L starter.  I used a 1 gallon jug to prepare 1 quart and 1 liter starters for years before I found NOS 5L and 10L media bottles at price points that I was willing to pay.

My current Corning 1395 5L media bottle

(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv356/tonestack/Brewing/WSY_NO_64_SNS_zps4331525f.jpg)

With the above said, I shared this method with the community because I felt that there was a need for a low-cost, low-tech, shear stress-free method for producing a healthy starter.  I hope that people do not attempt to generalize the method in the way that many specific methods have been generalized by the community.  It usually works without fail if all of the conditions are met. 

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 27, 2015, 05:10:09 PM
I used the shaken method last weekend and pitched a very active 1.6 liter starter (with 160g of dme) pitched about 18 hours after making the starter.
I was surprised at the gravity reading I took yesterday, 6 days after brewing, which had gone from 1.048 to 1.020.  I really expected it to be finished by now.
It's a Belgian Witbier recipe that I've made a dozen times or so using Wyeast 3944, fermented in the mid 60'sF.
So that's one variable that would be measurable, if it's not an anomaly.

How big was the container in which you prepared the starter?  The container has to be at least four times the volume of the starter.

Wow...why is that Mark?  I made a 1 qt. starter in a gal. jug, but I often use that same jug for 2-3 qt. starters.  How does vessel size relate to starter quality?  Thanks!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on September 27, 2015, 05:25:52 PM
I'm guessing it has something to do with the amount of air-to-liquid surface area achievable at that volume.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on September 27, 2015, 05:29:27 PM
I think low cost and low tech are great, but I don't know anyone who has experienced shear stress so it seems weird to worry about it.  It seems like worrying about HSA all over again.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 05:30:01 PM
Wow...why is that Mark?  I made a 1 qt. starter in a gal. jug, but I often use that same jug for 2-3 qt. starters.  How does vessel size relate to starter quality?  Thanks!

The requirement has mostly to do with expansion into foam.  The method is dependent on turning the media into as much foam as is possible because foam has a very high specific surface area, and gas dissolves into a liquid at the interface between the gas and the liquid.  A liquid-gas foam composed of gas entrapped in very thin layers of liquid.

I would appreciate your adding the vessel volume to starter volume ratio requirement to the blog entry because methods have a way of getting blown out of proportion on the Internet.  Yeast rinsing is an example of what happens when a very specific method is let loose in the home brewing community without bounds being placed on it.  Yeast rinsing is a generalization of a method used to store colony forming units under autoclaved distilled water in a laboratory setting.  However, the generalization does not meet the original requirements for having an absolutely nutrient-free culture, nor does it include that the storage solution has to be autoclaved distilled water.  There's no way to rinse a cropped culture completely free of nutrients in a home setting, as the process requires a centrifuge.

 

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: jeffy on September 27, 2015, 05:39:16 PM
Not even close.  This was a flask marked 2000 below the neck.
Quit changing the rules, Mark. ;)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 27, 2015, 05:43:27 PM
Wow...why is that Mark?  I made a 1 qt. starter in a gal. jug, but I often use that same jug for 2-3 qt. starters.  How does vessel size relate to starter quality?  Thanks!

The requirement has mostly to do with expansion into foam.  The method is dependent on turning the media into as much foam as is possible because foam has a very high specific surface area, and gas dissolves into a liquid at the interface between the gas and the liquid.  A liquid-gas foam composed of gas entrapped in very thin layers of liquid.

I would appreciate your adding the vessel volume to starter volume ratio requirement to the blog entry because methods have a way of getting blown out of proportion on the Internet.  Yeast rinsing is an example of what happens when a very specific method is let loose in the home brewing community without bounds being placed on it.  Yeast rinsing is a generalization of a method used to store colony forming units under autoclaved distilled water in a laboratory setting.  However, the generalization does not meet the original requirements for having an absolutely nutrient-free culture, nor does it include that the storage solution has to be autoclaved distilled water.  There's no way to rinse a cropped culture completely free of nutrients in a home setting, as the process requires a centrifuge.

I'll edit my blog entry to reflect that, Mark.  But in neither this start or any of my others do I ever really see foam, unless I shake them after fermentation has begun.  Then it dissipates quickly.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 05:51:35 PM
I think low cost and low tech are great, but I don't know anyone who has experienced shear stress so it seems weird to worry about it.  It seems like worrying about HSA all over again.

You know a lot of people who have experienced shear stress; however, they are assuming that the results of shear stress are from oxidized wort.  The foul odors and off-flavors produced when a culture is made on a stir plate are the result of shear stress from spinning the bar fast enough to create a vortex. The vortex is a doubled-edged sword.  Without it, the culture does not receive adequate aeration without direct O2 injection or shaking the starter before stirring.  With it, the cells experience significant cell shear stress on their cell walls.  There are many patents that attempt to overcome the shear stress problem in continuously stirred bioreactors.  The cells in a shaken, not stirred starter are only subjected to shear stress during the initial shake if the culture is pitched before the starter medium is shaken, and not exposed to shear stress if the medium shaken before the cells are shaken. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 27, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
I think low cost and low tech are great, but I don't know anyone who has experienced shear stress so it seems weird to worry about it.  It seems like worrying about HSA all over again.

You know a lot of people who have experienced shear stress; however, they are assuming that the results of shear stress are from oxidized wort.  The foul odors and off-flavors produced when a culture is made on a stir plate are the result of shear stress from spinning the bar fast enough to create a vortex. The vortex is a doubled-edged sword.  Without it, the culture does not receive adequate aeration without direct O2 injection or shaking the starter before stirring.  With it, the cells experience significant cell shear stress on their cell walls.  There are many patents that attempt to overcome the shear stress problem in continuously stirred bioreactors.  The cells in a shaken, not stirred starter are only subjected to shear stress during the initial shake if the culture is pitched before the starter medium is shaken, and not exposed to shear stress if the medium shaken before the cells are shaken.

I agree with both of you guys!  I don't know that I've been experiencing shear stress, but OTOH I don't know that I'm not.  This is one way to start finding out.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 05:57:21 PM
Not even close.  This was a flask marked 2000 below the neck.
Quit changing the rules, Mark. ;)

I did not change the rules.  I have been stating the vessel volume to starter volume requirement since I started discussing the method.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: jeffy on September 27, 2015, 06:01:49 PM
Not even close.  This was a flask marked 2000 below the neck.
Quit changing the rules, Mark. ;)

I did not change the rules.  I have been stating the vessel volume to starter volume requirement since I started discussing the method.
Sorry.  I am rereading. 
Funny how my last reply came just after the whole discussion of size which I didn't see until later.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 06:02:32 PM
I'll edit my blog entry to reflect that, Mark.  But in neither this start or any of my others do I ever really see foam, unless I shake them after fermentation has begun.  Then it dissipates quickly.

Are you referring to foam produced during shaking or foam produced during incubation?   
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on September 27, 2015, 06:11:24 PM
There are no foul smells.  However there is dms present in the canned wort before adding the yeast and esters after from making a starter at 75. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 06:13:22 PM
I seem to recall that you shake and then slowly stir the culture.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on September 27, 2015, 06:22:26 PM
Anyone out there have a paint shaker you're interested in trading for two stir plates? LOL
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 06:27:20 PM
Here's the meat from a posting that I made on another site:

Quote
All one needs to make a well-shaken starter is a sanitizable vessel that is at least four times the volume of the starter being prepared, a sanitizable screw-on cap for the vessel, and a funnel.  I do not know if anything comparable is available in the UK; however, one U.S.-gallon glass jugs (demijohns in UK speak) are plentiful in the United States.   Home brew supply stores sell plastic replacement caps for these jugs that can be sanitized (38mm polyseal screw top caps).  If one has money to burn, a 5L borosilicate glass media bottle like I currently use is a very nice toy.  However, 5L media bottles can cost prohibitive when purchased new.  I acquired my current 5L media bottle as unused laboratory surplus, and it was not cheap.  I used a 1-gallon glass jug for a very long time before switching over to using a 5L media bottle.

Preparing the starter medium (a.k.a. starter wort)

The starter medium is prepared like one would prepare a starter any other way.  A 10% weight/volume solution is made by mixing 100 grams of pale DME into a little more than 1L of water.  The goal here is to end up with 1L of media after the solution has been boiled and cooled to room temperature.  I boil the solution for 15 minutes in a 3-quart stainless steel sauce pan (A U.S. quart is slightly smaller than a liter).  The media is chilled in the sauce pan with the cover affixed using an ice water bath in my kitchen sink. 

Sanitizing the starter vessel, screw-on cap, and funnel

The starter vessel, screw-on cap, and funnel should be sanitized while the medium is boiling and chilling. While I use bleach and StarSan, feel free to use your preferred sanitizer.  It is critical that the funnel is sanitized as well, and that one does not touch the inside surface of the funnel after it has been sanitized.

Note: One thing that I like to teach home brewers is to get into the habit of wiping the lip over which yeast or nutrient will be poured with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before decanting yeast, medium, or supernatant (supernatant is the clear liquid that lies above the solids in a starter, yeast crop, or a batch of beer).  Wild microflora (yeast, mold, and bacteria) rides through the air on house dust.  What we want to do is ensure that we do not drag any dust that may have come to rest on the pouring lip of the container that we are decanting into a vessel in which we intend to grow a culture or ferment a batch of beer.  This precaution makes sense If one thinks about what a nurse or doctor does before giving one an injection.  The reason why a doctor or a nurse cleans an injection site with an alcohol wipe before giving one an injection is to prevent the needle from dragging microflora that is on one’s skin into the injection site.

Pouring the starter medium

After placing the funnel in the starter vessel, one should wipe the pouring lip of the sauce pan in with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before pouring the starter medium into the starter vessel.  I use 70% or 90% isopropyl alcohol.  I used to use 95% ethanol (a.k.a. grain alcohol).  However, my state outlawed its sale due to teenagers and young adults abusing it.  Any 140 proof or better clear spirit will work.  Please do not use methylated spirits. 


Inoculating the starter medium

If using a White Labs vial, wipe the pouring lip of the vial with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before pouring the yeast culture into the starter vessel.   If using a Wyeast smack pack, wipe the outside of the smack and the blades of the pair of scissors that one is using to cut a corner off of the smack pack with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before making the cut, and wipe the cut edge of the smack pack with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before pouring the contents of the smack pack into the starter vessel.


Caping and shaking

Here’s where my method differs from the way the average home brewer makes a starter.  The reason why a vessel with a screw-on cap is necessary with this method is because one is going to shake the culture very vigorously for about a minute.  I usually tell brewers to shake the starter vessel like it owes you money (think mafia enforcer).  The goal here is to attempt to turn the media into foam. That's why the vessel has to be at least four times the volume of the starter.  One should then allow the starter to sit for around thirty minutes before loosening the cap to allow the foam to drop.

A well-shaken starter in a 5L media bottle

(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv356/tonestack/Brewing/WSY_NO_64_SNS_zps4331525f.jpg)

Pitching the starter

Pitching is one area where most home brewers get it completely wrong.  A starter is not a small batch of beer.  It is a yeast biomass growth medium.  The goal here is to grow the culture to maximum cell density and then pitch it.  Maximum cell density occurs at high krausen.  Beyond that point, all cell reproduction is for replacement only. Yeast taken at high krausen is much healthier than yeast that is taken from a sedimented starter or batch of beer.  That’s why traditional breweries crop yeast at high krausen.  Allowing a starter to ferment out and settle places the cells in the yeast equivalent of hibernation where they will have to undo survival-related morphological changes that occurred at the end of fermentation as well as completely replenish their ergosterol and unsaturated fatty acid reserves after being pitched. 

High krausen should occur within 12 to 18 hours after pitching the starter.  The yeast biomass grows exponentially, not linearly.  The yeast cell count grows at a rate of 2^n, where the symbol “^” means raised to the power of, and n equals the number of minutes that have elapsed since the end of the lag phase divided by 90; hence, the difference in propagation time between 200B cells and 400B cells can be as little as 90 minutes.


British Versus American Pitching Rates

If one believes the yeast calculators found on American sites, one will end up growing 2 to 3 liter starters for 23L batches.  Frankly, the guys who wrote this code know more about coding than they do about yeast.  No two yeast cultures behave the same when pitched, and no two yeast cultures require the same pitching rate.   The only thing that will teach one the proper pitch rate for any given strain is experience with the strain in one’s brew house.  Additionally, it is often desirable to underpitch in order to achieve a desired flavor profile.  British styles benefit from underpitching.  I often pitch as little as 60B cells into 19L of wort when fermenting normal gravity beer (i.e., < 1.065).   Wyeast 1768, which is allegedly Young’s stain, performs much better when pitched at a rate of 3B cells per liter than at a rate of 10B cells per liter when fermenting normal gravity ale.  It produces what I like to refer to as the British lollipop ester when the beer is young.   This strain produces a delightfully fruity and malty pint when used with a grist that is composed mostly of British pale malt.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on September 27, 2015, 06:42:21 PM
Anyone out there have a paint shaker you're interested in trading for two stir plates? LOL

Sure.  My son is game!   ;D
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 27, 2015, 06:44:00 PM
I'll edit my blog entry to reflect that, Mark.  But in neither this start or any of my others do I ever really see foam, unless I shake them after fermentation has begun.  Then it dissipates quickly.

Are you referring to foam produced during shaking or foam produced during incubation?

Foam only when shaking, not during the "regular" fermentation, which I assume is what you mean by "incubation".  And it's not nearly as much foam as what I see in your picture.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 27, 2015, 07:03:50 PM
Foam only when shaking, not during the "regular" fermentation, which I assume is what you mean by "incubation".  And it's not nearly as much foam as what I see in your picture.

Turning the medium into mostly foam is the key to this method. If you are not producing at least as much foam as can be seen in the photo above, then you are not shaking vigorously and/or long enough.  I literally screw the cap down tight, and shake the vessel vertically as vigorously as I can for one minute.  A lot of people attempt the method with a solid rubber stopper, but a screw on cap is really not an option with the method.  One literally has to shake the starter like one is attempting to collect money from it for the mafia.  One of the British brewers that I know from another forum wins the prize for shaking.  He managed to turn media almost completely into foam.  That feat requires a massive amount of shaking.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: smokeymcb on September 27, 2015, 07:52:38 PM
Very great information on this thread.  Thanks all...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: kramerog on September 28, 2015, 03:30:07 PM

With the above said, I shared this method with the community because I felt that there was a need for a low-cost, low-tech, shear stress-free method for producing a healthy starter.  I hope that people do not attempt to generalize the method in the way that many specific methods have been generalized by the community.  It usually works without fail if all of the conditions are met.
It is counter-intuitive to me that shaking the heck out of a starter is "shear stress-free."  What am I missing?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on September 28, 2015, 03:50:01 PM

With the above said, I shared this method with the community because I felt that there was a need for a low-cost, low-tech, shear stress-free method for producing a healthy starter.  I hope that people do not attempt to generalize the method in the way that many specific methods have been generalized by the community.  It usually works without fail if all of the conditions are met.
It is counter-intuitive to me that shaking the heck out of a starter is "shear stress-free."  What am I missing?
The shaking is done prior to the pitching of the yeast vial or smack pack to the starter.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: kramerog on September 28, 2015, 03:56:08 PM

With the above said, I shared this method with the community because I felt that there was a need for a low-cost, low-tech, shear stress-free method for producing a healthy starter.  I hope that people do not attempt to generalize the method in the way that many specific methods have been generalized by the community.  It usually works without fail if all of the conditions are met.
It is counter-intuitive to me that shaking the heck out of a starter is "shear stress-free."  What am I missing?
The shaking is done prior to the pitching of the yeast vial or smack pack to the starter.

That makes sense but the instructions appear to say that the starter is inoculated first and then shaken.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 06:06:48 PM
It is counter-intuitive to me that shaking the heck out of a starter is "shear stress-free."  What am I missing?

The technique is not completely shear stress free if the starter medium is inoculated before shaking.  The initial mother cells will experience shear stress.  However, their daughters will not.  One can inoculate the medium after shaking if complete elimination of shear stress is desired.   In my case, the daughter cells that are produced during incubation greatly outnumber the initial mother cells because I pitch cells that were grown in 40ml of 5% w/v wort into 600ml or 1L of 10% w/v wort (I propagate from slant).  With a White Labs vial or Wyeast smack pack, it may pay dividends to inoculate after shaking, as the ratio of initial cells to daughter cells will be closer to 50:50.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 28, 2015, 06:12:12 PM
It is counter-intuitive to me that shaking the heck out of a starter is "shear stress-free."  What am I missing?

The technique is not completely shear stress free if the culture is pitched before shaking.  The initial mother cells will experience shear stress.  However, their daughters will not.  One can inoculate the medium after shaking if complete elimination of shear stress is desired.   In my case, the daughter cells that are produced during incubation greatly outnumber the initial mother cells because I pitch cells that were grown in 40ml of 5% w/v wort into 600ml or 1L of 10% w/v wort (I propagate from slant).  With a White Labs vial or Wyeast smack pack, it may pay dividends to inoculate after shaking, as the ratio of initial cells to daughter cells will be closer to 50:50.

MArk, are you saying that an initial shaking is all that's required?  Do you shale during incubation?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 06:34:55 PM
Mark, are you saying that an initial shaking is all that's required?  Do you shale during incubation?

The only culture that I have had to shake more than once is NCYC 1333, but NCYC 1333 is a class O3/O41 Yorkshire-square culture, meaning that its O2 demands can barely be met by wort that is saturated with pure O2.  I suspect that most of the brewing strains that we use are either class O1 or class O2 (the O2 demands for class O1 strains can be met with wort that contains 4ppm dissolved O2 whereas class O2 strains require 8ppm).   I know for certain that Whitbread "B" (Wyeast 1098, White Labs WLP007, and Fermentis S-04) is a class O2 strain because it is the same culture as NCYC 1026, and NCYC 1026 is a class O2 culture.

NCYC 1026

Information
Flocculent.
NewFlo type flocculation.
1:5:4:5:5
O2, DMS 33 µg/l, low acetic, high lactic, diacetyl 0.42ppm only, used commercially in Tower Fermenters (continuous process), non head-forming, no estery flavour. Contains 2µ plasmid.

Note: If anyone has ever wondered why Wyeast 1098 and WLP007 produce a slightly tart beer, it is due to the strain's propensity to produce higher than normal levels of lactic acid.


[1] Oxygen in Brewery Fermentation, Brian. H. Kirsop, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03614.x/pdf
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 28, 2015, 06:37:26 PM
OK, so you shake the hell out of it at the beginning.  Your "instructions" post was unclear about when you pitch the yeast...before or after shaking?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 07:07:06 PM
OK, so you shake the hell out of it at the beginning.  Your "instructions" post was unclear about when you pitch the yeast...before or after shaking?

The steps in the process outlined above are sequential.  Many people have pitched Wyeast and White Labs cultures before shaking without serious negative effects; therefore, the I am assuming that one minute of vigorous shaking is not enough to stress the living daylights out of the initial mother cells.  Those who want to avoid any possibility of encountering shear stress should wait until after shaking to inoculate the stater (i.e., pitch the Wyeast or White Labs culture).  However, I will be curious to see if there are any major differences in performance.  I believe that there is room for improvement with any process.  However, we do rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns.

To be completely honest, I was amazed at how well the technique was received within the British home brewing community.  For as stodgy as Americans believe that British people can be, the U.K. home brewing community appears to be far less dogmatic than the U.S. home brewing community.  They have provided a lot of useful feedback.  The technique has been a much harder sell within the American home brewing community because we have the propensity to make simple things difficult and oversimplify difficult things.   
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 28, 2015, 07:35:37 PM
OK, so you shake the hell out of it at the beginning.  Your "instructions" post was unclear about when you pitch the yeast...before or after shaking?

The steps in the process outlined above are sequential.  Many people have pitched Wyeast and White Labs cultures before shaking without serious negative effects; therefore, the I am assuming that one minute of vigorous shaking is not enough to stress the living daylights out of the initial mother cells.  Those who want to avoid any possibility of encountering shear stress should wait until after shaking to inoculate the stater (i.e., pitch the Wyeast or White Labs culture).  However, I will be curious to see if there are any major differences in performance.  I believe that there is room for improvement with any process.  However, we do rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns.

To be completely honest, I was amazed at how well the technique was received within the British home brewing community.  For as stodgy as Americans believe that British people can be, the U.K. home brewing community appears to be far less dogmatic than the U.S. home brewing community.  They have provided a lot of useful feedback.  The technique has been a much harder sell within the American home brewing community because we have the propensity to make simple things difficult and oversimplify difficult things.

Amen, brother!  Thanks for the info.  Now that I know I didn't make mine per your instructions, I'll be curious to see how it performs.  Maybe we'll discover yet another way to do it.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: rcemech on September 28, 2015, 08:13:26 PM
Just a guess here, if you inoculate post shake, might you miss out on some of the surface area contact that is supposed to be one of the benefits?

I'm guessing that pre-shake inoculation means there are yeast cells happily replicating in the foam.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on September 28, 2015, 08:31:25 PM
Thanks for writing up your experience Denny.

I just might have to give this a try me self.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 09:19:21 PM
Just a guess here, if you inoculate post shake, might you miss out on some of the surface area contact that is supposed to be one of the benefits?

I'm guessing that pre-shake inoculation means there are yeast cells happily replicating in the foam.

Yes, I do believe that the cells may pick up more O2 during shaking, but there has to be cost.  The $10,000 question is, how big is that cost?  I do not have enough data points to draw a solid conclusion.  What I do know at this point is that the method has been replicated by enough people to know that it is not a fluke.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: kramerog on September 29, 2015, 02:25:55 AM
Foam only when shaking, not during the "regular" fermentation, which I assume is what you mean by "incubation".  And it's not nearly as much foam as what I see in your picture.

Turning the medium into mostly foam is the key to this method. If you are not producing at least as much foam as can be seen in the photo above, then you are not shaking vigorously and/or long enough.  I literally screw the cap down tight, and shake the vessel vertically as vigorously as I can for one minute.  A lot of people attempt the method with a solid rubber stopper, but a screw on cap is really not an option with the method.  One literally has to shake the starter like one is attempting to collect money from it for the mafia.  One of the British brewers that I know from another forum wins the prize for shaking.  He managed to turn media almost completely into foam.  That feat requires a massive amount of shaking.

I've been ruminating about this technique and here are my ruminations.  Turning the wort into mostly foam isn't necessary to achieve 99% of saturation based on what I have read elsewhere.  Specifically, swirling a carboy for 40 seconds is enough to saturate wort with oxygen according to various reports and that produces very little foam.  So what does turning the wort into foam do?  I think if you don't pitch yeast first then the answer is basically nothing; the wort is fully aerated but you could have gotten the same result without a workout. 

So let's assume that pitching the yeast into the starter wort and then shaking the starter is key.  If nothing happens while the yeast is contained in the foam then all you got yourself is some shear-stressed yeast,  wort at saturation and a sweaty brewer.  So now you've wasted your energy and damaged your yeast.

So let's assume that something happens while the yeast is suspended in the foam.  Is it possible that the yeast can work fast enough to deplete the dissolved oxygen in the starter  and that oxygen in the bubbles transfers into the wort and into the yeast before the foam entirely collapses but that this oxygen transfer is minimal without foam?  In other words, shaken not stirred has the benefit of making a starter with pure oxygen, without the technology and cost?

What are your thoughts on why the vigorous shaking is key?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 29, 2015, 02:44:22 PM
I've been ruminating about this technique and here are my ruminations.  Turning the wort into mostly foam isn't necessary to achieve 99% of saturation based on what I have read elsewhere.  Specifically, swirling a carboy for 40 seconds is enough to saturate wort with oxygen according to various reports and that produces very little foam.

Remember what I mentioned earlier about the tendency of American home brewers to make easy things hard and oversimplify hard things?  Here's one of the areas where American home brewers attempt to oversimplify a hard thing.

There's no way that 40 seconds of swirling fully saturates a 5-gallon carboy full of wort. Whoever made that claim was absent the day that they taught partial pressures in thermodynamics.  There is not enough surface area, nor is there enough gas for saturation to occur in 40 seconds.  There had to O2 pickup during the transfer.  Once again, a gas dissolves into a liquid at the interface between the gas and the liquid.  Surface area is critical to the process.

Quote
What are your thoughts on why the vigorous shaking is key?

There is no magic bullet.  The method merely takes advantage of physics to maximize dissolved O2 in a low tech way.  While the cells that are on the surface of the thin layers of liquid that form the bubbles are subjected to 21% O2, does that O2 pickup impact growth?  I do not have enough data points to draw a conclusion.  Here's what I do know, brewing yeast cells only need three things to grow: carbon (sugar is carbon bound to water; hence, the term carbohydrate), space, and enough O2 to support cellular health.  They do not need to be stirred during propagation because most brewing strains exhibit NewFlo flocculation; hence, they will not clump (floc) or sediment until glucose, mannose, maltose, sucrose, and maltotriose have reached genetically set levels, which are on the other side of high krausen.  Having fully air saturated wort from the start makes it easier for the mother cells to replenish their ergosterol and unsaturated fatty acid reserves early on (the same thing occurs when we diffuse pure O2 before pitching).  A mother cell with full ergosterol and UFA reserves is a healthy cell. A mother cell shares her ergosterol and UFA reserves with all of her daughters. The fuller her reserves, the fuller her daughter cell's reserves and her daughter's daughter's cells, and so forth.   Ergosterol and UFAs make the cell plasma membrane more pliable, which makes it easier for nutrients to pass into and waste products to exit the cell.  In effect, ergosterol and UFA levels affect a cell's ability to utilize carbon for energy.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: kramerog on September 29, 2015, 03:03:05 PM
Thanks for your thoughts.  I've always been skeptical of the 40 second swirling thing so while I do it I also aerate while racking.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: macbrews on September 29, 2015, 03:13:52 PM
So could there be an advantage in this technique if you added pure O2 to the wort via a stone, or to the deadspace prior to shaking, or would that be unnecessary?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on September 29, 2015, 04:38:01 PM
To me, and this is the reason I tried Mark's procedure, it comes down to what's the difference between the theoretical ideal and the practical reality?  I've always said to Mark that while his methods were undoubtedly the best way to do it, I didn't think that there would be any difference in real life.  I decided it was time to find out for sure.  I would say to all of you who are posting theories about why it will or won't work, TRY IT for yourself and post your results.  That's the way citizen science works.  We need more than just a few data points.  And a big thanks to Mark (and Marshall and all the other experimenters) who make us all think and re-evaluate what we think we know.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 29, 2015, 05:34:40 PM
So could there be an advantage in this technique if you added pure O2 to the wort via a stone, or to the deadspace prior to shaking, or would that be unnecessary?

One does not need to shake if one uses pure O2.  Oxygen from air saturates at 8ppm at room temperature.  Pure O2 saturates at 40ppm, which is almost double the amount of O2 that would be available to the cells if they were growing in air.

With that said, this technique is best suited to the propagation of class O1 (4ppm dissolved O2) and class O2 (8ppm dissolved O2) strains (from my experience, most of the strains available to home brewers fall into either class O1 or class O2 when it comes to O2 demand).  I recently propagated a class O3 (40ppm)/class O4 (>40ppm) yeast strain (NCYC 1333), and its O2 demand pushed the outside of the envelope.  What that said, the strain did achieve over 80% apparent attenuation with open fermentation, so I may be wrong.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on September 29, 2015, 06:05:15 PM
So could there be an advantage in this technique if you added pure O2 to the wort via a stone, or to the deadspace prior to shaking, or would that be unnecessary?
It's what I do. 30 seconds O2, shake a little
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on September 30, 2015, 02:11:23 PM
so Mark- I have a stir plate with 5 speed settings. i stopped creating a vortex by lowering speed so that the wort was just circulating but no vortex. i leave it on for about 8-12hrs then shut it down and when high krausen, then if ready pitch or put in fridge until im ready.

without vortex, would this facilitate good culture growth without shear stress?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 30, 2015, 02:55:38 PM
without vortex, would this facilitate good culture growth without shear stress?

Shear stress is placed on the cells as long as there is turbulent flow.  Lowering the stir speed just reduces the level of shear stress that cells constantly have to endure.  Lowering the stir speed will lower the amount of O2 that gets dissolved before the culture starts to outgas (O2 does not enter the flask after the culture starts to outgas), which will result in poor health if one does not inject sterile air or O2.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on September 30, 2015, 03:57:23 PM
I think this is something that has been imprinted on the minds of brewers (myself included): that yeast propagation occurs more readily or in a more beneficial way when the solution it is in is stirred - fast or slow. From what Mark is saying about how yeast is genetically modified to stay in *suspension* until the wort dips below a threshold level of sugar, this is not the case at all. If it were, we should really be setting up giant stir plates underneath our carboys during fermentation.

** Trying to use more accurate language - I don't think yeast can ever truly be in solution.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 30, 2015, 07:02:19 PM
From what Mark is saying about how yeast is genetically modified to stay in *suspension* until the wort dips below a threshold level of sugar

The tendency to remain in suspension until genetically set levels of glucose, mannose, maltose, sucrose, and maltriose are reached is only exhibited by yeast strains that exhibit NewFlo flocculation.  The are Flo1 brewing strains where flocculation is inhibited by mannose, but not glucose.  NCYC 1269 is a Saccharomyces pastorianus (lager) strain that exhibits Flo1 flocculation.

NCYC 1269

Information
        Flocculent.
        Flo1 type flocculation.
        For use in Tower Continuous Fermenters.

Depositor
   Dr. R.N. Greenshields, University of Aston, Birmingham, UK.
Deposit Name
   Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces carlsbergensis, Sacc
Month of deposit
   March
Deposit Year
   1968
Habitat
   Lager production strain.


Hopefully, forum members noticed the comment about the NCYC 1269 being used in continuous tower fermentation.  Continuous fermentation is a very different process from how we make beer.  Tower fermenters are bioreactors that are used to ferment beer using a continuous process where beer is continuously drawn off of the top while fresh wort and O2 are added, and yeast is recycled.  Fermentation occurs very quickly in a tower fermentation vessel.  Ales usually ferment in around 4 hours whereas lagers ferment in around 10 hours.  While exhibiting NewFlo flocculation, Whitbread "B" (a.k.a. NCYC 1026, Wyeast 1098, White Labs WLP007, and Fermentis S-04) was originally selected for use in tower fermentation vessels, which is why it is so darn flocculent.

NCYC 1026

Information
   Flocculent.
NewFlo type flocculation.
       1:5:4:5:5
       O2, DMS 33 µg/l, low acetic, high lactic, diacetyl 0.42ppm only, used commercially in Tower
       Fermenters (continuous process),
non head-forming, no estery flavour. Contains 2µ plasmid.
Depositor
   British Brewery
Deposit Name
   Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Month of deposit
   June
Deposit Year
   1958
Habitat
   Ale production strain



Tower Fermentation Vessel

(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv356/tonestack/Brewing/TowerFermentationVessel_zpsn7p0v5st.jpg)

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: kramerog on October 01, 2015, 03:03:16 PM
I would say to all of you who are posting theories about why it will or won't work, TRY IT for yourself and post your results.  That's the way citizen science works.  We need more than just a few data points.  And a big thanks to Mark (and Marshall and all the other experimenters) who make us all think and re-evaluate what we think we know.

Understanding why something works or doesn't work is science too and can allow knowledge to be applied to other ways of making starters.  In particular, the biggest issue for me with this method is that I like having my starter finished before I brew; pitching at high krausen adds another complication to the brew day.  The knowledge I gain here can help me make better starters the way I like to make them.

Having said that I may try this method the next time I do a split batch and post the results here.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 01, 2015, 04:03:22 PM
Understanding why something works or doesn't work is science too and can allow knowledge to be applied to other ways of making starters.  In particular, the biggest issue for me with this method is that I like having my starter finished before I brew; pitching at high krausen adds another complication to the brew day.  The knowledge I gain here can help me make better starters the way I like to make them.

Having said that I may try this method the next time I do a split batch and post the results here.

I completely agree.  And I really doubt this method is the be all, end all, ONLY good method.  It's likely just another very good method...but I won't know without trying it and seeing for myself.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 01, 2015, 06:08:49 PM
In particular, the biggest issue for me with this method is that I like having my starter finished before I brew; pitching at high krausen adds another complication to the brew day. 

This method will generally allow a brewer to make his/her starter the night before brewing, eliminating the need for a long lead time (i.e., it is almost as convenient as using dry yeast).  That being said, the method will still work if a brewer finds himself/herself unable to brew until after the starter ferments out.  A fermented out shaken, not stirred starter works as well as any other starter of the same volume that is allowed to ferment out.  However, the key to maximizing this method or any other starter method is to pitch at high krausen.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 01, 2015, 06:17:20 PM
UPDATE:  Today is a week after brewing.  I took a gravity reading and it's down to 1.013, which is where it would be with my old starter method.  So, attenuation has not been an issue...not that I really expected it to be.  I have a sample chilling and carbing in a PET bottle.  I'll taste it later today.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 01, 2015, 10:03:02 PM
Denny, what pressure do you hit the carb cap with? Shake? How long do you chill it?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on October 01, 2015, 10:09:17 PM
I do 30 psi, shake like mad, hit it again, shake, and chill in the freezer for 30 minutes.

EDIT:  Of course, I recognize I'm not Denny...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 01, 2015, 10:29:13 PM
I do 30 psi, shake like mad, hit it again, shake, and chill in the freezer for 30 minutes.

EDIT:  Of course, I recognize I'm not Denny...
It's all good. I can get a consensus this way.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 02, 2015, 12:36:26 AM
I do 30psi chilled....pretty quick


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ynotbrusum on October 02, 2015, 02:29:33 AM
Good to hear on the technique - I had a high psi and had some backwash into the CO2 line when rocking at 30 psi.  It makes sense to hit it then shake it with the CO2 disconnected....
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: jjflash on October 02, 2015, 04:40:33 AM
For my starters <1.040 I hit them with air stone & pump till foamed to the top then onto the shaker table.
For my starters >1.075 I hit them with O2 till foamed to the top then onto the shaker table.
Been very pleased with my yeast performance this past year using this new technique, especially with big beers >1.080 OG and Belgian yeasts.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 02, 2015, 12:32:24 PM
Denny must have tried this by now - interested to hear what he thinks...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narcout on October 02, 2015, 04:24:55 PM
I completely agree.  And I really doubt this method is the be all, end all, ONLY good method.  It's likely just another very good method...but I won't know without trying it and seeing for myself.

I think it's been demonstrated pretty conclusively that one can brew excellent beer that scores well and wins ribbons in major competitions with yeast that was propagated on a stir plate.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a better way, nor does it preclude the possibility that stir plates are useless or even detrimental for our purposes. 

I'm looking forward to reading about everyone's experiments.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 02, 2015, 05:22:44 PM
I think it's been demonstrated pretty conclusively that one can brew excellent beer that scores well and wins ribbons in major competitions with yeast that was propagated on a stir plate.

People have won gold medals with beers pitched directly from the old-style Wyeast smack packs.

Quote
That doesn't mean that there isn't a better way, nor does it preclude the possibility that stir plates are useless or even detrimental for our purposes.

I have never claimed that my method is the "be all, end all" way to make a starter, and I hope that people do not attempt to treat it that way.  I have always sold my method as a low-cost, low-tech, low-stress method of making a healthy yeast starter that performs as well, if not better than other methods.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 02, 2015, 09:51:06 PM
Denny, what pressure do you hit the carb cap with? Shake? How long do you chill it?

I out 12 oz. in a 20 oz. PET bottle.  Squeeze out the air and hit it with 30 psi, shaking the crap out of it.  In the freezer for 45 min.  Then drink!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 02, 2015, 09:51:46 PM
I do 30 psi, shake like mad, hit it again, shake, and chill in the freezer for 30 minutes.

EDIT:  Of course, I recognize I'm not Denny...

Great minds, dude!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 02, 2015, 09:52:37 PM
Good to hear on the technique - I had a high psi and had some backwash into the CO2 line when rocking at 30 psi.  It makes sense to hit it then shake it with the CO2 disconnected....

I shake with the CO2 connected.  I keep the bottle uprioght so no flow back.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 02, 2015, 09:56:20 PM
Denny must have tried this by now - interested to hear what he thinks...

DEEEE-LISHUS!  At just one week after brewing, the beer was fantastic!  It reinforced my belief in Dr. Cone's theory because it was cleaner and less estery than when I've used a larger starter made on a stir plate.  And that includes the fact that I pitched the starter wort.  I think that the "conventional wisdom" about pitching rates and esters must be strain dependent.  More details when I have more time.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 02, 2015, 10:32:46 PM
Great news.
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 02, 2015, 11:05:05 PM
Denny must have tried this by now - interested to hear what he thinks...

He started the thread. Were all waiting to hear his opinion on the finished product.

EDIT: Nevermind. Tapatalk made me look foolish! He already posted his results!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 02, 2015, 11:09:11 PM
Denny must have tried this by now - interested to hear what he thinks...

He started the thread. Were all waiting to hear his opinion on the finished product.

EDIT: Nevermind. Tapatalk made me look foolish! He already posted his results!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah, I just meant tried the carbed beer ;)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 02, 2015, 11:42:52 PM

Denny must have tried this by now - interested to hear what he thinks...

He started the thread. Were all waiting to hear his opinion on the finished product.

EDIT: Nevermind. Tapatalk made me look foolish! He already posted his results!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah, I just meant tried the carbed beer ;)

Understood. Long day today!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 03, 2015, 12:41:50 AM
It's also possible you were over pitching in the past.  For 5 gallons of 1.060 ish wort, you really only need 200 billion cells to hit the "textbook" ale pitching rate.  That's maybe a 1L starter on a stir plate.
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 03, 2015, 12:45:24 AM
Not surprised. Not much different from what I experienced with a pack of fresh pure pitch .....doesn't take a ton of yeast when they are healthy and ready to rock.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 03, 2015, 02:32:00 AM
This weekend (Tuesday for me) I'm taking my second run at no stir starters with a pale and a stout. After those, it's lager time. I'm not freaked out about doing it with a lager, but rather keeping an open mind. Honestly, I hope they turn out world class. Why wouldn't I?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 04, 2015, 11:00:55 AM
In particular, the biggest issue for me with this method is that I like having my starter finished before I brew; pitching at high krausen adds another complication to the brew day. 

This method will generally allow a brewer to make his/her starter the night before brewing, eliminating the need for a long lead time (i.e., it is almost as convenient as using dry yeast).  That being said, the method will still work if a brewer finds himself/herself unable to brew until after the starter ferments out.  A fermented out shaken, not stirred starter works as well as any other starter of the same volume that is allowed to ferment out.  However, the key to maximizing this method or any other starter method is to pitch at high krausen.

what is it about high krausen that is so important?  does this allow the yeast to immediately start replicating when it is pitched into the wort?  what would happen if it wasn't high krausen?  how long does this window of time (high krausen) typically last?
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 04, 2015, 12:26:01 PM
what is it about high krausen that is so important?  does this allow the yeast to immediately start replicating when it is pitched into the wort?  what would happen if it wasn't high krausen?  how long does this window of time (high krausen) typically last?

High krausen represents the peak activity of the yeast. It's similar to when a fermenting batch is top cropped and pitched into a new batch at high krausen. The yeast are most active and healthy at this stage.

The timing has been discussed earlier in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 04, 2015, 12:41:59 PM
what is it about high krausen that is so important?  does this allow the yeast to immediately start replicating when it is pitched into the wort?  what would happen if it wasn't high krausen?  how long does this window of time (high krausen) typically last?

High krausen represents the peak activity of the yeast. It's similar to when a fermenting batch is top cropped and pitched into a new batch at high krausen. The yeast are most active and healthy at this stage.

The timing has been discussed earlier in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect there is something a little more to it than that.  I believe I have read that early in the fermentation the yeast needs to drop the pH of the wort.  I'm under the impression that the fewer yeast cells there are to start with the more difficult this process becomes.  but perhaps yeast that are already actively replicating (high krausen?) is a different scenario.  some detail on that would be nice.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 04, 2015, 12:58:01 PM

I suspect there is something a little more to it than that.  I believe I have read that early in the fermentation the yeast needs to drop the pH of the wort.  I'm under the impression that the fewer yeast cells there are to start with the more difficult this process becomes.  but perhaps yeast that are already actively replicating (high krausen?) is a different scenario.  some detail on that would be nice.

I'll let Mark chime in, but I suspect people may be overthinking this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 04, 2015, 12:58:04 PM
what is it about high krausen that is so important?  does this allow the yeast to immediately start replicating when it is pitched into the wort?  what would happen if it wasn't high krausen?  how long does this window of time (high krausen) typically last?

High krausen represents the peak activity of the yeast. It's similar to when a fermenting batch is top cropped and pitched into a new batch at high krausen. The yeast are most active and healthy at this stage.

The timing has been discussed earlier in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect there is something a little more to it than that.  I believe I have read that early in the fermentation the yeast needs to drop the pH of the wort.  I'm under the impression that the fewer yeast cells there are to start with the more difficult this process becomes.  but perhaps yeast that are already actively replicating (high krausen?) is a different scenario.  some detail on that would be nice.
From Mr Malty aka Zainashef

"Q: At what point do I pitch the starter into the wort? A great deal of discussion rages over this topic. Should the starter be fermented completely, the spent liquid decanted, and the yeast pitched or should the entire starter be pitched when at the height of activity? Most yeast experts say that when propagating yeast, moving at high krausen is optimal. The time of high krauesen can range anywhere from a few hours to twenty-four or more. It depends on the amount of yeast added to the starter wort, yeast health, temperature, and several other factors. Doss says a starter made from an XL pack of yeast into 2 liters of wort will reach its maximum cell density within 12-18 hours. If you're starting with a very small amount of yeast in a large starter, it can take 24 hours or more to reach maximum cell densities. For the average starter, let's just say that the bulk of the yeast growth is done by 12-18 hours. I like to pitch starters while they're still very active and as soon as the bulk of reproduction is finished, usually within 12 to 18 hours. This is really convenient, because I can make a starter the morning of the brew day or the night before and it is ready to go by the time the batch of wort is ready. "

It seems to me that they key controversy is stirplates. Zainashef has said they are the best, Mark says no. I know that stirplates work. I know that oxygenated shook starters with no stirplate work too, but I end up with a far better smelling pitch, and so far the main fermentation appears to take off faster and is more vigorous. But thats from just one trial so far.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 04, 2015, 01:15:33 PM
From Mr Malty aka Zainashef

"Q: At what point do I pitch the starter into the wort? A great deal of discussion rages over this topic. Should the starter be fermented completely, the spent liquid decanted, and the yeast pitched or should the entire starter be pitched when at the height of activity? Most yeast experts say that when propagating yeast, moving at high krausen is optimal. The time of high krauesen can range anywhere from a few hours to twenty-four or more. It depends on the amount of yeast added to the starter wort, yeast health, temperature, and several other factors. Doss says a starter made from an XL pack of yeast into 2 liters of wort will reach its maximum cell density within 12-18 hours. If you're starting with a very small amount of yeast in a large starter, it can take 24 hours or more to reach maximum cell densities. For the average starter, let's just say that the bulk of the yeast growth is done by 12-18 hours. I like to pitch starters while they're still very active and as soon as the bulk of reproduction is finished, usually within 12 to 18 hours. This is really convenient, because I can make a starter the morning of the brew day or the night before and it is ready to go by the time the batch of wort is ready. "

It seems to me that they key controversy is stirplates. Zainashef has said they are the best, Mark says no. I know that stirplates work. I know that oxygenated shook starters with no stirplate work too, but I end up with a far better smelling pitch, and so far the main fermentation appears to take off faster and is more vigorous. But thats from just one trial so far.

I think the pitching rate is the second area of contention here.  Mr. Malty recommends something around 0.75-1.5M cells per mL per deg plato.  Here it is something more like 0.25M cells per mL per deg plato.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 04, 2015, 01:42:42 PM
From Mr Malty aka Zainashef

"Q: At what point do I pitch the starter into the wort? A great deal of discussion rages over this topic. Should the starter be fermented completely, the spent liquid decanted, and the yeast pitched or should the entire starter be pitched when at the height of activity? Most yeast experts say that when propagating yeast, moving at high krausen is optimal. The time of high krauesen can range anywhere from a few hours to twenty-four or more. It depends on the amount of yeast added to the starter wort, yeast health, temperature, and several other factors. Doss says a starter made from an XL pack of yeast into 2 liters of wort will reach its maximum cell density within 12-18 hours. If you're starting with a very small amount of yeast in a large starter, it can take 24 hours or more to reach maximum cell densities. For the average starter, let's just say that the bulk of the yeast growth is done by 12-18 hours. I like to pitch starters while they're still very active and as soon as the bulk of reproduction is finished, usually within 12 to 18 hours. This is really convenient, because I can make a starter the morning of the brew day or the night before and it is ready to go by the time the batch of wort is ready. "

It seems to me that they key controversy is stirplates. Zainashef has said they are the best, Mark says no. I know that stirplates work. I know that oxygenated shook starters with no stirplate work too, but I end up with a far better smelling pitch, and so far the main fermentation appears to take off faster and is more vigorous. But thats from just one trial so far.

I think the pitching rate is the second area of contention here.  Mr. Malty recommends something around 0.75-1.5M cells per mL per deg plato.  Here it is something more like 0.25M cells per mL per deg plato.
Earlier in the "yeast essentials" article, zainashef talks about needed cell count, but if you read it in context hes talking about repitching a harvested slurry there. A starter that is fermented out, crashed, and decanted is basically a harvested yeast slurry. Seems to me an amount of harvested slurry may have different requirements than active high krausen pitch.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 04, 2015, 01:49:27 PM
From Mr Malty aka Zainashef

"Q: At what point do I pitch the starter into the wort? A great deal of discussion rages over this topic. Should the starter be fermented completely, the spent liquid decanted, and the yeast pitched or should the entire starter be pitched when at the height of activity? Most yeast experts say that when propagating yeast, moving at high krausen is optimal. The time of high krauesen can range anywhere from a few hours to twenty-four or more. It depends on the amount of yeast added to the starter wort, yeast health, temperature, and several other factors. Doss says a starter made from an XL pack of yeast into 2 liters of wort will reach its maximum cell density within 12-18 hours. If you're starting with a very small amount of yeast in a large starter, it can take 24 hours or more to reach maximum cell densities. For the average starter, let's just say that the bulk of the yeast growth is done by 12-18 hours. I like to pitch starters while they're still very active and as soon as the bulk of reproduction is finished, usually within 12 to 18 hours. This is really convenient, because I can make a starter the morning of the brew day or the night before and it is ready to go by the time the batch of wort is ready. "

It seems to me that they key controversy is stirplates. Zainashef has said they are the best, Mark says no. I know that stirplates work. I know that oxygenated shook starters with no stirplate work too, but I end up with a far better smelling pitch, and so far the main fermentation appears to take off faster and is more vigorous. But thats from just one trial so far.

I think the pitching rate is the second area of contention here.  Mr. Malty recommends something around 0.75-1.5M cells per mL per deg plato.  Here it is something more like 0.25M cells per mL per deg plato.
Earlier in the "yeast essentials" article, zainashef talks about needed cell count, but if you read it in context hes talking about repitching a harvested slurry there. A starter that is fermented out, crashed, and decanted is basically a harvested yeast slurry. Seems to me an amount of harvested slurry may have different requirements than active high krausen pitch.

that makes sense.  I was just looking for the reason why so I can sleep well at night :P
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 04, 2015, 03:06:36 PM
This weekend (Tuesday for me) I'm taking my second run at no stir starters with a pale and a stout. After those, it's lager time. I'm not freaked out about doing it with a lager, but rather keeping an open mind. Honestly, I hope they turn out world class. Why wouldn't I?

Curious to hear firstly how you plan on tackling the lager starters in this method, and secondly your results with the lager starters and batch tastings. 

After reading this thread it looks like 1 pack of lager yeast into 1 L wort (shaken method) inoculated post shaking. Then fermenting around low 70's to increase cell biomass, then once it reaches high krausen, chill to around 50F and pitch all into your cooled batch of wort. Obviously for a normal gravity lager (1.050 or so).  Am I missing something here?

It still seems like such a small amount of yeast, but if there is increased health and vigor, then that may make all the difference. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewday on October 04, 2015, 03:18:11 PM
It still seems like such a small amount of yeast, but if there is increased health and vigor, then that may make all the difference.

I think you've got it there.  Mark has said before that the only cell count that matters is the viable cell count.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 04, 2015, 03:56:05 PM
that makes sense.  I was just looking for the reason why so I can sleep well at night :P

You are overthinking the problem and treating it like black magic when the problem is one of basic biological science; namely, how do we ensure that our culture owns the wort?   We do so by pitching enough cells to ensure that we reach maximum cell density before any invaders have a chance to take control of the wort.  A yeast culture owns a batch of wort by lowering the pH below 4.6, which prevents a whole host of pH sensitive bacteria, including pathogens, from gaining a foothold in the wort.  It also consumes all of the dissolved O2, which prevents wild aerobic microflora from gaining a foothold in the wort.  Finally, a yeast culture produces ethanol, which is toxic to all carbon-based lifeforms at a given level. Brewing yeast cultures have been domesticated via selective pressure to be able to withstand the ethanol levels encountered in brewing.  Most wild microflora cannot withstand the ethanol levels encountered in fermentation (which is why rinsing yeast with and storing it under boiled water is a bad idea). 

A concept that brewer's need to burn into their minds is that fermentation is controlled spoilage.  The key word here is "controlled."   We want the pitched microflora to own the wort.  The problem that we face is that the bacteria cell count doubles three times in the same amount of time that it takes for the yeast cell count to double, and no brewery is sterile.  The difference in replication rates means that the bacteria cell count grows by a factor of 8 (2 * 2 * 2) every time the yeast cell count doubles; hence, we are looking at 8n and 2n growth models for bacteria and yeast respectively when we normalize the growth rates to the time it takes for the yeast cell count to double.


Here’s the  reason why we make a starter:

yeast_cell_count_at_time_t = initial_cell_count * 2(t / replication_period_in_minutes), where t is the amount of minutes that have elapsed since the culture transitioned from the lag phase to the logarithmic phase

bacteria_cell_count_at_time_t = initial_cell_count * 8(t / replication_period_in_minutes), where the t is the amount of minutes that have elapsed since the culture transitioned from the lag phase to the logarithmic phase

Let's look at a situation that we never want to have occur; namely, pitching so little yeast that the culture has to spend 24 hours in logarithmic growth in order to reach maximum cell density (this situation was common in the bad old days).

t = 1440 (24 hours into the logarithmic phase, or 16 replication periods because the average replication period for a yeast cell is 90 minutes)

2 raised to the power of 16 is 65,536

yeast_cell_count_at_time_t = initial_cell_count * 65,536

8 raised to the power of 16 is 281,474,976,710,656

bacteria_cell_count_at_time_t = initial_cell_count * 281,474,976,710,656

If the yeast cells do not own the media long before twenty-four hours of exiting the lag phase and our brewery is not clean enough to eat off of the floor, it’s all over; therefore, we want to ensure that the yeast culture never needs go through more than six to seven replication periods in order to reach maximum cell density (signaled by high krausen).  The reason why we pitch at high krausen is because it shortens the lag phase, which starts replication earlier.

maximum_cell_density_for_1L = 200 billion

Most brewers who use 5-gallon soda kegs start 5.5 gallons of wort in the primary.

maximum_cell_density_for_5.5_gallons =  21 * 200 billion = 4.2 trillion  (5.5 gallons is roughly 21 liters)


our_culture_cell_count_low = 50 billion

number_of_replication_periods = log(4.2 trillion / 50 billion) / log(2) = 6.4 replication periods (or 9.6 hours spent in the logarithmic phase)


our_culture_cell_count_high = 200 billion

number_of_replication_periods = log(4.2 trillion / 200 billion) / log(2) = 4.4 replication periods (6.6 hours spent in the logarithmic phase)

If a replication period is 90 minutes on average at ale fermentation temperature (64-68F),  then our yeast cultures will saturate the wort within 6.6 to 9.6 hours after leaving the lag phase, making the time spent in the lag phase the hold up.  When we pitch a culture that has sedimented (i.e., quiescent cells), we are pitching cells that underwent survival-related morphological (cellular) changes.  They stored glycogen and the disaccharide trehalose.  The also thickened their cell walls.  It takes time after pitching for these changes to be reversed.  Additionally, all replication past high krausen is for replacement only, and mother cells share their ergosterol and unsaturated fatty acid (UFA) reserves with their daughters and their daughters share their reserves with their daughters and so forth; therefore, allowing a starter to proceed past high krausen wastes ergosterol and UFAs.  Ergosterol and UFAs are synthesized by the pitched yeast cells during the lag phase.  The more ergosterol and UFAs a cell needs to replenish, the longer it remains in the lag phase and the higher the O2 load placed on the wort because these compounds are synthesized in the respirative metabolic pathway using O2.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 04, 2015, 08:42:05 PM
It still seems like such a small amount of yeast, but if there is increased health and vigor, then that may make all the difference.

I think you've got it there.  Mark has said before that the only cell count that matters is the viable cell count.

Viable is the wrong word; you should also have > 90% viability after making a starter and letting it ferment out.  I think the claim is that , since yeast at high krausen has not had to deplete reserves of various things needed for growth  in preparation for dormancy, they are prepared to multiply more than yeast from finished fermentation.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 04, 2015, 09:19:16 PM
that makes sense.  I was just looking for the reason why so I can sleep well at night :P

You are overthinking the problem and treating it like black magic when the problem is one of basic biological science; namely, how do we ensure that our culture owns the wort?   

one of the things I wasn't sure of is if the yeast needed to change something about the wort environment before really doing their thing.  what actually happens during the lag phase is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 04, 2015, 10:26:46 PM
This weekend (Tuesday for me) I'm taking my second run at no stir starters with a pale and a stout. After those, it's lager time. I'm not freaked out about doing it with a lager, but rather keeping an open mind. Honestly, I hope they turn out world class. Why wouldn't I?

Curious to hear firstly how you plan on tackling the lager starters in this method, and secondly your results with the lager starters and batch tastings. 

After reading this thread it looks like 1 pack of lager yeast into 1 L wort (shaken method) inoculated post shaking. Then fermenting around low 70's to increase cell biomass, then once it reaches high krausen, chill to around 50F and pitch all into your cooled batch of wort. Obviously for a normal gravity lager (1.050 or so).  Am I missing something here?

It still seems like such a small amount of yeast, but if there is increased health and vigor, then that may make all the difference.
I'll probably post the heck out of it when the time comes.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 04, 2015, 10:38:00 PM
what actually happens during the lag phase is somewhat of a mystery to me.

One can think of the lag phase as a period where the cells adjust to their new home and get ready for exponential (logarithmic) growth.  The cells need to replenish their ergosterol and UFA reserves because these compounds make the cell membrane more pliable, which makes it easier for a cell to pass nutrients into and waste products out of the cell.  Anything that impacts metabolism impacts replication as well as the ability to attenuate the extract.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 04, 2015, 11:14:35 PM
It still seems like such a small amount of yeast, but if there is increased health and vigor, then that may make all the difference.

Why does a 1 to 19 step seem like a small amount of yeast?  Because some other brewer said that one has to pitch X number of cells per degree Plato per milliliter of wort?   What is the basis for that metric?  What were the environmental conditions under which the metric was developed?  How clean was the brewery? What was the average age of the cells? What amount of hydrostatic pressure were the cells subjected to previously? Without this data, the suggested pitching rates are not very useful in a home brewery.

Commercial pitching rates take into account the high microbial loads encountered in commercial breweries as well as the fact that a large percentage of the pitched cells have been through more than one fermentation, not to mention have had to endure significant hydrostatic pressure in tall cylindroconical fermentation vessels. Young yeast cells are like young humans when it comes to the ability to reproduce.  A 1L starter contains at least 50% new cells, and the old cells were grown under conditions designed to preserve health.  In essence, a starter is a totally different beast.

As I have stated many times, what determines if a fermentation will proceed successfully are the health of the cells going into the fermentation, dissolved O2, and the amount of carbon (and nitrogen) available to the cells.  If we pitch a small amount of cells that are in poor health into poorly aerated wort, we can expect less than stellar results.  If we pitch a normal amount of cells into high gravity wort, we can expect less than stellar results because the effects of high alcohol and high osmotic pressure coupled with lower O2 solubility wreak havoc on the cells and reproduction. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 04, 2015, 11:42:16 PM
I will add one more thing to this discussion for those who believe that a 1L starter is too small for a 5-gallon batch.  Back in the nineties, Maribeth Raines and Jeff Mellem started a groundbreaking yeast company called BrewTek.  BrewTek sold yeast on mini-slants and yeast culturing kits (Denny's Favorite 50 started out as BrewTek CL-50).  Guess what size Erlenmeyer flask shipped with the BrewTek kit (Denny, you are not allowed to answer this question)?  I will give you a hint.  It was not a 2L Erlenmeyer flask.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 05, 2015, 12:41:40 AM
I will add one more thing to this discussion for those who believe that a 1L starter is too small for a 5-gallon batch.  Back in the nineties, Maribeth Raines and Jeff Mellem started a groundbreaking yeast company called BrewTek.  BrewTek sold yeast on mini-slants and yeast culturing kits (Denny's Favorite 50 started out as BrewTek CL-50).  Guess what size Erlenmeyer flask shipped with the BrewTek kit (Denny, you are not allowed to answer this question)?  I will give you a hint.  It was not a 2L Erlenmeyer flask.
My guess is a repuposed half pint jelly jar.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 05, 2015, 12:51:20 AM
Yeah, like anyone made good beer in the 90s.  People brewed mostly English ales then because with their flavor, no one could tell if the fermentation went wrong   :D

Seriously though, the idea of proper pitching rate matters very little with Chico yeast in a 1.060 ale.  Yeast IS like a bomb and will get the job done.  However, when you're going for 88% attenuation on a Trappist clone or want 10 gallons of a dry pilsner, a few points of attenuation or some unwanted esters is a big deal.  These are the kind of beers that higher pitching rates have improved for many homebrewers.  If you're making 5 gallons of a pale ale or hefeweizen, just smack the pack.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 05, 2015, 12:59:57 AM
Yeah, like anyone made good beer in the 90s.  People brewed mostly English ales then because with their flavor, no one could tell if the fermentation went wrong   :D

Seriously though, the idea of proper pitching rate matters very little with Chico yeast in a 1.060 ale.  Yeast IS like a bomb and will get the job done.  However, when you're going for 88% attenuation on a Trappist clone or want 10 gallons of a dry pilsner, a few points of attenuation or some unwanted esters is a big deal.  These are the kind of beers that higher pitching rates have improved for many homebrewers.  If you're making 5 gallons of a pale ale or hefeweizen, just smack the pack.

I agree.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 05, 2015, 01:07:36 AM

However, when you're going for 88% attenuation on a Trappist clone or want 10 gallons of a dry pilsner, a few points of attenuation or some unwanted esters is a big deal.  These are the kind of beers that higher pitching rates have improved for many homebrewers.

Stan H.  notes in his first BeerSmith podcast that the Trappists pitch "scary low" amounts of yeast.  It seems that a healthy yeast is capable of transcending pitch rate, starter size, starter style, etc. This should be scalable at our level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 01:21:10 AM
However, when you're going for 88% attenuation on a Trappist clone or want 10 gallons of a dry pilsner, a few points of attenuation or some unwanted esters is a big deal.  These are the kind of beers that higher pitching rates have improved for many homebrewers. 

However, that information is a little oversimplified.  There are many ways to control ester and higher alcohol production.  For example, O2 can be used to control ester levels, even in high gravity wort1.  I have already covered the reasons why higher pitching rates are needed in high gravity beers.

[1] Oxygen As A Regulator Of Ester Accumulation During The Fermentation Of Wort Of High Specific Gravity, R.G. Anderson and B.H. Kirsop, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1975.tb03671.x/pdf

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 01:31:53 AM
My guess is a repuposed half pint jelly jar.

Close, it was 500ml Erlenmeyer flask.  The recommended starter size was 300ml. Guess what?  The approach worked very well.

By the way, then as now, the best selling home brewing yeast culture was BRY 96 (a.k.a. Ballantine "Beer," "Chico,"  Wyeast 1056, White Labs WLP001, Fermentis US-05, and BrewTek CL-10).  Amateur brewing was not all English-style ale, Cascade, Centennial, Chinook, and Columbus bombs were pretty darn common back in the nineties.   Recipes including English pale malt were nowhere near as common as recipes based on American 2-row combined with C60.  Quality English hops were also much more difficult to acquire than the American cultivars, which is why the seeds for the beers that we are drinking today were laid in the nineties (some would say in 1975 with the introduction of Anchor Liberty Ale).

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 05, 2015, 01:44:31 AM

However, when you're going for 88% attenuation on a Trappist clone or want 10 gallons of a dry pilsner, a few points of attenuation or some unwanted esters is a big deal.  These are the kind of beers that higher pitching rates have improved for many homebrewers.

Stan H.  notes in his first BeerSmith podcast that the Trappists pitch "scary low" amounts of yeast.  It seems that a healthy yeast is capable of transcending pitch rate, starter size, starter style, etc. This should be scalable at our level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're also repitching yeast from a previous fermentation.  Like Mark said, yeast is not going to perform optimally the first time in an actual fermentation.  This is especially true of the Rochefort yeast in my experience.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 05, 2015, 02:00:02 AM
My guess is a repuposed half pint jelly jar.

Close, it was 500ml Erlenmeyer flask.  The recommended starter size was 300ml. Guess what?  The approach worked very well.

By the way, then as now, the best selling home brewing yeast culture was BRY 96 (a.k.a. Ballantine "Beer," "Chico,"  Wyeast 1056, White Labs WLP001, Fermentis US-05, and BrewTek CL-10).  Amateur brewing was not all English-style ale, Cascade, Centennial, Chinook, and Columbus bombs were pretty darn common back in the nineties.   Recipes including English pale malt were nowhere near as common as recipes based on American 2-row combined with C60.  Quality English hops were also much more difficult to acquire than the American cultivars, which is why the seeds for the beers that we are drinking today were laid in the nineties (some would say in 1975 with the introduction of Anchor Liberty Ale).
I chuckle every time I read comments about brewing way back in the 90s. I remember a guy I worked with brought me a bomber of what he said was "Its a chocolate raspberry stout. Thats a German beer. Drink it warm" I chilled it. It was about as sweet as a milkshake, but grittier. I thought it was awesome.  First real German beer I had ever tried. Edit: not counting Heineken
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 05, 2015, 02:12:59 AM
If you ever want a laugh, find the book "Home Brewing Without Failures" by H.E. Bravery.  It was published in the 50s in England but made its way over here in the 60s.  Read about 100% crystal malt recipes, 8 hour mashes, nettle wines, and more, with the bonus of a very opinionated British narrator.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 03:57:44 AM
I chuckle every time I read comments about brewing way back in the 90s. I remember a guy I worked with brought me a bomber of what he said was "Its a chocolate raspberry stout. Thats a German beer. Drink it warm" I chilled it. It was about as sweet as a milkshake, but grittier. I thought it was awesome.  First real German beer I had ever tried. Edit: not counting Heineken

Yes, I drank more than a few "interesting" beers back in the nineties (interesting is the only polite way to describe these beers), but I have to say that I have tasted way more infected beer in the last few years than I did in the nineties, and that includes professionally brewed beer.  I am also encountering more of what Denny refers to as "WTF was the brewer thinking" beers.  I judged a beer that was entered as a special bitter that tasted just like wintergreen flavored toothpaste.
 
People coming into the hobby today have no idea of how good they have it.  I became a yeast geek out of necessity.  Dry yeast was unusable for the most part, White Labs did not exist, and the Wyeast culture collection contained less than a dozen strains that might as well have been unobtainium on East Coast. I started plating and slanting yeast because that was the only way that I could obtain a reliable source of clean yeast for the first year or two.

All-grain brewing was another hurdle.  Home brewing supply shops tended to be small because they were in retail areas or someone's basement.  For example, I started purchasing supplies from Maryland Homebrew (MDHB) when it was still being operated out of the basement of the owner's previous residence.  The only grain being sold by the shop at that time was specialty grain.  The owner sold mostly kit beers that came in cans and canned extract (does anyone remember Bruce's Dogbolter?).  Things got a little better on the all-grain side when the owner quit his day gig and moved MDHB into commercial space.  However, purchasing grain in bulk grain usually meant being part of a club purchase (my first big grain purchase was 220lbs as part of a BURP buy).   It wasn't until MDHB moved to the industrial park where it currently resides (they used to be a couple of doors down) that the grain situation really improved for me.  Anyone visiting the shop today has no idea of how humble things were in the early days. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 05, 2015, 11:53:26 AM
Along the lines of laughable 90s recipes I'd add most (or all) of the old Cat's Meow recipe database. Tons of crystal malt, Cascade hops and 'ale yeast' in pretty much everything. Not coincidentally, every beer I brewed from there (not very many) tasted really similar.   ;)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: beersk on October 05, 2015, 01:01:34 PM
Neat stories there, guys. I've got it pretty dang good. I started brewing in 2008 and feel very lucky to have had Midwest brewing supplies and Northern Brewer to choose from fairly locally. Even helping a friend brewing in 2005, it seemed somewhat mysterious to me. The Midwest tutorial video, going back and thinking about it, I'd say is quite outdated, even today. Weird how fast things change.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 02:29:05 PM
Along the lines of laughable 90s recipes I'd add most (or all) of the old Cat's Meow recipe database. Tons of crystal malt, Cascade hops and 'ale yeast' in pretty much everything. Not coincidentally, every beer I brewed from there (not very many) tasted really similar.   ;)

I never used that recipe database.  Truth be told, I did not spend much time brewing other people's recipes.  I wanted to thoroughly understand the process.  That type of knowledge can only come from not playing it safe. 

With that said, I see the same kind of dynamic with hops today.  Hops are being used to hide a host of poor brewing practices and sins.  To the untrained palate, hops are like spices in that they can cover taint.  With modern home brewing, the taint is mostly caused by low-level infection, which I believe can be traced back to the almost universal use of Star San coupled with "drive by" (a.k.a. "spray and go") sanitization and poor yeast handling practices.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on October 05, 2015, 02:46:25 PM
Taint covered in hops...

You all make it sound like the 90s was a loooong time ago and brewing was a wasteland.

I made some truly enjoyable beers back in the 90s.  I'm still brewing one of the recipes I came up with back then.

Sure, there wasn't the diversity of ingredients that we have today but you can make good beer with basic ingredients.  You don't need six different kinds of hops and 14 different grains.

I will acknowledge, though, that there were many beers and recipes (brewed by myself and others, including some pro breweries) that all tasted just about the same.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 05, 2015, 02:50:35 PM
With that said, I see the same kind of dynamic with hops today.  Hops are being used to hide a host of poor brewing practices and sins.  To the untrained palate, hops are like spices in that they can cover taint.  With modern home brewing, the taint is mostly caused by low-level infection, which I believe can be traced back to the almost universal use of Star San coupled with "drive by" (a.k.a. "spray and go") sanitization and poor yeast handling practices.




I disagree Mark. While hoppy beers are no doubt extremely popular today (arguably overly so), I doubt very seriously that large numbers of brewers are adding extra hops to beers they wouldn't have otherwise, just to cover up infections. Hoppy beers are everywhere because that is the current consumer preference, like it or not.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 05, 2015, 02:57:32 PM
Taint covered in hops...


oh man choked on coffee...funny stuff  ;D
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 05, 2015, 03:00:07 PM
I've tasted flaws in very hoppy beers but yes, the hops do help to hide some things.  but taint?  aint nothing hiding that  :o
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 05, 2015, 03:07:56 PM
Taint covered in hops...

You all make it sound like the 90s was a loooong time ago and brewing was a wasteland.

I made some truly enjoyable beers back in the 90s.  I'm still brewing one of the recipes I came up with back then.

Sure, there wasn't the diversity of ingredients that we have today but you can make good beer with basic ingredients.  You don't need six different kinds of hops and 14 different grains.

I agree. I made some nice beers back then too. Just not from that source.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: reverseapachemaster on October 05, 2015, 03:48:54 PM
I disagree Mark. While hoppy beers are no doubt extremely popular today (arguably overly so), I doubt very seriously that large numbers of brewers are adding extra hops to beers they wouldn't have otherwise, just to cover up infections. Hoppy beers are everywhere because that is the current consumer preference, like it or not.

I agree that customer preference drives the popularity of hoppy beers but not because the alternative is poorly brewed non-hoppy beer. I also agree with what I think underlies his point that if you stripped down the hops you would find a lot of beers both at home and on the commercial market that are loaded with brewing flaws. All one has to do is look at the number of breweries--often newer breweries--where people complain that all the beers are mediocre or worse except the IPA/IIPAs.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 03:58:55 PM
Taint covered in hops...

Yes, I see many modern home brewers covering up low-level infection produced off-flavors with high late hopping rates.  This technique was not as prevalent in the nineties because late hopping rates were lower.  The brewers with poor sanitation and yeast management practices stuck with stout and porter in the nineties. :)

Quote
You all make it sound like the 90s was a loooong time ago and brewing was a wasteland.

That was not my intention.  It was just merely a time when things that brewers who have entered the hobby in the last ten or so years take for granted were difficult to acquire or not available.

Quote
I made some truly enjoyable beers back in the 90s.  I'm still brewing one of the recipes I came up with back then.

Me too! 

Quote
Sure, there wasn't the diversity of ingredients that we have today but you can make good beer with basic ingredients.  You don't need six different kinds of hops and 14 different grains.

I will acknowledge, though, that there were many beers and recipes (brewed by myself and others, including some pro breweries) that all tasted just about the same.

Many of the  beers made during that period tasted the same because we were making due with what we had available.  The overuse of C60 was the result of being able to get any base malt that one wanted as long as it was American 2-row. :)  The early nineties where worse than the late nineties in this regard.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: f00b4r on October 05, 2015, 03:59:07 PM

Foam only when shaking, not during the "regular" fermentation, which I assume is what you mean by "incubation".  And it's not nearly as much foam as what I see in your picture.

Turning the medium into mostly foam is the key to this method. If you are not producing at least as much foam as can be seen in the photo above, then you are not shaking vigorously and/or long enough.  I literally screw the cap down tight, and shake the vessel vertically as vigorously as I can for one minute.  A lot of people attempt the method with a solid rubber stopper, but a screw on cap is really not an option with the method.  One literally has to shake the starter like one is attempting to collect money from it for the mafia.  One of the British brewers that I know from another forum wins the prize for shaking.  He managed to turn media almost completely into foam.  That feat requires a massive amount of shaking.

I have a feeling it is our use of readily available 5L water bottles with their ridges and handle, as it took me very little effort to get the following when trying out your technique (it also gets rid of worrying about glass slipping out of the hands):


(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/05/0d18b11278fc2060d5473daa165b1ea7.jpg)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 04:06:44 PM
I disagree Mark. While hoppy beers are no doubt extremely popular today (arguably overly so), I doubt very seriously that large numbers of brewers are adding extra hops to beers they wouldn't have otherwise, just to cover up infections. Hoppy beers are everywhere because that is the current consumer preference, like it or not.

It still does not detract from the fact that amateur brewers today like to brew IPA for the same reason that brewers liked to brew Stout and Porter in the nineties.  IPA is newbie style because it is difficult to mess up.  Compare the difficulty of producing an IPA with the difficulty of producing a balanced and clean tasting American standard lager.  American standard lager is an order or two of magnitude more difficult to make correctly because there is nothing to hide behind.  Wort production and fermentation flaws stick out like sore thumbs.  Hop balance is incredibly important.   In essence, the style is an undisciplined amateur brewer's nightmare.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 05, 2015, 04:08:08 PM
Mark, you've been watching to many AB commercials. ;)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 05, 2015, 04:10:36 PM
which I believe can be traced back to the almost universal use of Star San coupled with "drive by" (a.k.a. "spray and go") sanitization and poor yeast handling practices.

Yet that's what I do 80% of the time.  How would you account for my lack of problems?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 05, 2015, 04:16:50 PM
I disagree Mark. While hoppy beers are no doubt extremely popular today (arguably overly so), I doubt very seriously that large numbers of brewers are adding extra hops to beers they wouldn't have otherwise, just to cover up infections. Hoppy beers are everywhere because that is the current consumer preference, like it or not.

It still does not detract from the fact that amateur brewers today like to brew IPA for the same reason that brewers liked to brew Stout and Porter in the nineties.  IPA is newbie style because it is difficult to mess up.  Compare the difficulty of producing an IPA with the difficulty of producing a balanced and clean tasting American standard lager.  American standard lager is an order or two of magnitude more difficult to make correctly because there is nothing to hide behind.  Wort production and fermentation flaws stick out like sore thumbs.  Hop balance is incredibly important.   In essence, the style is an undisciplined amateur brewer's nightmare.

For sure, there are styles like the kolsch and cream ale I brewed over the summer that have little or nothing to hide behind and are tricky to get right. And IPA is a fairly easy style to brew a decent example of for new brewers and can cover up flaws, no doubt - doesn't mean that it's easy to brew a great one though, or that someone who brews one is trying to cover poor sanitation skills.

EDIT - I don't rule it out, but test to brewing skill or not, one of the last styles I'm looking to brew at the end of the week is a BMC clone. Never say never.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on October 05, 2015, 04:17:47 PM
It still does not detract from the fact that amateur brewers today like to brew IPA for the same reason that brewers liked to brew Stout and Porter in the nineties.  IPA is newbie style because it is difficult to mess up.  Compare the difficulty of producing an IPA with the difficulty of producing a balanced and clean tasting American standard lager.  American standard lager is an order or two of magnitude more difficult to make correctly because there is nothing to hide behind.  Wort production and fermentation flaws stick out like sore thumbs.  Hop balance is incredibly important.   In essence, the style is an undisciplined amateur brewer's nightmare.

We made stouts and porters in the early 90s because they weren't generally commercially available and they were exotic.  I don't think you could get a coffee stout anywhere unless you made it yourself.

The ingredients you could get back then didn't really lend themselves to an American lager.  At least not a good one.  I used a "continental lager" kit one time in the 90s and it came out looking like an amber.

I get your underlying point, which I take to be that certain styles are easier to brew and have stronger flavors that cover up flaws, but I think you're confusing correlation and causation.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 05, 2015, 04:32:59 PM
This just in. On the AHA Forum there was a derailment causing injury to the feelings of several so called "newby brewers". Many of them were rushed to the hospital for hugs and warm milk. One gentleman was heard mumbling "Thats not why I bew IPAs. You dont know me, you dont know me"

Next up, a cat that learned to snowboard
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 05:24:53 PM
Yet that's what I do 80% of the time.  How would you account for my lack of problems?

Luck
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 05, 2015, 05:37:27 PM
Yet that's what I do 80% of the time.  How would you account for my lack of problems?

Luck

In my experience there is no such thing as luck ;)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/oSNNav2eYwk/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: hopfenundmalz on October 05, 2015, 05:38:44 PM
Along the lines of laughable 90s recipes I'd add most (or all) of the old Cat's Meow recipe database. Tons of crystal malt, Cascade hops and 'ale yeast' in pretty much everything. Not coincidentally, every beer I brewed from there (not very many) tasted really similar.   ;)

I never used that recipe database.  Truth be told, I did not spend much time brewing other people's recipes.  I wanted to thoroughly understand the process.  That type of knowledge can only come from not playing it safe. 

With that said, I see the same kind of dynamic with hops today.  Hops are being used to hide a host of poor brewing practices and sins.  To the untrained palate, hops are like spices in that they can cover taint.  With modern home brewing, the taint is mostly caused by low-level infection, which I believe can be traced back to the almost universal use of Star San coupled with "drive by" (a.k.a. "spray and go") sanitization and poor yeast handling practices.
Stan Hieronymus called it flavor masking in highly hopped beers, said it was real, and hides defects that would be an issue in a more subtle style. In noise work, masking refers to a sound at one frequency making another frequency unintelligible. A setting with high amplitude low frequencies, some factories, will make speech recognition a problem.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: a10t2 on October 05, 2015, 05:40:10 PM
Yet that's what I do 80% of the time.  How would you account for my lack of problems?

Overall good technique and "defense in depth". I met a brewer several years ago who had been brewing excellent beers for years despite not doing what we would consider sanitizing. Just dish soap and hot water. Beer is pretty robust stuff, and acceptable contaminant loads from a flavor stability perspective are high.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 05, 2015, 05:53:24 PM
Yet that's what I do 80% of the time.  How would you account for my lack of problems?

Luck

Time to buy a lottery ticket!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: 69franx on October 05, 2015, 06:01:24 PM
Yet that's what I do 80% of the time.  How would you account for my lack of problems?

Luck

In my experience there is no such thing as luck ;)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/oSNNav2eYwk/maxresdefault.jpg)

+1
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 05, 2015, 06:13:27 PM
Yet that's what I do 80% of the time.  How would you account for my lack of problems?

Overall good technique and "defense in depth". I met a brewer several years ago who had been brewing excellent beers for years despite not doing what we would consider sanitizing. Just dish soap and hot water. Beer is pretty robust stuff, and acceptable contaminant loads from a flavor stability perspective are high.

That makes sense.  But sometimes Mark's certainty in his statements reminds me of the Dave Line book form years past when he said that if you didn't get rid of your pets you'd always brew infected beer.  There's science, where I take cues for learning the best practices.  Then there's experience, which shows us if the science really matters.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 05, 2015, 06:42:58 PM
Considering how much star san I have sitting at my house (practically a life time supply! anyone need any?) this is troubling news to hear.  Like Denny however I've made many (not nearly as many as Denny) batches and have yet to have a noticeably infected batch. *knocks on wood*
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 06:55:51 PM
That makes sense.  But sometimes Mark's certainty in his statements reminds me of the Dave Line book form years past when he said that if you didn't get rid of your pets you'd always brew infected beer.  There's science, where I take cues for learning the best practices.  Then there's experience, which shows us if the science really matters.

What I meant by luck is just because you personally have not encountered a sanitizer's weakness does not mean that it does not exist.  It just means that you have been lucky enough not to encounter it.  The Internet is littered with data that demonstrates that acid-anionic sanitizers are bactericides, not broad-spectrum antimicrobials.  My own experience with beers that plated positive for wild yeast infection after switching to Star San correlates with the published data.  A local guy who I know had a persistent Brett infection that he could not get eliminate.  He switched from Star San to paracetic acid (PAA), and the problem went away.  This guy never had a problem with bacteria infection, even though his Brett beers were usually pitched with what are often referred to as beer spoilage bacteria. 

The fact is Star San is an acid anionic sanitizer.  Five Star even claims that it is a "high foaming, acid anionic, no-rinse sanitizer" on their website (www.fivestarchemicals.com/breweries/homebrewing/products/).  Numerous publications state that acid-anionic sanitizers work via attraction to positively charged cells.  Bacteria cells have a positive charge, yeast and mold cells have a negative charge (i.e., yeast and mold cells repel acid-anionic sanitizers).  Since the active ingredient in Star San, dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid (see www.jstrack.org/brewing/msds/starsan.pdf), is ineffective against yeast and mold, the only thing that Star San can do to yeast and mold is beat it up via low pH,  which is the same thing that happens when we acid wash yeast.

From this publication: www.beer-brewing.com/beer_brewing/brewery_cleaning_sanitation/sanitizing_agents.htm

"Anionic Acids

Anionic acids are one of the fastest growing sanitizing groups in the craft brewing industry. They are chemicals composed of two functional groups-a lipophilic portion and a hydrophillic portion-which results in a negative charge. The negatively charged anionic acid sanitizers react with positively charged bacteria by attraction of opposite charges"


From page 9-6 of this publication: http://jifsan.umd.edu/pdf/gaqps_en/Section9.Effective_Cleaning_and_Sanitizing_Procedures.pdf

"Acid-anionic sanitizers are broad spectrum against bacteria and viruses, but not very effective against yeasts and molds."


From http://dairy-technology.blogspot.com/2014/01/chemical-sanitizers.html

" iv. Acid Anionic Sanitizers

These formulations include an inorganic acid plus a surfactant, and are often used for the dual function of acid rinse and sanitization. Unlike QACs, they are negatively charged. Their activity is moderately affected by water hardness. Their low use pH, detergency, stability, low odor potential, and non-corrosiveness make them highly desirable in some applications. Disadvantages include relatively high cost, a closely defined pH range of activity (pH 2 to 3), low activity on molds and yeasts,excessive foaming in CIP systems and incompatibility with cationic surfactant detergents."

From https://books.google.com/books?id=lCRxcp3gfhUC&pg=PA180&dq=acid-anionic+sanitizers++limited+activity+yeast+mold&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI3_2lx_6ryAIVQR0eCh2tpAN2#v=onepage&q=acid-anionic sanitizers  limited activity yeast mold&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=lCRxcp3gfhUC&pg=PA180&dq=acid-anionic+sanitizers++limited+activity+yeast+mold&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI3_2lx_6ryAIVQR0eCh2tpAN2#v=onepage&q=acid-anionic sanitizers  limited activity yeast mold&f=false)

"Acid anionic sanitizers act rapidly and kill a broad spectrum of bacteria and have good bateriophage activity."

"These sanitizers can be corrosive to unprotected metals and a skin irritant, inactivated by cationic surfactants, may foam too much for CIP equipment, are less effective at a higher pH, have limited and varied antimicrobial activity (including poor yeast and mold activity), and are more expensive than the halogen sanitizers"

Note: The most commonly available halogen sanitizers are idophor and chlorine bleach.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: mabrungard on October 05, 2015, 07:00:19 PM
This just in. On the AHA Forum there was a derailment causing injury to the feelings of several so called "newby brewers". Many of them were rushed to the hospital for hugs and warm milk. One gentleman was heard mumbling "Thats not why I bew IPAs. You dont know me, you dont know me"

Yep
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: pete b on October 05, 2015, 07:00:24 PM
All I know is that I have just read two long threads where Denny says nice things about "shaken, not stirred" starters and Mark says nice things about batch sparging.
Denny: "So far, there hasn't been a downside to this technique. The starter was simpler to make and tool less DME, so it was less expensive than my usual starter. Of course, the proof is in the glass. I'll report on the finished beer in a couple weeks or so."
Mark: "The technique that Denny is recommending [batch sparging]is simpler to execute correctly and more lauter tun design agnostic...  Depending on the size of the batch, batch sparging can be a much faster process than continuous sparging."
I think I bumped my head and woke up in an alternate universe.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 05, 2015, 07:40:42 PM
Mark, you know that I don't really care what the lit says except in the context of giving me something to think about and play with.

Anyway, kegged the beer just now and the results are in....http://www.experimentalbrew.com/blogs/denny/old-dognew-tricksthe-followup
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on October 05, 2015, 07:46:49 PM
Stan Hieronymus called it flavor masking in highly hopped beers, said it was real, and hides defects that would be an issue in a more subtle style. In noise work, masking refers to a sound at one frequency making another frequency unintelligible. A setting with high amplitude low frequencies, some factories, will make speech recognition a problem.

Again, I'm not saying the flavor masking doesn't exist.  However, I don't think people are making IPAs and IIPAs because they're making bad beer and want to cover it up.  There may actually be flaws in the beer (even taint, though how that could be inadvertent, I don't know) that are covered up by the hops, but the two facts are not necessarily connected.

Denny has a good point about the certainty with which Mark makes some statements.  I think it can be off putting at times, particularly to newer brewers or people who don't spend as much time on here as some of us.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: pete b on October 05, 2015, 08:00:00 PM
Stan Hieronymus called it flavor masking in highly hopped beers, said it was real, and hides defects that would be an issue in a more subtle style. In noise work, masking refers to a sound at one frequency making another frequency unintelligible. A setting with high amplitude low frequencies, some factories, will make speech recognition a problem.

Again, I'm not saying the flavor masking doesn't exist.  However, I don't think people are making IPAs and IIPAs because they're making bad beer and want to cover it up.  There may actually be flaws in the beer (even taint, though how that could be inadvertent, I don't know) that are covered up by the hops, but the two facts are not necessarily connected.

Denny has a good point about the certainty with which Mark makes some statements.  I think it can be off putting at times, particularly to newer brewers or people who don't spend as much time on here as some of us.

I agree that this effect exists but that it is a side effect. I just don't see people saying "rather than learn how to make good beer I'm going to just add a crazy amount of hops". OTOH I would be willing to bet that many new brewers who make hoppy (or really roasty beers) think they are great brewers until they start making more balanced or subtle styles.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on October 05, 2015, 08:33:00 PM
Denny's findings, to me, indicate that having 5% of your wort come from that 1 L of ~1.030 DME in the starter really has no impact on the final flavor of the beer. This was one of my concerns when starting down the "shaken not stirred" path to the point where I was nipping off a liter of the main wort to make a native starter. But Denny's data point, among many others including Mark's statement about how good the shaken starter smells at high krausen, has me leaning toward just making the darn DME starter already and RDWHAHB.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: rabeb25 on October 05, 2015, 08:45:40 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: blatz on October 05, 2015, 08:48:51 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

thats my preferred method now - its easier, don't need to mess with DME and it doesn't take that long to hit HK.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on October 05, 2015, 08:49:10 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

That's what I was doing. But, that got me thinking about the wisdom of pitching an old-ish WLP tube into 1.070 wort as a starter...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on October 05, 2015, 08:52:51 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

thats my preferred method now - its easier, don't need to mess with DME and it doesn't take that long to hit HK.

I've noticed this as well. Not sure if it was because I was pitching a 3rd generation of a yeast or that it was starter from an actual beer wort (does this matter, Mark?) but I've hit high krausen in 6 hours using this method on 1.050 OG beers.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: rabeb25 on October 05, 2015, 08:58:42 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

thats my preferred method now - its easier, don't need to mess with DME and it doesn't take that long to hit HK.

I've noticed this as well. Not sure if it was because I was pitching a 3rd generation of a yeast or that it was starter from an actual beer wort (does this matter, Mark?) but I've hit high krausen in 6 hours using this method on 1.050 OG beers.

Correct, which gives you just enough time to crash cool the fermenter, dump the trub, oxygenate, and pitch. ;)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 05, 2015, 09:26:51 PM
see - you guys have me worried.  if I start my starter at night the day before the brew I don't to have missed the right time to pitch by the time my wort is chilled and ready to receive the yeast!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on October 05, 2015, 09:48:29 PM
There's no perfect answer. Best advice is to keep excellent notes so that you can zero in on the timing aspect of it whether you use the native starter method or go with a DME-based starter. Eventually you should be able to get to a point where you can say: here's 'ABC' yeast that's in its Y generation of pitching. It should hit high krausen in 1.0x0 wort in ~Z hours based on past experience.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewday on October 05, 2015, 09:53:31 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

thats my preferred method now - its easier, don't need to mess with DME and it doesn't take that long to hit HK.

+1
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 05, 2015, 10:54:46 PM
see - you guys have me worried.  if I start my starter at night the day before the brew I don't to have missed the right time to pitch by the time my wort is chilled and ready to receive the yeast!

Yes.  The timing would sure take some getting used to. I feel that if I make a starter at 8 pm the night before brew day (1 quart, shaken) that it would probably reach high krausen prior to 1-2 pm the next afternoon when I want to pitch my yeast.  I could be wrong though.  Guess I have to try it out for myself. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 05, 2015, 11:57:00 PM
Denny has a good point about the certainty with which Mark makes some statements.  I think it can be off putting at times, particularly to newer brewers or people who don't spend as much time on here as some of us.

I did not see any objecting when Keith basically called IPA and stout newbie poser beers.

I am not attempting to be off putting.  A lot of unqualified data enters this hobby as fact when people refuse to stand up and claim that the emperor has no clothes.   What Dave Line said about animals does have merit.  I own goldens, and I can say without reservation that brewing with them in the house is much more challenging than it was when I owned non-shedding breeds.  Is it possible to brew with animals in the house? Absolutely  Do animals add complexity to the equation? Absolutely  Wild microflora rides through the air on house dust.  Anything that increases the amount of house dust in a house increases the possibility of infection.  Animals increase the amount of house dust in a house, and so do people.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 06, 2015, 12:24:03 AM
I did not see any objecting when Keith basically called IPA and stout newbie poser beers.


I enjoy drinking and brewing a variety of styles - I've brewed over 35 styles over the years. Included among those styles are stouts and IPAs. I do recognize that they can cover flaws for new brewers but surprisingly, I don't feel like a newbie hack when I brew those. Nor would the Brits, or Matt Brynildson, Vinnie Cilurzo, etc.,  I assume.   ;)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 12:48:59 AM
I agree that this effect exists but that it is a side effect. I just don't see people saying "rather than learn how to make good beer I'm going to just add a crazy amount of hops". OTOH I would be willing to bet that many new brewers who make hoppy (or really roasty beers) think they are great brewers until they start making more balanced or subtle styles.

Bingo!  I have seen this dynamic play out more times than not over the last twenty-something years. Most of the members on this forum have clearly made it past this point in the hobby.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 06, 2015, 12:55:54 AM
I sure have, not. Not yet. Working on it. Thats the fun of it.

Back to the main theme. Denny, I dig that update. Glad it turned out great. You know you are really in the grease now with the stirplate folk. Good luck with that lol
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 06, 2015, 01:05:09 AM

I did not see any objecting when Keith basically called IPA and stout newbie poser beers.


I enjoy drinking and brewing a variety of styles - I've brewed over 35 styles over the years. Included among those styles are stouts and IPAs. I do recognize that they can cover flaws for new brewers but surprisingly, I don't feel like a newbie hack when I brew those. Nor would the Brits, or Matt Brynildson, Vinnie Cilurzo, etc.,  I assume.   ;)

Perfectly said. Making a "naked" beer, one without any opportunity to mask defects is a must for every brewer. Provides an opportunity to test your craft.  But having passed that gate, making any style just becomes an opportunity to express ones self, not a cloak to hide behind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Hooper on October 06, 2015, 01:26:30 AM
Usually I'd have a joke ready at this point...but seriously...this Yeast and Fermentation Sub Blog is Awesome...Brewing is constantly changing and you guys are on the edge...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on October 06, 2015, 01:47:05 AM
I did not see any objecting when Keith basically called IPA and stout newbie poser beers.

In that case, I must have missed it and I'm objecting after the fact.

It's similar to the "you're not a brewer if you don't (insert whatever process here)" mindset.  I don't see that crop up on here so much, but it can on occasion.  And I think it's BS.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: rcemech on October 06, 2015, 02:30:10 AM
So what equipment would you need to make a starter for a 1.050 gravity, 15 gal batch?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 12:22:42 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

thats my preferred method now - its easier, don't need to mess with DME and it doesn't take that long to hit HK.

for a lager do you ferment at room temp or lager temp when you do this?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: blatz on October 06, 2015, 01:08:00 PM

WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

thats my preferred method now - its easier, don't need to mess with DME and it doesn't take that long to hit HK.

for a lager do you ferment at room temp or lager temp when you do this?

Lager temp
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 01:10:11 PM

WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

thats my preferred method now - its easier, don't need to mess with DME and it doesn't take that long to hit HK.

for a lager do you ferment at room temp or lager temp when you do this?

Lager temp

does it take a little longer to hit HK at the cooler temp?  I like the sound of this b/c I already do my mashes overnight so I could pull a gallon that night and give a 20 min boil or something and use that as my "starter".

I know what I'm talking about isn't quite the same as what Mark is advocating but I think it has some of the key elements - lack of stirring, lots of O2 (I would do this either way), and yeast pitched at HK.

I feel like the larger starter is a little bit of an insurance policy.  Call me a nervous nelly if you must
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 02:42:12 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

When propagating from slant, using wort from the target batch is not a possibility.  The bias against DME in a starter is as unfounded as the bias against non-all malt beers used to be.  A 10% w/v starter contains 100 grams of extract, most of which will be attenuated by the time that the starter is pitched.  The average American ale or lager is around 13P, which means that a 5-gallon batch contains 19 * 130 = 2470 grams of extract, making the extract from the starter 100 / (2470 + 100) * 100 = 3.9% of the total.   Add in the fact that a starter is usually made with unhopped extra pale DME, and there is no detectable flavor contribution from the DME. The DME wort bogeyman is not going to ruin one's beer. 

If one wants to make the starter media even more neutrally flavored, one can use 50% DME/50% dextrose and 1/4 tsp of a complete yeast nutrient (e.g., Wyeast Nutrient Blend of Fermax) to boost the trace element and nitrogen level.  That's how I prepare starter medium (contrary to home brewing myth, one yeast is not going to forget how to produce the enzymes necessary to reduce disaccharides and trisaccharides to monosaccharides).  I use MYGP for solid media.  MYGP is made from malt extract, yeast extract, glucose (dextrose), and peptone (I use soytone to avoid the possibility of getting BSE tainted peptone altogether).  The MYGP media that I prepare contains 0.3% w/v malt extract,  0.3% w/v yeast extract, 1% w/v dextrose, and 0.5% soytone.   It is solidified with 1.5% w/v powdered agar.

Recipe for 1L of solidified MYGP

3 grams of extra pale malt extract
3 grams of yeast extract (lab grade, not Marmite)
10 grams of dextrose
5 grams of soytone (or peptone)
15 grams of agar (powder or flakes)
0.3% w/v malt extract,  0.3% w/v yeast extract, 1% w/v dextrose, and 0.5% soytone.   It is solidified with 1.5% w/v powered agar.


One last thing, every minute that a wort goes unpitched is a minute for house microflora to reproduce.  No brewery is sterile; therefore, people who are cooling wort to below 140F before placing it in a fermentation vessel should makes certain that their brewery hygiene is solid.  While cool temperatures retard the growth of microflora, they do not stop the growth of microflora.  As anyone who has left something in his/her refrigerator for a couple of week can attest, microflora does reproduce at 3C to 4C (the temperature range for the average refrigerator). Bacteria cells double every 30 minutes.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 02:46:35 PM
One last thing, every minute that a wort goes unpitched is a minute for house microflora to reproduce.  No brewery is sterile; therefore, people who are cooling wort to below 140F before placing it in a fermentation vessel should makes certain that their brewery hygiene is solid.  While cool temperatures retard the growth of microflora, they do not stop the growth of microflora.  As anyone who has left something in his/her refrigerator for a couple of week can attest, microflora does reproduce at 3C to 4C (the temperature range for the average refrigerator). Bacteria cells double every 30 minutes.

this is def a concern I have with people who are waiting to pitch yeast in their wort.  fortunately with my overnight mash I can delay the production all of the target wort by about 12-13 hours which would give my starter plenty of time to get going before the wort has been chilled.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 06, 2015, 04:10:45 PM
Denny has a good point about the certainty with which Mark makes some statements.  I think it can be off putting at times, particularly to newer brewers or people who don't spend as much time on here as some of us.

I did not see any objecting when Keith basically called IPA and stout newbie poser beers.

I am not attempting to be off putting.  A lot of unqualified data enters this hobby as fact when people refuse to stand up and claim that the emperor has no clothes.   What Dave Line said about animals does have merit.  I own goldens, and I can say without reservation that brewing with them in the house is much more challenging than it was when I owned non-shedding breeds.  Is it possible to brew with animals in the house? Absolutely  Do animals add complexity to the equation? Absolutely  Wild microflora rides through the air on house dust.  Anything that increases the amount of house dust in a house increases the possibility of infection.  Animals increase the amount of house dust in a house, and so do people.

I have five cats and 2 dogs.   Maybe it's becasue I've had pets the entire time I've brewed that I don't find them to be any impediment at at all.  Mark, I may have used the wrong phrasing and inadvertently insulted you.  I certainly did not intend that.  It's just that when you state things so categorically that are in direct opposition to what I've observed empirically that I feel like it's sometimes over the top.  You and I have diametrically opposed philosophies about this stuff, but there's room for both sides.  I've learned a lot from you.  I hope what you'll learn from me is that you can relax a bit!  :)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: macbrews on October 06, 2015, 04:40:44 PM
Denny has a good point about the certainty with which Mark makes some statements.  I think it can be off putting at times, particularly to newer brewers or people who don't spend as much time on here as some of us.

I did not see any objecting when Keith basically called IPA and stout newbie poser beers.

I am not attempting to be off putting.  A lot of unqualified data enters this hobby as fact when people refuse to stand up and claim that the emperor has no clothes.   What Dave Line said about animals does have merit.  I own goldens, and I can say without reservation that brewing with them in the house is much more challenging than it was when I owned non-shedding breeds.  Is it possible to brew with animals in the house? Absolutely  Do animals add complexity to the equation? Absolutely  Wild microflora rides through the air on house dust.  Anything that increases the amount of house dust in a house increases the possibility of infection.  Animals increase the amount of house dust in a house, and so do people.

I bathe my dogs in Star San to avoid such a problem
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: rabeb25 on October 06, 2015, 04:44:35 PM
WELL, if you really wanted to do it right.. you would take the first bit of your cooled wort, do this starter method, and pitch that into the beer with the rest of the wort...Kind of a hybrid between this method and Drauflassen. *Puts down the mic, and slowly backs away into the curtain. *

When propagating from slant, using wort from the target batch is not a possibility.  The bias against DME in a starter is as unfounded as the bias against non-all malt beers used to be.  A 10% w/v starter contains 100 grams of extract, most of which will be attenuated by the time that the starter is pitched.  The average American ale or lager is around 13P, which means that a 5-gallon batch contains 19 * 130 = 2470 grams of extract, making the extract from the starter 100 / (2470 + 100) * 100 = 3.9% of the total.   Add in the fact that a starter is usually made with unhopped extra pale DME, and there is no detectable flavor contribution from the DME. The DME wort bogeyman is not going to ruin one's beer. 

If one wants to make the starter media even more neutrally flavored, one can use 50% DME/50% dextrose and 1/4 tsp of a complete yeast nutrient (e.g., Wyeast Nutrient Blend of Fermax) to boost the trace element and nitrogen level.  That's how I prepare starter medium (contrary to home brewing myth, one yeast is not going to forget how to produce the enzymes necessary to reduce disaccharides and trisaccharides to monosaccharides).  I use MYGP for solid media.  MYGP is made from malt extract, yeast extract, glucose (dextrose), and peptone (I use soytone to avoid the possibility of getting BSE tainted peptone altogether).  The MYGP media that I prepare contains 0.3% w/v malt extract,  0.3% w/v yeast extract, 1% w/v dextrose, and 0.5% soytone.   It is solidified with 1.5% w/v powdered agar.

Recipe for 1L of solidified MYGP

3 grams of extra pale malt extract
3 grams of yeast extract (lab grade, not Marmite)
10 grams of dextrose
5 grams of soytone (or peptone)
15 grams of agar (powder or flakes)
0.3% w/v malt extract,  0.3% w/v yeast extract, 1% w/v dextrose, and 0.5% soytone.   It is solidified with 1.5% w/v powered agar.


You know that wasn't intended for people who are making yeast from a slant...Come on.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 04:50:49 PM
You know that wasn't intended for people who who are making yeast from a slant...Come on.

agreed, I have to think the vast majority of homebrewers are starting with a vial/smack pack or using a fairly big amount of slurry from a previous batch.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on October 06, 2015, 04:53:22 PM
Mark, I may have used the wrong phrasing and inadvertently insulted you.

I'll second that.  Certainly not my intention.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 06, 2015, 05:12:00 PM
The bias against DME in a starter is as unfounded as the bias against non-all malt beers used to be.  A 10% w/v starter contains 100 grams of extract, most of which will be attenuated by the time that the starter is pitched.  The average American ale or lager is around 13P, which means that a 5-gallon batch contains 19 * 130 = 2470 grams of extract, making the extract from the starter 100 / (2470 + 100) * 100 = 3.9% of the total.   Add in the fact that a starter is usually made with unhopped extra pale DME, and there is no detectable flavor contribution from the DME. The DME wort bogeyman is not going to ruin one's beer. 


So you fear the theoretical shrear stress monster but would put 5% DME in even your most delicate beer recipes?  You have some strange phobias and biases, I'll say that.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 05:16:20 PM
So you fear the theoretical shrear stress monster but would put 5% DME in even your most delicate beer recipes?  You have some strange phobias and biases, I'll say that.

in the case of lager yeast I'd be a little concerned with pitching "starter beer" from the warm fermentation as well.  maybe the rest of the fermentation would clean up any off flavors though???
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: blatz on October 06, 2015, 05:27:13 PM
So you fear the theoretical shrear stress monster but would put 5% DME in even your most delicate beer recipes?  You have some strange phobias and biases, I'll say that.

in the case of lager yeast I'd be a little concerned with pitching "starter beer" from the warm fermentation as well.  maybe the rest of the fermentation would clean up any off flavors though???

maybe.  good point.

BTW, plenty of folks on this board, and even some small commercial establishments let their beer cool overnight before pitching.  i totally understand mark's point above and agree that he is correct, but the 6-7 hours or so to get a small starter at lager temps to high krausen and then aerate and pitch don't really cause me to lose sleep.  I've had less than 1% contamination in the 205 batches i've made thus far, hopefully my sanitation is sound enough.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 05:36:05 PM
So you fear the theoretical shrear stress monster but would put 5% DME in even your most delicate beer recipes?  You have some strange phobias and biases, I'll say that.

Shear stress impacts the health of the pitched yeast cells, which, in turn, impacts the health of the fermentation.  The DME contribution is not 5% five percent w/v.  The DME contribution to the overall gravity is 3.9% of 13% w/v, or 0.13 * 0.039 * 100 = 0.5% w/v.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on October 06, 2015, 05:45:24 PM
So much hand wringing!

With 2 dogs, 2 cats and a burbling 7 month old daughter I should probably just pack it up and quit this darn hobby since it seems impossible to make beer without micro-imperfections that will completely ruin my quaffing.  ;)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 05:47:13 PM
Mark, I may have used the wrong phrasing and inadvertently insulted you.

I'll second that.  Certainly not my intention.

I appreciate the apology, but I was not insulted (I little perplexed, but not insulted). 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 06, 2015, 05:49:58 PM
Mark, I may have used the wrong phrasing and inadvertently insulted you.

I'll second that.  Certainly not my intention.

I appreciate the apology, but I was not insulted (I little perplexed, but not insulted).

Join the club, buddy!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 06:24:13 PM
in the case of lager yeast I'd be a little concerned with pitching "starter beer" from the warm fermentation as well.  maybe the rest of the fermentation would clean up any off flavors though???

It's a non-problem.  You do not have take me word on it.  All you need to do is try it for yourself.

With that said, I am amazed at how reticent home brewers are to experiment with anything other than recipe ingredients or diverge from home brewing dogma these days.  Almost every batch of beer that I make is truly an experiment.  I am not pitching yeast cultures with well-defined brewing and sensory data.  I pitch cultures that often have almost no data other than species.  Heck, I do not know for certain if I have spent a c-note or more on a spoilage strain of Saccharomyces or a respiratory deficient mutant until after the culture has been pitched (as occurred with Wallerstein #64B). 

The way I approach brewing is if I am not brewing a dumper every once in a while, my knowledge of brewing is not advancing.  By that, I mean no one ever improved at anything by playing it safe (e.g., no one ever became a great snow skier without falling many many times).  We often learn more through making mistakes than we do by doing something right the first time.  The worse thing that happens if an amateur brewer messes up a batch is that it gets dumped.  That's not the end of the world.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: rcemech on October 06, 2015, 06:30:12 PM
Morty... on the subject of lager starters. Do them at room temp. Pitch the whole thing. Don't bother decanting it. Last 2 lagers I made were made using that method and I don't think it had any appreciable impact on the beer. I almost never decant my starters and because I've been using yeastcalc they've been huge, as much as 2 gallons in 32 gallons of wort. That's 1/16 of the volume of the beer and even Ken liked the beers I sent him.

I can't brew enough right now to really test this, but I think I'll make some starters, one on a stir plate, and another using this "shake the bejesus" out of it method and then take both to my buddies house when they are at high krausen and look at the yeast under a microscope to do a cell count and maybe a viability check.

Mark, I'm thinking for a large starter, would this method scale linearly? Maybe make a 1.5 gal starter in a carboy for a big batch of beer?

Also, if you use a pure O2 stone and froth up the starter wort like a cappuccino, do you need to shake it still?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on October 06, 2015, 06:36:25 PM
Preferred nomenclature?

(1) Shaken, not stirred
(2) Shake it like it owes you money
(3) Shake the bejesus out of it

 :D
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 06:45:46 PM
Mark, I'm thinking for a large starter, would this method scale linearly? Maybe make a 1.5 gal starter in a carboy for a big batch of beer?

Also, if you use a pure O2 stone and froth up the starter wort like a cappuccino, do you need to shake it still?

Unless you are Hercules, I would go the O2 diffusion route with that big of a starter.  Shaking the bejesus out of the media should be looked at as a poor man's O2 tank and diffusion stone.  However, there is no need to risk putting onesself in traction with a starter that large. :)  Pitching/stepping at high krausen is not unique to my method.  It is a common practice.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 06:48:17 PM
in the case of lager yeast I'd be a little concerned with pitching "starter beer" from the warm fermentation as well.  maybe the rest of the fermentation would clean up any off flavors though???

It's a non-problem.  You do not have take me word on it.  All you need to do is try it for yourself.

With that said, I am amazed at how reticent home brewers are to experiment with anything other than recipe ingredients or diverge from home brewing dogma these days.  Almost every batch of beer that I make is truly an experiment.  I am not pitching yeast cultures with well-defined brewing and sensory data.  I pitch cultures that often have almost no data other than species.  Heck, I do not know for certain if I have spent a c-note or more on a spoilage strain of Saccharomyces or a respiratory deficient mutant until after the culture has been pitched (as occurred with Wallerstein #64B). 

The way I approach brewing is if I am not brewing a dumper every once in a while, my knowledge of brewing is not advancing.  By that, I mean no one ever improved at anything by playing it safe (e.g., no one ever became a great snow skier without falling many many times).  We often learn more through making mistakes than we do by doing something right the first time.  The worse thing that happens if an amateur brewer messes up a batch is that it gets dumped.  That's not the end of the world.

My aversion to risk is partially my personality and partially due to the cost of brewing (time).  I would consider the 5-7 hours spent prepping, brewing and cleaning for 10 gallons of beer to be a pretty huge waste of my time if I had to dump it.  If something goes wrong there is a good chance I might not be able to pin down exactly what the problem was and just hope it doesn't happen again.

take pitching 2L of starter into 10 gal of lager.  there may be a reason it works great at your house but due to some other issue I have it doesn't work great for me.  how would I determine what the issue was?  I don't have time to try multiple variations.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 06:48:44 PM
Preferred nomenclature?

(1) Shaken, not stirred
(2) Shake it like it owes you money
(3) Shake the bejesus out of it

 :D

You forgot

(4) James Bond Method
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: blatz on October 06, 2015, 06:50:44 PM
With that said, I am amazed at how reticent home brewers are to experiment with anything other than recipe ingredients or diverge from home brewing dogma these days.  Almost every batch of beer that I make is truly an experiment.

I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 06:53:08 PM
I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.

I'm with you here.  I only want to know what I need to know about it and otherwise just blindly follow "the rules".  So you can understand my trepidation when the rules are changed!  ;D
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 06, 2015, 07:03:13 PM
I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.

I'm with you here.  I only want to know what I need to know about it and otherwise just blindly follow "the rules".  So you can understand my trepidation when the rules are changed!  ;D

For some of us, the underlying information that drives the "rules" is the interesting part. I believe the crux of the argument is the "rules" are sometimes based on misinterpreted information that, when entrenched into a community, become gospel.

Everyone has different perspectives. Everyone enjoys the hobby in their own way.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 07:06:07 PM
I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.

I'm with you here.  I only want to know what I need to know about it and otherwise just blindly follow "the rules".  So you can understand my trepidation when the rules are changed!  ;D

For some of us, the underlying information that drives the "rules" is the interesting part. I believe the crux of the argument is the "rules" are sometimes based on misinterpreted information that, when entrenched into a community, become gospel.

Everyone has different perspectives. Everyone enjoys the hobby in their own way.

I do that at my job all day.  I don't need more of it!

eta: fermentation seems like a high risk area to me so I get extra conservative.  managing the ingredients, mash, hopping, etc. is a piece of cake compared to making sure the ferment goes the way it should.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 06, 2015, 07:08:34 PM
I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.

I'm with you here.  I only want to know what I need to know about it and otherwise just blindly follow "the rules".  So you can understand my trepidation when the rules are changed!  ;D

For some of us, the underlying information that drives the "rules" is the interesting part. I believe the crux of the argument is the "rules" are sometimes based on misinterpreted information that, when entrenched into a community, become gospel.

Everyone has different perspectives. Everyone enjoys the hobby in their own way.

I do that at my job all day.  I don't need more of it!

As they say, "Different strokes......"

To loop back to the original post, Denny, the resident King of KISS and "Cheap'N'Easy" brewing, has endorsed this method. That to me says a ton.

One may squibble and squabble over the details (I personally enjoy the dialogue and the posts by Mark) but ultimately we have a low tech, low stress way to make a healthy, viable starter.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 06, 2015, 07:11:37 PM
So, what concentration of dissolved oxygen would one be shooting for here?  The concept of foam seems imprecise to me.  Obviously we've all heard of the 8ppm limit of solubility in wort at room temperature.  Is the foam continuously aerating it as it settles?  Kai has done an experiment with an aquarium pump and sterile filter pushing air through a tube that rests just above the surface (to avoid foaming), and it seems like this would be similar.

Alternately, for the lazy a shot of pure O2 at the begining is an option.  In fact, it might be superior for lager yeasts.  Any thoughts on that?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 07:12:48 PM
As they say, "Different strokes......"

I'm going to go listen to some sly...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 06, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
As they say, "Different strokes......"

I'm going to go listen to some sly...

"Everybody is a staaaarrrr........"
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 07:17:33 PM
To loop back to the original post, Denny, the resident King of KISS and "Cheap'N'Easy" brewing, has endorsed this method. That to me says a ton.

One may squibble and squabble over the details (I personally enjoy the dialogue and the posts by Mark) but ultimately we have a low tech, low stress way to make a healthy, viable starter.

you trust that guy?  he seems like a dirty hippie.  ;)

but seriously his sample size is only one at this point and he even pointed that out.  it seems like a handful of people have had good luck with it which is promising though.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: a10t2 on October 06, 2015, 08:24:30 PM
Is the foam continuously aerating it as it settles?  Kai has done an experiment with an aquarium pump and sterile filter pushing air through a tube that rests just above the surface (to avoid foaming), and it seems like this would be similar.

That's the hypothesis as I understand it. In which case the DO levels would be much higher than you'd get from simply keeping the headspace purged with air.

FWIW, I use an air pump in conjunction with a stir plate and have found that does give a little boost in cell counts at relatively low stirring speeds.

Alternately, for the lazy a shot of pure O2 at the begining is an option.  In fact, it might be superior for lager yeasts.  Any thoughts on that?

I'd be wary of injecting O2 after the yeast are in suspension. Pure oxygen is pretty toxic.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 06, 2015, 08:26:18 PM

With that said, I am amazed at how reticent home brewers are to experiment with anything other than recipe ingredients or diverge from home brewing dogma these days.

Me, too....

http://brulosophy.com/2015/09/24/be-a-homebrewer-an-open-letter-from-denny-conn/
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 06, 2015, 08:28:49 PM

you trust that guy?  he seems like a dirty hippie.  ;)

A CLEAN hippie, please!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 08:38:22 PM
So, what concentration of dissolved oxygen would one be shooting for here?  The concept of foam seems imprecise to me.  Obviously we've all heard of the 8ppm limit of solubility in wort at room temperature.  Is the foam continuously aerating it as it settles?  Kai has done an experiment with an aquarium pump and sterile filter pushing air through a tube that rests just above the surface (to avoid foaming), and it seems like this would be similar.

There are few unknowns at this point.  For example, what difference does it make if the culture is pitched before shaking?  Does any advantage gained offset the exposure to physical stress?  There have to be cells on the surface of the bubbles.  Those cells, like a culture that is growing on solid media, are in an environment where the O2 level is 21 parts per hundred (air is 21% O2), not 8 parts per million (0.0008% O2).  It takes several minutes for the foam to fall using this method.   Chris White has mentioned that the yeast cells consume all of the dissolved O2 within thirty minutes of being pitched, which means that the cells in the foam are taking in O2 while the media is in a gas-foam state.

With that said, does being exposed to air make a difference?  How many yeast strains need more than 8ppm dissolved O2?  Having just wrestled with a class O3 (40ppm O2)/class O4 (> 40ppm O2)1 strain, I can honestly say that most of the strains available to home brewers are class 1 (4ppm dissolved O2) or class 2 (8ppm dissolved O2).  A yeast strain with a high dissolved O2 requirement is a very different animal.


[1] onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03614.x/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03614.x/pdf)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 06, 2015, 08:40:24 PM
A CLEAN hippie, please!

I can vouch for the fact that Denny is a clean hippie.  There was no commune funk on him at NHC. :)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on October 06, 2015, 08:56:12 PM
Mark, I may have used the wrong phrasing and inadvertently insulted you.

I'll second that.  Certainly not my intention.

I appreciate the apology, but I was not insulted (I little perplexed, but not insulted).

Join the club, buddy!

I feel like I'm derailing the thread, but my point such as it was is that when any of us are making statements with such certainty about the "right" way to do something, we are obviating any other approach.  It bothers me when people say "there's no way to make good beer that way" because most of the time they're not correct.  There are a lot of different approaches that result in good beer.  Shaken or stirred?  Batch or fly?  All grain or all extract?  Etc.

As far as the James Bond Method (or is it the Broccoli Method?) I feel like it's sort of back to the future.  I've only been using a stir plate for something approximating the past 5 years.  All my starters before that were shaken.  There's more nuance to Mark's approach than I used back then, but it's not like non-stirred starters have never been made before. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 06, 2015, 11:22:33 PM

With that said, I am amazed at how reticent home brewers are to experiment with anything other than recipe ingredients or diverge from home brewing dogma these days.

Me, too....

http://brulosophy.com/2015/09/24/be-a-homebrewer-an-open-letter-from-denny-conn/

I'll all for other people figuring out what works best and then telling me about it so I can reap all of the benefits! MUAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!  8)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 06, 2015, 11:33:38 PM

With that said, I am amazed at how reticent home brewers are to experiment with anything other than recipe ingredients or diverge from home brewing dogma these days.

Me, too....

http://brulosophy.com/2015/09/24/be-a-homebrewer-an-open-letter-from-denny-conn/

I'll all for other people figuring out what works best and then telling me about it so I can reap all of the benefits! MUAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!  8)

Yes, your avatar says it all!   ;D

EDIT- Man, I go away for one day and check back in to find 5 more pages of posts on this.  Crazy reading, keep it coming. It really is making me think about doing this for my next batch (cal common). 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewday on October 06, 2015, 11:56:39 PM
Crazy reading, keep it coming. It really is making me think about doing this for my next batch (cal common).

Take the plunge!!   I've been using this method (or slight variations of it) exclusively since January.

I like it.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 06, 2015, 11:59:02 PM
Today

Made 1200ml starters (2) for 1.060 pale and stout. Made starters at 0800, oxygenated with a little shaking. Done brewing at 1600 so I checked on my starters. They both were covered in foam and had yeast setting in the bottom. So I swirled and pitched. They were volcanic and smelled like heaven. I anticipate these beers will go just fine
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 07, 2015, 01:26:59 AM
As far as the James Bond Method (or is it the Broccoli Method?) I feel like it's sort of back to the future.  I've only been using a stir plate for something approximating the past 5 years.  All my starters before that were shaken.  There's more nuance to Mark's approach than I used back then, but it's not like non-stirred starters have never been made before.

My method is an innovation, not an invention.  I hope that no one attempts to make it out to be anything other than a different take on an existing approach.  I did not set out to create a new method.  This method came about in much the same way that penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming (except for the fact that his discovery was a huge deal :) ).  It was a chance observation of a phenomenon.  The difference between what I did and what thousands of over brewers have done is that I noticed the improvement and went about attempting to repeat and quantify it.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Joe Sr. on October 07, 2015, 01:38:34 AM
The difference between what I did and what thousands of over brewers have done is that I noticed the improvement and went about attempting to repeat and quantify it.

Plus strong advocacy for taking the pragmatic approach to building starters.

My wife will be glad if I ditch the stir plates.  They're noisy little buggers.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 07, 2015, 02:17:20 AM
The difference between what I did and what thousands of over brewers have done is that I noticed the improvement and went about attempting to repeat and quantify it.

Plus strong advocacy for taking the pragmatic approach to building starters.

My wife will be glad if I ditch the stir plates.  They're noisy little buggers.
Caveat, I own two nice Hanna stirplates

I wonder if some of the reluctance might come from not wanting to throw away stirplates that someone told us we can't make beer without?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: a10t2 on October 07, 2015, 02:25:10 AM
I'll say that I have $9 invested in my stir plate ($6 of that is the bar), and would have no problem with giving it up. I'm looking forward to trying out Mark's technique once I get my current glut of pilot brewing over with.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ynotbrusum on October 07, 2015, 02:52:25 AM
So O2 is what we are after, right?  I will start infusing with a scintered stone and using a drawn off and quickly chilled portion of the wort that I intend to brew, and if I am going from a smack pack or pure pitch, I will be varying the volume and temperature of the starter with the gravity (lighter or bigger OG) and style of beer (ale versus lager yeast).  This is in contrast to my propensity to merely repitch within a week of harvest....sounds like it should work, also though, with a slurry repitch into a starter, because this way I get the benefit of the successive generations, right? I have no empirical evidence, but I think yeast do their best work a few generations removed from the laboratory packaging.  So, I won't abandon repitching.
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 07, 2015, 02:22:52 PM
maximum_cell_density_for_1L = 200 billion

maximum_cell_density_for_5.5_gallons =  21 * 200 billion = 4.2 trillion  (5.5 gallons is roughly 21 liters)

our_culture_cell_count_low = 50 billion

number_of_replication_periods = log(4.2 trillion / 50 billion) / log(2) = 6.4 replication periods (or 9.6 hours spent in the logarithmic phase)

our_culture_cell_count_high = 200 billion

number_of_replication_periods = log(4.2 trillion / 200 billion) / log(2) = 4.4 replication periods (6.6 hours spent in the logarithmic phase)

If I were to apply the math to my batch sizes (1 Gallon), would these calculations hold?:

Assumption - Vessel must be 4 times the size of starter volume and is scalable (scaling factor for 1 Gallon batch = 4):
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/07/dce02dd50df41eaed335688d8e742f61.jpg)

Assumption - Culture will saturate the starter wort:
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/07/653f7086b0abd81e44cf19f9fb3618db.jpg)
Given that my input may be smaller than an entire smack pack (I typically split it into 2 or 3 containers to save some for the next batch), how is my input (initial cell count) going to affect the above calculations?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 07, 2015, 03:56:57 PM
Here are a few metrics:

maximum cell density for 1ml = ~200 million

maximum cell density for 500ml =  500 * 200 million = ~100 billion

maximum cell density for 1L =  1,000 * 200 million = ~200 billion

maximum cell density for one U.S. gallon = 3,785 * 200 million = ~757 billion

The fact that the starter volume should be no more than 1/4th of the vessel volume when making a starter using my method does not impact these values.

Your standard starter size should be 200ml, which gives you the same 1:19 pitching ratio as a brewer pitching a 1L starter into 5 gallons of wort.

maximum cell density for 200ml =  200 * 200 million = 40 billion cells

To keep the same ratio as someone pitching a culture that started out as 100 billion cells into 1L, you going to have to pitch 1/5th of a 100 billion cell package into 200ml.  In my humble opinion, it's not worth making a starter with one gallon batches unless you are starting from slant.  Small batches are a bit of a logistics problem when using commercial yeast. Half of a Wyeast Activator pack will be enough active yeast to fully attenuate your batch.  I would make two one gallon batches, split the package between them, and harvest slurry. 

Collecting slurry from a one gallon batch can be a bit of a problem because one gallon does not leave you with much liquid after racking, but you can do it.  You need to collect between 17ml and 33ml of thick slurry to repitch a batch.  That amount of slurry will give you between 20 and 40 billion cells, which is equivalent to collecting 84ml to 168 milliliters of thick slurry for a 5-gallon batch.  Due to exponential growth, you do not need to worry about being exactly on the money (i.e., yeast cultures are like nuclear weapons in that close is good enough); however, you are better off collecting at the higher end than the lower end because not all of the cells are viable.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 07, 2015, 04:49:11 PM
The fact that the starter volume should be no more than 1/4th of the vessel volume when making a starter using my method does not impact these values.

perhaps I missed it but where did this metric come from?  it's a bit of an unfortunate situation since my flask is only 5L and I'll be wanting to make a 2L starter.  I mean, I guess I could do this in a better bottle or a bucket but that's more cleaning and sanitizing.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 07, 2015, 05:07:33 PM
Here are a few metrics:

maximum cell density for 1ml = ~200 million

maximum cell density for 500ml =  500 * 200 million = ~100 billion

maximum cell density for 1L =  1,000 * 200 million = ~200 billion

maximum cell density for one U.S. gallon = 3,785 * 200 million = ~757 billion

The fact that the starter volume should be no more than 1/4th of the vessel volume when making a starter using my method does not impact these values.

Your standard starter size should be 200ml, which gives you the same 1:19 pitching ratio as a brewer pitching a 1L starter into 5 gallons of wort.

maximum cell density for 200ml =  200 * 200 million = 40 billion cells

To keep the same ratio as someone pitching a culture that started out as 100 billion cells into 1L, you going to have to pitch 1/5th of a 100 billion cell package into 200ml.  In my humble opinion, it's not worth making a starter with one gallon batches unless you are starting from slant.  Small batches are a bit of a logistics problem when using commercial yeast. Half of a Wyeast Activator pack will be enough active yeast to fully attenuate your batch.  I would make two one gallon batches, split the package between them, and harvest slurry. 

Collecting slurry from a one gallon batch can be a bit of a problem because one gallon does not leave you with much liquid after racking, but you can do it.  You need to collect between 17ml and 33ml of thick slurry to repitch a batch.  That amount of slurry will give you between 20 and 40 billion cells, which is equivalent to collecting 84ml to 168 milliliters of thick slurry for a 5-gallon batch.  Due to exponential growth, you do not need to worry about being exactly on the money (i.e., yeast cultures are like nuclear weapons in that close is good enough); however, you are better off collecting at the higher end than the lower end because not all of the cells are viable.

Thanks Mark. Calculating that out gives roughly the same time spent in Log Phase as your example. The additional information concerning harvesting yeast will be very useful as well. Much appreciated.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 07, 2015, 05:09:55 PM
The fact that the starter volume should be no more than 1/4th of the vessel volume when making a starter using my method does not impact these values.

perhaps I missed it but where did this metric come from?  it's a bit of an unfortunate situation since my flask is only 5L and I'll be wanting to make a 2L starter.  I mean, I guess I could do this in a better bottle or a bucket but that's more cleaning and sanitizing.

Back at the beginning. The goal is to use a vessel 4 times the size of your starter volume. Have you checked out this thread? --> Shaken Not Stirred Lager Starter - https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24460.0

I think Mark hints at that large of a starter (2L) not being necessary even for a lager. I'd have to reread it but I believe he stated that a few times over the 2-3 different posts concerning the topic.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 07, 2015, 05:17:00 PM
The fact that the starter volume should be no more than 1/4th of the vessel volume when making a starter using my method does not impact these values.

perhaps I missed it but where did this metric come from?  it's a bit of an unfortunate situation since my flask is only 5L and I'll be wanting to make a 2L starter.  I mean, I guess I could do this in a better bottle or a bucket but that's more cleaning and sanitizing.

Back at the beginning. The goal is to use a vessel 4 times the size of your starter volume. Have you checked out this thread? --> Shaken Not Stirred Lager Starter - https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24460.0

I think Mark hints at that large of a starter (2L) not being necessary even for a lager. I'd have to reread it but I believe he stated that a few times over the 2-3 different posts concerning the topic.

I'm making 10 gallons of lager.  he does not recommend a larger starter for lagers but I am under the impression that starter size is scaling linearly with batch size.  so 1L for 5 gal and 2L for 10 gal.

he does mention that direct O2 injection can overcome the need for 4:1 headspace.  while I have the tank and the stone I hate cleaning it for use so I avoid using it if possible.  Maybe I'll put the 2L in my better bottle.  then I'll have 9:1!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 07, 2015, 05:23:03 PM
I'm making 10 gallons of lager.  he does not recommend a larger starter for lagers but I am under the impression that starter size is scaling linearly with batch size.  so 1L for 5 gal and 2L for 10 gal.

he does mention that direct O2 injection can overcome the need for 4:1 headspace.  while I have the tank and the stone I hate cleaning it for use so I avoid using it if possible.  Maybe I'll put the 2L in my better bottle.  then I'll have 9:1!

I think at some point the method will cease to be practical. The goal as I have interpreted it is to provide a low tech, low stress way for getting a good starter. Once you breach the 5 gallon mark your starting to get into territory where you need to weigh the desire to use the method with the logistics involved with implementing it.

You might be able to adapt the spirit of it by using a hybrid approach or just using Pure O2. Your playing with fire (back-wise) if you start shaking big containers. I don't know about you, but at 30 years old i'm already looking for ways to take it easy on my back.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 07, 2015, 05:25:43 PM
I'm making 10 gallons of lager.  he does not recommend a larger starter for lagers but I am under the impression that starter size is scaling linearly with batch size.  so 1L for 5 gal and 2L for 10 gal.

he does mention that direct O2 injection can overcome the need for 4:1 headspace.  while I have the tank and the stone I hate cleaning it for use so I avoid using it if possible.  Maybe I'll put the 2L in my better bottle.  then I'll have 9:1!

I think at some point the method will cease to be practical. The goal as I have interpreted it is to provide a low tech, low stress way for getting a good starter. Once you breach the 5 gallon mark your starting to get into territory where you need to weigh the desire to use the method with the logistics involved with implementing it.

You might be able to adapt the spirit of it by using a hybrid approach or just using Pure O2. Your playing with fire (back-wise) if you start shaking big containers. I don't know about you, but at 30 years old i'm already looking for ways to take it easy on my back.

shaking 2L?  no problem!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: 69franx on October 07, 2015, 06:57:01 PM
Morty, the other option is splitting the vial/pack into 2 1L starters. Initial pitch rate is lower, but should get you into the same ball park for the starters. 1L max density is around 200B cells if given proper carbon source and aeration at least as I understand it. This is what I did for my 10 gallon batch of pilsner a couple months back, but I did split the batch into 2 fermenters. Very happy with the results, if you are splitting as well, I highly recommend this path. If using a larger fermenter, then I am not 100% certain but think you can still go this route
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 07, 2015, 07:32:29 PM
I'm making 10 gallons of lager.  he does not recommend a larger starter for lagers but I am under the impression that starter size is scaling linearly with batch size.  so 1L for 5 gal and 2L for 10 gal.

he does mention that direct O2 injection can overcome the need for 4:1 headspace.  while I have the tank and the stone I hate cleaning it for use so I avoid using it if possible.  Maybe I'll put the 2L in my better bottle.  then I'll have 9:1!

You can also use two one gallon jugs with a liter of media (starter wort) in each jug.  Half of a Wyeast smack pack or White Labs vial is enough yeast for a 1L starter.  Unless you split the culture poorly, there will be no difference in time to high krausen between pitching a single 2L starter or two 1L starters.  The starters will more than likely be waiting on you.  You can also use a 3 or 5 gallon Better Bottle.  The 4:1 ratio is the minimum, not the maximum.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 07, 2015, 08:27:20 PM
Mark, using o2 reduces the need for the extra space, right. My 1200ml in a 2L flask, oxygenated and lazy shook, sure seem to be doing the trick. Yesterday they were prepared at 0800 and pitched at 1600. 8 hrs and they had visible krausen, yeast accumulating in the bottom, and were volcanic when I swirled them to pitch. I checked the fermentors at 0800 this morning and they had two inches of krausen and were bubbling every couple seconds.  (30L Speidels with 6 gallons of beer /3 gallons of head space) thats pretty darn good in my opinion.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 07, 2015, 09:01:59 PM
Mark, using o2 reduces the need for the extra space, right.

Yes, but pure O2 does not fit the low-cost, low-tech mantra (or was that cheap and easy?). :)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: rcemech on October 07, 2015, 09:18:04 PM
Mark, using o2 reduces the need for the extra space, right.

Yes, but pure O2 does not fit the low-cost, low-tech mantra (or what that cheap and easy?). :)

True, but if you got it already it's not costly to use and there are a lot of people that make more than just 5 gal batches. So some sort of scalability would be nice. Figuring if it's linear or not would be very beneficial for one.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 07, 2015, 10:03:25 PM
True, but if you got it already it's not costly to use and there are a lot of people that make more than just 5 gal batches. So some sort of scalability would be nice. Figuring if it's linear or not would be very beneficial for one.

The method is no longer "Shaken, not stirred" once one starts injecting O2.   There's nothing wrong with direct O2 injection, but the technique should be not confused with or grouped under "Shaken, not stirred."   The techniques are different animals. 

Shaken, not stirred is low-cost, low-tech way to make a starter that uses what is effectively waste equipment-wise.  I developed this method when money was much tighter than it is today. Other than my 10-gallon Vollrath-based St. Pat's kettle and my Superb PC-100 stove (the two big expenditures that I made after struggling with a keggle that was made from a culled keg and a cheap blow torch type turkey fryer stove), my brew house was a combination of make-do and repurposed equipment.  The good thing was that used regulators and soda kegs were dirt cheap back then compared to today, and they were much nicer than the saved from the scrap heap stuff that is sold for good money today.  The bad thing was that cheap used refrigerators burned enormous amounts of electricity.  My first brewing refrigerator added $23.00 a month to my electric bill, and it was not a huge refrigerator.  I can run my current brewing refrigerator for the lion's share of a year on $23.00 worth of electricity.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 07, 2015, 10:09:46 PM
Holy cow, are you saying that I just invented a new way of doing starters?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dfhar on October 07, 2015, 10:46:53 PM
Mark, I'm wondering what the absolute difference is in the levels of UFA and ergosterol reserves between a high krausen culture and a starter culture which has fermented out and been crashed. If those nutrients are used for reproduction but post-HK reproduction is for replacement only, those reserves should be depleted proportionally to the amount of replacement, no? I don't imagine that there is a significant amount of replacement happening relative to the size of the culture as a whole, so why would the reserves of HK cells and cold crashed cells differ?

Assuming the above is correct, it seems to me that the main advantage of pitching at HK is the fact that the yeast cells are not in a quiescent state and are ready to start multiplying exponentially almost immediately, therefore reducing the amount of time that wild microbes have to get a foothold. Is this correct?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 07, 2015, 11:19:12 PM


Collecting slurry from a one gallon batch can be a bit of a problem because one gallon does not leave you with much liquid after racking, but you can do it.  You need to collect between 17ml and 33ml of thick slurry to repitch a batch.  That amount of slurry will give you between 20 and 40 billion cells, which is equivalent to collecting 84ml to 168 milliliters of thick slurry for a 5-gallon batch.  Due to exponential growth, you do not need to worry about being exactly on the money (i.e., yeast cultures are like nuclear weapons in that close is good enough); however, you are better off collecting at the higher end than the lower end because not all of the cells are viable.

Would you suggest that I make starters with the slurry or is it just not necessary to make starters at all with my batch sizes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: hopfenundmalz on October 08, 2015, 12:27:11 AM
True, but if you got it already it's not costly to use and there are a lot of people that make more than just 5 gal batches. So some sort of scalability would be nice. Figuring if it's linear or not would be very beneficial for one.

The method is no longer "Shaken, not stirred" once one starts injecting O2.   There's nothing wrong with direct O2 injection, but the technique should be not confused with or grouped under "Shaken, not stirred."   The techniques are different animals. 

Shaken, not stirred is low-cost, low-tech way to make a starter that uses what is effectively waste equipment-wise.  I developed this method when money was much tighter than it is today. Other than my 10-gallon Vollrath-based St. Pat's kettle and my Superb PC-100 stove (the two big expenditures that I made after struggling with a keggle that was made from a culled keg and a cheap blow torch type turkey fryer stove), my brew house was a combination of make-do and repurposed equipment.  The good thing was that used regulators and soda kegs were dirt cheap back then compared to today, and they were much nicer than the saved from the scrap heap stuff that is sold for good money today.  The bad thing was that cheap used refrigerators burned enormous amounts of electricity.  My first brewing refrigerator added $23.00 a month to my electric bill, and it was not a huge refrigerator.  I can run my current brewing refrigerator for the lion's share of a year on $23.00 worth of electricity.
I have told some friends that their "free" fridges are far from free.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 08, 2015, 02:46:24 AM
Mark, I'm wondering what the absolute difference is in the levels of UFA and ergosterol reserves between a high krausen culture and a starter culture which has fermented out and been crashed. If those nutrients are used for reproduction but post-HK reproduction is for replacement only, those reserves should be depleted proportionally to the amount of replacement, no? I don't imagine that there is a significant amount of replacement happening relative to the size of the culture as a whole, so why would the reserves of HK cells and cold crashed cells differ?

Assuming the above is correct, it seems to me that the main advantage of pitching at HK is the fact that the yeast cells are not in a quiescent state and are ready to start multiplying exponentially almost immediately, therefore reducing the amount of time that wild microbes have to get a foothold. Is this correct?

There is a difference between ergosterol and UFA levels between high krausen and quiescent cells.  The compounds are used during metabolism.  Ergosterol is to yeast cells what chloresterol is to animal cells. Sharing the compounds between mother and daughter cells for spreads the compounds even thinner.  Technically, ergosterol is a provitamin form of vitamin D2.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dfhar on October 08, 2015, 03:02:10 AM
There is a difference between ergosterol and UFA levels between high krausen and quiescent cells.

Yes, but by how much? Is this measurable? After two days on a stir plate, will my yeast have 98% as much nutrients in reserve as they did at high krausen? 75%? 50%? How big of a difference is significant for fermentation performance, given the fact that these same nutrients are going to be available in 20x more quantity in the wort the yeast will be pitched into?

Kai Troester also did some experiments where he showed that high stir plate speed significantly increased the number of cells grown in the same starter culture when compared to a low speed with no vortex (http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2013/03/25/stir-speed-and-yeast-growth/ (http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2013/03/25/stir-speed-and-yeast-growth/)). Presumably, a non-stirred starter would grow the same number or fewer cells than the low speed starter. If I grew X number of cells using a James Bond starter, and 2*X cells using a stir plate starter, but the stir plate starter cells had 50% as many nutrients in reserve as the James Bond cells, what difference in fermentation performance can I expect, given that after a single replication period, the James Bond cells would be at 50% reserves and number at 2*X?

I'm also wondering whether shear stress can cause permanent damage to a culture. Let's say I grew a culture on a stir plate, cold crashed it, then decanted the spent wort. Then I added fresh wort, removed the stir plate, and let the starter ferment and the cells rebuild their reserves. Are the cells going to be different (e.g. mutated? damaged?) compared to those in a non-stirred starter inoculated with a smack pack? Does this potential damage heal when the culture is allowed to grow in a non-stirred medium (e.g. when fermenting a 5 gallon batch of beer)?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 08, 2015, 03:40:24 AM
Cheap and easy is great, but even Denny has a stir plate.  Many of us are looking for the best method that's practical.  Modern homebrewers wouldn't think twice about getting a disposable O2 tank and cheap "regulator" (the valve that williams sells that doesn't include an actual regulator) if it were significantly better or easier.  You don't need an oxygen tank and welding regulator, but it saves money and makes things repeatable.  However, for a starter it sounds like that doesn't matter.  Saturate it and let 'er rip!

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 08, 2015, 03:45:26 AM
There is a difference between ergosterol and UFA levels between high krausen and quiescent cells.

Yes, but by how much? Is this measurable? After two days on a stir plate, will my yeast have 98% as much nutrients in reserve as they did at high krausen? 75%? 50%? How big of a difference is significant for fermentation performance, given the fact that these same nutrients are going to be available in 20x more quantity in the wort the yeast will be pitched into?

Kai Troester also did some experiments where he showed that high stir plate speed significantly increased the number of cells grown in the same starter culture when compared to a low speed with no vortex (http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2013/03/25/stir-speed-and-yeast-growth/ (http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2013/03/25/stir-speed-and-yeast-growth/)). Presumably, a non-stirred starter would grow the same number or fewer cells than the low speed starter. If I grew X number of cells using a James Bond starter, and 2*X cells using a stir plate starter, but the stir plate starter cells had 50% as many nutrients in reserve as the James Bond cells, what difference in fermentation performance can I expect, given that after a single replication period, the James Bond cells would be at 50% reserves and number at 2*X?

I'm also wondering whether shear stress can cause permanent damage to a culture. Let's say I grew a culture on a stir plate, cold crashed it, then decanted the spent wort. Then I added fresh wort, removed the stir plate, and let the starter ferment and the cells rebuild their reserves. Are the cells going to be different (e.g. mutated? damaged?) compared to those in a non-stirred starter inoculated with a smack pack?

What is your goal?  You clearly seem to have an agenda. Here's a suggestion.  Why don't you run tests, measure the results, compile a report, and share it with us?    I am open to any new data.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dfhar on October 08, 2015, 03:47:44 AM
There is a difference between ergosterol and UFA levels between high krausen and quiescent cells.

Yes, but by how much? Is this measurable? After two days on a stir plate, will my yeast have 98% as much nutrients in reserve as they did at high krausen? 75%? 50%? How big of a difference is significant for fermentation performance, given the fact that these same nutrients are going to be available in 20x more quantity in the wort the yeast will be pitched into?

Kai Troester also did some experiments where he showed that high stir plate speed significantly increased the number of cells grown in the same starter culture when compared to a low speed with no vortex (http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2013/03/25/stir-speed-and-yeast-growth/ (http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2013/03/25/stir-speed-and-yeast-growth/)). Presumably, a non-stirred starter would grow the same number or fewer cells than the low speed starter. If I grew X number of cells using a James Bond starter, and 2*X cells using a stir plate starter, but the stir plate starter cells had 50% as many nutrients in reserve as the James Bond cells, what difference in fermentation performance can I expect, given that after a single replication period, the James Bond cells would be at 50% reserves and number at 2*X?

I'm also wondering whether shear stress can cause permanent damage to a culture. Let's say I grew a culture on a stir plate, cold crashed it, then decanted the spent wort. Then I added fresh wort, removed the stir plate, and let the starter ferment and the cells rebuild their reserves. Are the cells going to be different (e.g. mutated? damaged?) compared to those in a non-stirred starter inoculated with a smack pack?

What is your goal?  You clearly seem to have an agenda. Here's a suggestion.  Why don't you run tests, measure the results, compile a report, and share it with us?    I am open to any new data.

Please don't get offended. I do not have an agenda, and my goal is simply to brew the best beer possible. These are completely honest questions that I am curious to know the answers to. I have been making my starters on a stir plate, and if I could make better beer using a different method I would like to learn about that method.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 08, 2015, 05:05:52 AM
Please don't get offended. I do not have an agenda, and my goal is simply to brew the best beer possible. These are completely honest questions that I am curious to know the answers to.

First off,  ergosterol and UFAs are synthesized during the lag phase by shunting carbon and O2 to the respirative metabolic pathway.   The lower these compounds are when the cells are pitched, the higher the initial O2 load and the longer the lag phase because these reserves have to be rebuilt.  That lag time increase is in addition to the time that it takes the cells to reverse the survival-related morphological changes that they underwent at the end of fermentation. You do not have take my word for it.  All you have to do is search for publications that cover the lag phase, O2 usage, and/or ergosterol and UFA synthesization in Saccharomyces cerevisiae or Saccharomyces pastorianus.  You may have to read more than one publication to obtain the core of the knowledge that you seek.

Secondly, it appears that you may have not taken the time to read the entire thread and the entire "Shaken, not stirred lager starter" thread.  If you had taken the time to read both threads, you would have known that absolute cell count is not the overall determining factor when pitching propagated yeast.  Have you ever smelled a starter that was spun fast enough to create vortex?  That smell is not oxidation.  It's stress.  The geometry of an Erlenmeyer flask prevents O2 from entering the flask after the culture starts outgassing.  Additionally, the reason why a vortex is required is due to the tiny amount of surface area and head space that is available in a 2L Erlenmyer flask that contains 1L of starter wort.  A gas (O2 in this case) dissolves into a liquid at the interface between the gas and the liquid.  The vortex increases the media surface area.  It also creates a vacuum that pulls air into the flask.  How much air the vortex pulls into the flask depends on its strength as well as how open to the flask is to the outside world.

A  "Shaken, not stirred" starter is not your typical non-stirred, non-forced O2 starter.  It takes advantage of physics and chemistry to create a massive amount of surface area.  A gas-liquid foam has a very high specific surface area.  A gas-liquid foam is pockets of gas enclosed by thin layers of liquid.  A vortex does not come remotely close to producing the same amount of surface area produced when the shaking procedure is properly executed because there is no way to match it with a gas-liquid two-phase system.   Once in gas-liquid foam form, chemistry takes care of the rest based on Henry's law (see http://www.800mainstreet.com/9/0009-006-henry.html).

One thing that is still not clear is the interaction between the O2 in the trapped air and the yeast cells that are on the surface of the thin layers of liquid that entrap the air if the culture is pitched before shaking.  That arrangement makes available 21 parts per hundred O2, not 8ppm O2.

Finally, there are no "cookbook" answers when dealing with yeast cultures.  Yeast cells are biological organisms that we can only steer during propagation and fermentation.  No two strains behave exactly the same when pitched into a wort (No strain behaves exactly the same way when pitched in two different breweries). If they did, they would produce the same beer given identical worts.  Anyone who has ever split a batch between two different strains has experienced different results from the same wort.  Some cultures will behave beautifully when pitched at a rate 3 billion cells per liter and produce a lackluster beer when pitched at 10 billion cells per liter.  Other strains need higher pitching rates to perform their best.  They way that you personally are going to be able to compile the data that you seek is to experiment with the stains in question and take very good notes.  You can be assured that professional brewers no exactly how there house yeast will perform when pitched.  That knowledge comes from repeated use.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 08, 2015, 10:41:02 AM
alright - I'm all prepped to mash in and make a starter tonight after the kids are in bed.  Just to review...

10 gal of 1.051 lager (WL833)
2L starter with 200g of light DME, fermented at room temp (high 60s), in a 5 gal better bottle (lots of head space!)
Starter will probably be shaken around 8:30-9:00PM.  The next day I'll probably have chilled wort before lunch.

I will shake it as much as I can with the yeast in there.  Should I be able to fill most of the better bottle with foam or is that too ambitious?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: mabrungard on October 08, 2015, 01:19:10 PM
Mark, I don't think a vortex in the starter wort surface is going to create a vacuum that could draw air in from outside the flask. That would require some sort of magic. The vortex could help spin the air column above the wort, but not move air into the vessel. That conservation of mass thing comes into play.

As pointed out, once yeast are actively outgassing CO2, the ability for atmospheric air to enter the vessel and provide O2 is reduced. That is the reason I recommend pumping filtered air into the vessel to assure that there is some O2 in the headspace that can be transferred into the wort.

In my opinion, a vortex is not really needed when the headspace has a constant supply of atmospheric oxygen. I stir my wort only to the degree necessary to keep the cells in suspension. That is more like the shaken technique that Mark recommends.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 08, 2015, 02:52:50 PM
Cheap and easy is great, but even Denny has a stir plate.  Many of us are looking for the best method that's practical.  Modern homebrewers wouldn't think twice about getting a disposable O2 tank and cheap "regulator" (the valve that williams sells that doesn't include an actual regulator) if it were significantly better or easier.  You don't need an oxygen tank and welding regulator, but it saves money and makes things repeatable.  However, for a starter it sounds like that doesn't matter.  Saturate it and let 'er rip!

Just to clraify, I have a stir plate because I was given one that was going to be thrown away otherwise.  If that hadn't happened, I'd likely never have gotten one.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 08, 2015, 03:51:34 PM
Mark, I don't think a vortex in the starter wort surface is going to create a vacuum that could draw air in from outside the flask. That would require some sort of magic. The vortex could help spin the air column above the wort, but not move air into the vessel. That conservation of mass thing comes into play.

I am basing that assumption on the fact that a vortex has an area of low pressure at its core.  Granted, any air coming into the flask has to displace something already in the flask.  However, that being said, I do not believe that the answer is simple.  If people are reporting increased cell growth with a vortex, then some physical phenomenon or phenomena is/are occurring.  Part of the equation can be attributed to an increase in the size of gas-liquid interface.  However, it does not explain everything because there is a limited amount gas in the of head space of an Erlenmeyer flask that is 50%+ full, which leads me to believe that there is gas exchange occurring between the inside and the outside of the flask before the culture starts to outgas.  Even if the exchange is caused by the spinning of the air above the wort.  It has to be causing an air current of some kind.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on October 08, 2015, 03:55:09 PM
For my next larger batch I'm going to split the wort and try the two iterations of 'shaken not stirred' and see what happens. My gut tells me it's not going to matter one way or the other but that's why we experiment.

(1) Shake, then add yeast.

(2) Add yeast, then shake.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 08, 2015, 03:57:21 PM
Just to clarify, I have a stir plate because I was given one that was going to be thrown away otherwise.  If that hadn't happened, I'd likely never have gotten one.

I would say that that meets the definition of cheap.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: a10t2 on October 08, 2015, 04:22:00 PM
In my opinion, a vortex is not really needed when the headspace has a constant supply of atmospheric oxygen. I stir my wort only to the degree necessary to keep the cells in suspension. That is more like the shaken technique that Mark recommends.

Same here.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 08, 2015, 04:36:30 PM
Just to clarify, I have a stir plate because I was given one that was going to be thrown away otherwise.  If that hadn't happened, I'd likely never have gotten one.

I would say that that meets the definition of cheap.

AND pragmatic!  :)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MerlinWerks on October 08, 2015, 04:43:34 PM
OK, I have ~700ml of 4th gen WY1450 ;) that is 2 weeks old sitting in my fridge under beer. I would like to try the "SNS" method this weekend.

What would be a good starting volume of slurry?

Gently stir up the whole 700ml straight from the fridge, remove the starting volume and inoculate the 1L?

Thanks!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 08, 2015, 04:53:37 PM
I stir my wort only to the degree necessary to keep the cells in suspension.

As I have mentioned before, brewing yeast strains generally do not need to be stirred to remain in suspension because they exhibit NewFlo flocculation.  If they are settling out, then the carbon level in the medium is very low.  The only value added by stirring is that stirring helps to degas the culture, which should already be under minimal top pressure.

Wyeast's site claims that ale strains are Flo1, but that claim goes against most of the published data.  Flo1 strains are unusable in brewing without continuous stirring because they drop out of suspension too early.

Quote
That is more like the shaken technique that Mark recommends.

No, it is still a stirred starter.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 08, 2015, 05:06:11 PM
OK, I have ~700ml of 4th gen WY1450 ;) that is 2 weeks old sitting in my fridge under beer. I would like to try the "SNS" method this weekend.

Unless you are looking for an intellectual exercise, I would pitch the slurry straight.  You have more than enough cells to get the job done, regardless of their condition.

With that said, you need at most 100ml of thick slurry for a 1L starter, and I wouldn't pitch that much.  I would pitch more like 65ml of thick slurry.  That volume should contain roughly 60 billion viable cells at two weeks.  A 10% w/v (1.040) starter should provide enough carbon to reach or approach maximum cell density, with a 2-to-1 new to old cell ratio.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MerlinWerks on October 08, 2015, 05:22:07 PM
Thanks Mark, pitching the slurry is what I have been doing for several batches now. I was initially searching for opinions on how many generations of 1450 I could continue to repitch (realizing there are host of variables) when I came across this thread.

When making a starter for 5 gal I would typically go 1.8L on stir plate, fermcap, cold crash, decant like many others. I was intrigued by the thought of pitching a smaller volume of starter wort at high krausen with yeast rarin' to go...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 08, 2015, 05:54:34 PM
I've gone as high as 6 generations with 1450.  Might have been able to get more out it, but I have no personal data.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MerlinWerks on October 08, 2015, 06:09:43 PM
Thanks Denny...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MerlinWerks on October 08, 2015, 07:34:35 PM
... That volume should contain roughly 60 billion viable cells at two weeks...

Mark,

What criteria/formula did you use to determine this? I would like to calculate that in the future for yeast of varying age.

Thanks for all your help
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 08, 2015, 09:04:08 PM
What criteria/formula did you use to determine this? I would like to calculate that in the future for yeast of varying age.

I just used a few rules of thumb.  The counts are merely approximations, but all one needs is an approximation when it comes to yeast due to exponential growth.   I used Wyeast's cell count for thick slurry that contains 40 to 60 percent yeast solids, which is 1.2 billion cells per milliliter.  The maximum cell density for a 1L flask is approximately 200 billions cells.  I am assuming that the average commercial yeast culture has about 60 billion viable cells by the time it is pitched into a starter or wort.  I took 60 divided by 1.2, which gave me 50ml.  I then discounted the viability of the cropped yeast by 25%, yielding 50 / .75 = 66.67ml.  I then made it is an easy to measure value of 65 ml.  One can expect to grow between 1 billion and 1.5 billion yeast cells per gram of extract  A  1L 10% w/v (1.040) starter contains 100 grams of extract; hence, it will support the growth of between 100 and 150 billion new cells given enough O2 to support cellular health.  That growth range yields a ratio of roughly 2:1 new cells to old cells. 

Remember, the only way to get exact cell counts is to take a small volume of slurry or actively fermenting wort, dilute it to make counting easier, and count cells using a microscope and a hemocytometer.  Even then, the cell count is still approximate due to the error encountered when taking a sample.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 09, 2015, 01:44:32 AM
once it's pure foam there isn't much more I can do right?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 09, 2015, 09:31:00 AM
8 hours since shaking with yeast:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-EQT9_jTNIGA/VheI_Zj43JI/AAAAAAAATMI/X6BVmXkdhrk/s1024-Ic42/CIMG0776.JPG)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 09, 2015, 03:25:22 PM
13.5 hours (still chilling my wort),  some yeast settling to the bottom.  I never really witnessed any crazy looking fermentation.  ambient temp 65F.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eoghP6RqZWk/VhfYFeycQJI/AAAAAAAATMk/Y41OmxYTaOo/s1024-Ic42/CIMG0777.JPG)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dilluh98 on October 09, 2015, 03:34:53 PM
By the looks of it, you'll be just fine.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 09, 2015, 04:01:04 PM
13.5 hours (still chilling my wort),  some yeast settling to the bottom.  I never really witnessed any crazy looking fermentation.  ambient temp 65F.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eoghP6RqZWk/VhfYFeycQJI/AAAAAAAATMk/Y41OmxYTaOo/s1024-Ic42/CIMG0777.JPG)

Looks a lot like mind did.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 09, 2015, 04:16:55 PM
13.5 hours (still chilling my wort),  some yeast settling to the bottom.  I never really witnessed any crazy looking fermentation.  ambient temp 65F.

I would not judge the effectiveness of the technique by the size of the head on the starter.  The size of the head depends on the yeast strain.  Some strains will produce a large head while others will only produce enough to cover the top of the wort.  What you had is about as good as it is going to get.  Did you happen to take a photo immediately after shaking?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 09, 2015, 04:19:47 PM
13.5 hours (still chilling my wort),  some yeast settling to the bottom.  I never really witnessed any crazy looking fermentation.  ambient temp 65F.

I would not judge the effectiveness of the technique by the size of the head on the starter.  The size of the head depends on the yeast strain.  Some strains will produce a large head while others will only produce enough to cover the top of the wort.  What you had is about as good as it is going to get.  Did you happen to take a photo immediately after shaking?

I was mashing in, making a starter and kegging beer all at the same time :P

It was pure foam for about 5-10 minutes and then the head started to collapse.  I'd say the foam was at least 4x the volume of the starter after I shook it.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 09, 2015, 06:02:59 PM
so the yeast has been pitched.  I didn't cool it all the way down to 50F (wort temp) but I did get it somewhere between room and that.  the starter still smelled pretty much the same as what I'm used to (yeasty!).
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 09, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
anyone want to place any bets on how many hours in I see airlock activity?  8)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 09, 2015, 07:59:27 PM
anyone want to place any bets on how many hours in I see airlock activity?  8)

within 18...how's that for loose?  :)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 09, 2015, 08:17:16 PM
under 12  ;D
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 09, 2015, 08:41:32 PM
I get bubbles at 65º within 12 hrs. Id anticipate with 18 for 50º
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 09, 2015, 09:36:45 PM
Under 12 hours I'd bet.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 09, 2015, 10:21:14 PM
My guess is between 12 and 18 due to the reduced temperature.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 09, 2015, 10:24:33 PM
A question I have been wondering about?


Why is it acceptable to repitch slurry from a harvested batch (even days after harvesting) when I am assuming those yeast are in quiescence, yet one is not wise pitching a starter in quiescence?  Haven't both depleted their ergosterol/UFA reserves during their dormancy?  Or is it just the sheer fact that when repitching a slurry one is adding such a large population of yeast cells that it really doesn't matter?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 09, 2015, 10:24:53 PM
i've not done the pitch at high krausen, but i did do the stop at about 12 hrs and cold crash in fridge then pitch next day method. that was for a lager with wlp830 at 49F and took off at about 11hrs.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 09, 2015, 11:19:19 PM
Quote
Or is it just the sheer fact that when repitching a slurry one is adding such a large population of yeast cells that it really doesn't matter?

Two things are going on with slurry.  The first thing is the sheer number of cells available to us.  We can afford to pitch less healthy cells because there are so many available.  Slurry places a high O2 load on wort.

With that said, there is something we should not overlook; namely, the cells in the slurry have been through a fermentation in our brewery.  The environment within a brewery and the practices used within a brewery place selective pressure on yeast cells.  What happens over time is that a culture adapts to a brewery.   That adaptation is caused by selective pressure, or what naturalists refer to as "survival of the fittest."  Each repitch weeds out cells that cannot handle the brewery.

When people talk about the number of times that a yeast culture can be repitched.  The dynamic here is often not the yeast cells.  What limits repitching is an ever growing microbial load.  No liquid culture is 100% pure.  Every repitch is an opportunity for microflora other than the pitched yeast strain to reproduce.  The thing about top-cropped yeast is that wild yeast and bacteria do not floc to the top; therefore, top cropping can naturally purify a culture.  A nineteenth century German chemist named Max Emil Julius Delbrück referred to this process as "Natural Pure Culture."   Delbrück duked it out with Emil Christian Hansen for the hearts and minds of brewers during the early days of pure cultures.  Delbrück's argument was that Hansen's approach (single-cell culture) was too synthetic to use in a production brewery.   Hansen's answer was the Carslberg Flask, which forms the basis for the modern yeast propagators used in large craft and industrial breweries.

Getting back to top-cropped yeast, Harveys in the UK has be repitching the same top-cropped yeast culture for over fifty years.  Geary's in Maine has been repitching the same Ringwood mixed culture for 29 years.
These cultures are now the dominant microflora in their respective breweries.   
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 09, 2015, 11:35:51 PM
Two things are going on with slurry.  The first thing is the sheer number of cells available to us.  We can afford to pitch less healthy cells because there are so many available.  Slurry places a high O2 on wort.

With that said, there is something we should not overlook; namely, the cells in the slurry have been through a fermentation in our brewery.  The environment within a brewery and the practices used within a brewery place selective pressure on yeast cells.  What happens over time is that a culture adapts to a brewery.   That adaptation is caused by selective pressure, or what naturalists refer to as "survival of the fittest."  Each repitch weeds out cells that cannot handle the brewery.

When people talk about the number of times that a yeast culture can be repitched.  The dynamic here is often not the yeast cells.  What limits repitching is an ever growing microbial load.  No liquid culture is 100% pure.  Every repitch is an opportunity for microflora other than the pitched yeast strain to reproduce.  The thing about top-cropped yeast is that wild yeast and bacteria do not floc to the top; therefore, top cropping can naturally purify a culture.  A nineteenth century German chemist named Max Emil Julius Delbrück referred to this process as "Natural Pure Culture."   Delbrück duked it out with Emil Christian Hansen for the hearts and minds of brewers during the early days of pure cultures.  Delbrück's argument was that Hansen's approach (single-cell culture) was too synthetic to use in a production brewery.   Hansen's answer was the Carslberg Flask, which forms the basis for the modern yeast propagators used in large craft and industrial breweries.

Getting back to top-cropped yeast, Harveys in the UK has be repitching the same top-cropped yeast culture for over fifty years.  Geary's in Maine has been repitching the same Ringwood mixed culture for 29 years.
These cultures are now the dominant microflora in their respective breweries.

While I appreciate the response, I am not sure that this explanation fully answered my question (please don't take offense).  Aren't both populations of yeast cells (a starter going to fermentation completion and a batch of beer wort fermenting to completion of which to be repitched as slurry) considered to be in quiescence?  And if so, wouldn't both of their UFA and ergosterol reserves pretty much be used up at this point, potentially making for a "not so healthy" pitch?

Thanks for helping me trying to wrap my head around this....
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 10, 2015, 12:02:49 AM
I would think a "healthy" pitch would consist of the desired yeast cells and not other microflora. Under that assumption, the sheer quantity of yeast in a slurry and the fact that it has successfully fermented a batch is a plus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 10, 2015, 01:41:41 AM
@ nearly 8 hours since pitch now.  there MIGHT be the start of something.  a little positive pressure on the airlock anyway.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 10, 2015, 01:59:49 AM
While I appreciate the response, I am not sure that this explanation fully answered my question (please don't take offense).  Aren't both populations of yeast cells (a starter going to fermentation completion and a batch of beer wort fermenting to completion of which to be repitched as slurry) considered to be in quiescence?  And if so, wouldn't both of their UFA and ergosterol reserves pretty much be used up at this point, potentially making for a "not so healthy" pitch?

Thanks for helping me trying to wrap my head around this....

While I appreciate the response, I am not sure that this explanation fully answered my question (please don't take offense).  Aren't both populations of yeast cells (a starter going to fermentation completion and a batch of beer wort fermenting to completion of which to be repitched as slurry) considered to be in quiescence?  And if so, wouldn't both of their UFA and ergosterol reserves pretty much be used up at this point, potentially making for a "not so healthy" pitch?

Thanks for helping me trying to wrap my head around this....


I may be wrong, but I believe that you are equating health of the pitch with the health of the fermentation.  That's not how things work.  Improved health and activity have one big advantage; namely, they reduce the lag phase.  The lag phase is the period of time between pitching the cells and the beginning of replication (i.e., the logarithmic or exponential phase).  It is not the period of time between pitching the cells and signs of fermentation.  That definition of lag phase is misnomer that is unique to the home brewing community. The lag phase is where cellular health is rebuilt by shunting O2 and carbon to the respirative metabolic pathway for the sythesization of ergosterol and UFAs.  Quiescent cells can become healthy cells, that is, if their cell walls have not been damaged via physical forces such as shear stress and there is enough O2 in solution.  Quiescent cells just require more time in the lag phase and more O2 than active cells that are pitched at high krausen.

The reason why we make a starter is to shorten what I am going to refer to as time-to-own.  Time-to-own is the period of time between pitching our culture and our culturing owning the wort.  None of our breweries are sterile.  Our culture is in a battle with other microflora that reproduce at a faster rate. Sanitize is not a synonym for sterilize.  Sanitized items still harbor live vegetative cells.  These surfaces just harbor far fewer vegetative cells than they did before they were sanitized.  This battle means that we need to do whatever we can to shorten time-to-own.   We do that by shortening the lag phase and/or the exponential phase.  My method attempts to shorten the lag phase via pitching at high krausen.  Cells at high krausen are active and have higher ergosterol and UFA reserves.   Cells pitched at high krausen have already started replicating by the time that quiescent cells have reversed the morphological changes that occurred at the end of fermentation and replenished their ergosterol and UFA reserves.

While the cells from slurry and a fermented to completion starter are quiescent, they are not quite equal.  We can look at the cells in slurry as tired battle hardened soldiers and the cells in a fermented-out starter as tired untested soldiers.  The cells in slurry have been through a "real world" fermentation in our brewery.  Starter wort is not a real world medium (at least not in American breweries :) ).  The cells that are not going to hack it in our brewery have already been weeded out in slurry via selective pressure.   An advantage that cannot be overlooked is the sheer number of cells available in slurry.  A 2L starter contains roughly 1/10th the number of cells in a 5-gallon batch.  While the lag phase is not shorter when pitching slurry, we have more control over the length of the exponential phase; hence, shortening time-to-own.  Anyone who has ever pitched the entire cake from a fermentation has witnessed how quickly active fermentation starts.  That's because the exponential phase has almost been completely eliminated.

In end, one should look at slurry as a brewery convenience, not the end all, be all of yeast cultures.  Repitching slurry is something that we adopted from the commercial world where the practice is critical to remaining profitable in many cases.  Ideally, we want to serially repitch to place selective pressure on a culture, plate the culture for isolates, and grow new seed culture from the best performing isolate.  If we go through that process enough times, we will end up with a culture that is robust in our brewery (however, me may not care for the flavor that it produces).



Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MerlinWerks on October 10, 2015, 03:09:24 AM
Thanks Mark

That certainly fleshes out your response to my initial post  :D
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: charles1968 on October 10, 2015, 08:03:17 AM
While I appreciate the response, I am not sure that this explanation fully answered my question (please don't take offense).  Aren't both populations of yeast cells (a starter going to fermentation completion and a batch of beer wort fermenting to completion of which to be repitched as slurry) considered to be in quiescence?  And if so, wouldn't both of their UFA and ergosterol reserves pretty much be used up at this point, potentially making for a "not so healthy" pitch?

Thanks for helping me trying to wrap my head around this....

While I appreciate the response, I am not sure that this explanation fully answered my question (please don't take offense).  Aren't both populations of yeast cells (a starter going to fermentation completion and a batch of beer wort fermenting to completion of which to be repitched as slurry) considered to be in quiescence?  And if so, wouldn't both of their UFA and ergosterol reserves pretty much be used up at this point, potentially making for a "not so healthy" pitch?

Thanks for helping me trying to wrap my head around this....


I may be wrong, but I believe that you are equating health of the pitch with the health of the fermentation.  That's not how things work.  Improved health and activity have one big advantage; namely, they reduce the lag phase.  The lag phase is the period of time between pitching the cells and the beginning of replication (i.e., the logarithmic or exponential phase).  It is not the period of time between pitching the cells and signs of fermentation.  That definition of lag phase is misnomer that is unique to the home brewing community. The lag phase is where cellular health is rebuilt by shunting O2 and carbon to the respirative metabolic pathway for the sythesization of ergosterol and UFAs.  Quiescent cells can become healthy cells, that is, if their cell walls have not been damaged via physical forces such as shear stress and there is enough O2 in solution.  Quiescent cells just require more time in the lag phase and more O2 than active cells that are pitched at high krausen.

The reason why we make a starter is to shorten what I am going to refer to as time-to-own.  Time-to-own is the period of time between pitching our culture and our culturing owning the wort.  None of our breweries are sterile.  Our culture is in a battle with other microflora that reproduce at a faster rate. Sanitize is not a synonym for sterilize.  Sanitized items still harbor live vegetative cells.  These surfaces just harbor far fewer vegetative cells than they did before they were sanitized.  This battle means that we need to do whatever we can to shorten time-to-own.   We do that by shortening the lag phase and/or the exponential phase.  My method attempts to shorten the lag phase via pitching at high krausen.  Cells at high krausen are active and have higher ergosterol and UFA reserves.   Cells pitched at high krausen have already started replicating by the time that quiescent cells have reversed the morphological changes that occurred at the end of fermentation and replenished their ergosterol and UFA reserves.

While the cells from slurry and a fermented to completion starter are quiescent, they are not quite equal.  We can look at the cells in slurry as tired battle hardened soldiers and the cells in a fermented-out starter as tired untested soldiers.  The cells in slurry have been through a "real world" fermentation in our brewery.  Starter wort is not a real world medium (at least not in American breweries :) ).  The cells that are not going to hack it in our brewery have already been weeded out in slurry via selective pressure.   An advantage that cannot be overlooked is the sheer number of cells available in slurry.  A 2L starter contains roughly 1/10th the number of cells in a 5-gallon batch.  While the lag phase is not shorter when pitching slurry, we have more control over the length of the exponential phase; hence, shortening time-to-own.  Anyone who has ever pitched the entire cake from a fermentation has witnessed how quickly active fermentation starts.  That's because the exponential phase has almost been completely eliminated.

In end, one should look at slurry as a brewery convenience, not the end all, be all of yeast cultures.  Repitching slurry is something that we adopted from the commercial world where the practice is critical to remaining profitable in many cases.  Ideally, we want to serially repitch to place selective pressure on a culture, plate the culture for isolates, and grow new seed culture from the best performing isolate.  If we go through that process enough times, we will end up with a culture that is robust in our brewery (however, me may not care for the flavor that it produces).

I have to say, you're very good at avoiding the question and getting lost in long digressions. All you had to say was "yes" to brewinhard's first question. Slurry from an FV contains more cells than slurry from a starter simply because it has more biomass. The natural-selection argument is obfuscation.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: charles1968 on October 10, 2015, 08:13:22 AM
The thing about top-cropped yeast is that wild yeast and bacteria do not floc to the top; therefore, top cropping can naturally purify a culture.

I suspect this is more to do with numbers and vigour than purity. Bacteria and wild yeast can't avoid getting buoyed up into the krausen along with beer yeast, hop debris, coagulated protein and everything else - there are simply fewer of them than beer yeast cells when fermentation is at peak activity.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: charles1968 on October 10, 2015, 08:14:59 AM
sythesization

I think you mean synthesis..
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 10, 2015, 09:50:24 AM
16 hours in - still nothing really.  since chilling the wort down to 48-50F and pitching the yeast I don't believe the chest freezer has even had to turn on.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 10, 2015, 11:15:41 AM

While I appreciate the response, I am not sure that this explanation fully answered my question (please don't take offense).  Aren't both populations of yeast cells (a starter going to fermentation completion and a batch of beer wort fermenting to completion of which to be repitched as slurry) considered to be in quiescence?  And if so, wouldn't both of their UFA and ergosterol reserves pretty much be used up at this point, potentially making for a "not so healthy" pitch?

Thanks for helping me trying to wrap my head around this....


I may be wrong, but I believe that you are equating health of the pitch with the health of the fermentation.  That's not how things work.  Improved health and activity have one big advantage; namely, they reduce the lag phase.  The lag phase is the period of time between pitching the cells and the beginning of replication (i.e., the logarithmic or exponential phase).  It is not the period of time between pitching the cells and signs of fermentation.  That definition of lag phase is misnomer that is unique to the home brewing community. The lag phase is where cellular health is rebuilt by shunting O2 and carbon to the respirative metabolic pathway for the sythesization of ergosterol and UFAs.  Quiescent cells can become healthy cells, that is, if their cell walls have not been damaged via physical forces such as shear stress and there is enough O2 in solution.  Quiescent cells just require more time in the lag phase and more O2 than active cells that are pitched at high krausen.

The reason why we make a starter is to shorten what I am going to refer to as time-to-own.  Time-to-own is the period of time between pitching our culture and our culturing owning the wort.  None of our breweries are sterile.  Our culture is in a battle with other microflora that reproduce at a faster rate. Sanitize is not a synonym for sterilize.  Sanitized items still harbor live vegetative cells.  These surfaces just harbor far fewer vegetative cells than they did before they were sanitized.  This battle means that we need to do whatever we can to shorten time-to-own.   We do that by shortening the lag phase and/or the exponential phase.  My method attempts to shorten the lag phase via pitching at high krausen.  Cells at high krausen are active and have higher ergosterol and UFA reserves.   Cells pitched at high krausen have already started replicating by the time that quiescent cells have reversed the morphological changes that occurred at the end of fermentation and replenished their ergosterol and UFA reserves.

While the cells from slurry and a fermented to completion starter are quiescent, they are not quite equal.  We can look at the cells in slurry as tired battle hardened soldiers and the cells in a fermented-out starter as tired untested soldiers.  The cells in slurry have been through a "real world" fermentation in our brewery.  Starter wort is not a real world medium (at least not in American breweries :) ).  The cells that are not going to hack it in our brewery have already been weeded out in slurry via selective pressure.   An advantage that cannot be overlooked is the sheer number of cells available in slurry.  A 2L starter contains roughly 1/10th the number of cells in a 5-gallon batch.  While the lag phase is not shorter when pitching slurry, we have more control over the length of the exponential phase; hence, shortening time-to-own.  Anyone who has ever pitched the entire cake from a fermentation has witnessed how quickly active fermentation starts.  That's because the exponential phase has almost been completely eliminated.

In end, one should look at slurry as a brewery convenience, not the end all, be all of yeast cultures.  Repitching slurry is something that we adopted from the commercial world where the practice is critical to remaining profitable in many cases.  Ideally, we want to serially repitch to place selective pressure on a culture, plate the culture for isolates, and grow new seed culture from the best performing isolate.  If we go through that process enough times, we will end up with a culture that is robust in our brewery (however, me may not care for the flavor that it produces).

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question (yet again).  It seems that sheer stress may play a role in true cell health.  I really enjoyed your analogies to the battle "hardened" populations.  That helped to explain the difference between a slurry population and a starter population regarding quiescence. 

So it sounds like the best way to approach yeast management at the homebrew level might be to create a shaken 1 L starter (pitched after shaking, 4:1 size) pitched at high krausen, then subsequent repitches of slurry from the harvested primaries (at least a few times anyway before the population gets too mutated). 

Then start all over with a fresh pack as stated above. 
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 10, 2015, 11:18:18 AM
I have to say, you're very good at avoiding the question and getting lost in long digressions. All you had to say was "yes" to brewinhard's first question. Slurry from an FV contains more cells than slurry from a starter simply because it has more biomass. The natural-selection argument is obfuscation.

I think you oversimplified the meat of Mark's post (and brewinhard's post) so you could use the word obfuscation. If you were bewildered or confused you should re-read the posts in succession.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: charles1968 on October 10, 2015, 11:44:41 AM
I have to say, you're very good at avoiding the question and getting lost in long digressions. All you had to say was "yes" to brewinhard's first question. Slurry from an FV contains more cells than slurry from a starter simply because it has more biomass. The natural-selection argument is obfuscation.

I think you oversimplified the meat of Mark's post (and brewinhard's post) so you could use the word obfuscation. If you were bewildered or confused you should re-read the posts in succession.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope. The only significant differences between a starter that has been fermented out and a batch of beer that has been fermented out is that the starter is smaller. The yeast are battle hardened in both. Mark's argument that the yeast in a starter are untested and haven't been through a "real world" fermentation doesn't stack up. The yeast have indeed been through a full fermentation cycle and become quiescent, just like the yeast in a batch of beer.

Mark is saying that the yeast from a fermenter have adapted to the brewery through natural selection. That may be true in a brewery where the same yeast are pitched over and over again into wort of the same composition/temperature/pH etc. over dozens of cycles, but home brewers don't work that way. Most home brewers keep switching recipe, fermentation temperature, water treatment, and yeast type. A typical batch of yeast used by an average home brewer might go through one fermentation cycle before being repitched in a new kind of beer - no different from a starter yeast population being pitched from fermented out DME to an all-grain wort.

To be clear, I think the new starter procedure Mark is recommending is great and makes complete sense, but it doesn't follow that every detail of Mark's posts is correct.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 10, 2015, 12:43:31 PM
I'll avoid the parts of the debate about adaptation, whether or not size matters, etc. At first when I read mark's stuff about sheer stress caused by the stir bar I didn't think too much of that. But after trying it, to me there is a distinct difference in aroma between my stirplate finished starters and the few oxygenated non-stirred high krausen starters ive made. The oxygenated non-stirred high krausen starters smell fresh and tasty while the stirplate ones have a (for lack of better term) bitter, trub-like, unappealing aroma. Whether or not the cause of that off aroma is sheer stressed yeast, or even something that means those yeest are not as good, I don't know. But there must be something different, or they would look and smell the same. Couple that with my experience now of 4 consecutive batches taking off sooner and more actively than I am used to with stirplate starters, for me thats evidence enough that oxygenated non-stirred starters are the better way to go, for me.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: charles1968 on October 10, 2015, 01:21:00 PM
It works for me too. I now use the shaking method for starters and for rejuvenating old harvested yeast samples that have been in the fridge for several months.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MerlinWerks on October 10, 2015, 03:05:42 PM
Well it appears my high krausen window appeared a little earlier than expected, sneaky little devils. I inoculated the starter with 75ml of thick 4th gen slurry about 9p last night. At 3a I had a thin but healthy looking krausen, much like the pic of Denny's ferm bucket minus the braunhefe. At 9a the krausen was well on it's way to dispersing.

I don't expect to be in a position to pitch until late afternoon/early evening. At this point I'm not sure what I want to do. I still have 400 - 500ml of two week old slurry so the clock is ticking on that relative to pitching it straight. To be clear, I have no doubt the SNS starter will do the job, but if I wait on the slurry then I probably should make a starter with it next week anyway. So I may just pitch the slurry straight today and refrigerate the SNS starter. Next week ~8 hrs prior to pitching, decant, add some fresh starter wort to wake it up and hopefully catch it at high krausen.

I realize that pitching at high krausen is not mandatory for success, but it is something I would like to try. In the past I have always been slightly put off by pitching the larger amount of starter that is usually recommended.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 10, 2015, 03:16:29 PM
Yup, my first try at doing this method, I made the starters the night before brew day.  They were at HK on brew day morning. Used them anyway and it went fine. This week I made my starters bright n early brew day morning. They were at HK in 8 hrs and pitched then. That will be me schedule going forward.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 10, 2015, 04:01:05 PM
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question (yet again).  It seems that sheer stress may play a role in true cell health.  I really enjoyed your analogies to the battle "hardened" populations.  That helped to explain the difference between a slurry population and a starter population regarding quiescence. 

So it sounds like the best way to approach yeast management at the homebrew level might be to create a shaken 1 L starter (pitched after shaking, 4:1 size) pitched at high krausen, then subsequent repitches of slurry from the harvested primaries (at least a few times anyway before the population gets too mutated). 

Then start all over with a fresh pack as stated above.

What I have been attempting to say while avoiding being backed into a corner is that there is no one best way to propagate a yeast culture.  One's yeast management system has to be looked at as a whole.  We really do need to look at how we handle yeast as a system, not a collection is disparate steps.   My method of making a starter is just one part of my yeast management system.  There are parts that deal with the collection and isolation of yeast.  There are parts that deal with long-term viability.  There is component that deals with the harvesting and management of slurry (e.g., how much pressure can I place on a yeast culture before it mutates).  Every strain has to be observed on an individual basis, and adjustments to the steps have to be made.  That's why I maintain a paper-based log.

Let me give you an example of where making a decision in one part of a yeast management system could lead to a faulty conclusion of how a strain would perform in another area of the system.  I have a strain in my bank called FST 40-219/UCD 1219.  This strain was deposited into the UC Davis culture collection by the old Acme Brewing Company in 1942.  I am not exaggerating when I say that this strain is a pain in the backside to grow on solid media (plates and slants).  I dread having to subculture it, and plating it is not much fun either.   I had to write the one of the curators at UC Davis and ask if she had sent a blank slant by accident.  Her answer was "No, that is how the culture grows."  She told me that culture was a diploid, and that I should see how it grows on a plate.  I had to pull out a magnifying glass to see that there was a light film of yeast cells on the surface of the slant.

Anyway, I decided to skip subculturing the slant, and use the fill the slant with a few milliliters of autoclaved wort, attempt to suspend whatever cells are on the surface of the slant, and use that wort to inoculate 40mls of autoclaved wort trick.  To my surprise, the liquid culture started within a normal period of time.  I then stepped the culture after streaking a plate for singles.  The difference between performance on solid and in liquid media was like the difference between night and day.  The resulting beer was very good.  I also learned what the curator was saying when she wrote that I should see how the strain grows on a plate.  The colonies are smaller than most other cultures.  They look a lot like petite mutant colonies.  I almost discarded the culture based on my initial experience with solid media.   That's why it is critical to observe and document the performance of every culture that one brings into one's brewery from the start of use to the end of use.   

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 10, 2015, 04:52:21 PM
23 hours, still no airlock activity.

typically I don't start to worry until 36 hours but I thought this method was supposed to get going quickly?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 10, 2015, 04:52:58 PM
at some point this may go from lager to a saison :P

(have some dry saison yeast in the fridge)

cracked the lid - nothing going on yet.  last time I used this yeast it was going at a good pace at this point but that's my only other sample point with it.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 10, 2015, 05:40:53 PM
Yup, my first try at doing this method, I made the starters the night before brew day.  They were at HK on brew day morning. Used them anyway and it went fine. This week I made my starters bright n early brew day morning. They were at HK in 8 hrs and pitched then. That will be me schedule going forward.

That is the one thing that has kept me from doing this so far.  Brew day is busy enough for me already and to add another step (i.e. making a small starter early before heating up strike water) just adds to the chaos especially with two young kids in the mix. I will get there, but I want to get my hands on a fresher pack of yeast and will most likely do an ale instead of a lager first with this method. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 10, 2015, 05:41:35 PM
at some point this may go from lager to a saison :P

(have some dry saison yeast in the fridge)

cracked the lid - nothing going on yet.  last time I used this yeast it was going at a good pace at this point but that's my only other sample point with it.

I am assuming you aerated your wort properly?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 10, 2015, 05:47:37 PM
at some point this may go from lager to a saison :P

(have some dry saison yeast in the fridge)

cracked the lid - nothing going on yet.  last time I used this yeast it was going at a good pace at this point but that's my only other sample point with it.

I am assuming you aerated your wort properly?

wait what????

kidding.  I gave it a 90 count of pure O2 through a stone with the flow regulator set to 2 (LPM?  I can't remember the units on that thing).  it had a nice layer of O2 foam on top by the time I was done.

eta:  I also drain my kettle down about 9' to my fermentor so that gets it pretty well aerated as well.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 10, 2015, 08:53:51 PM
23 hours, still no airlock activity.

typically I don't start to worry until 36 hours but I thought this method was supposed to get going quickly?

That's odd.  The fermentation should start as fast as any other method.  What strain did you pitch?   What was the starter gravity?   What was the batch gravity?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 10, 2015, 09:09:01 PM
23 hours, still no airlock activity.

typically I don't start to worry until 36 hours but I thought this method was supposed to get going quickly?

That's odd.  The fermentation should start as fast as any other method.  What strain did you pitch?   What was the starter gravity?   What was the batch gravity?

WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 10, 2015, 09:27:48 PM
WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

The batch should have started by now.  A quick search on that strain reveals that many people have reported slower than normal starts with WLP833.  The search results combined with what I have experienced over the years tells me that WLP833 more than likely loses viability faster than other more robust strains; otherwise, every one would be complaining about slow starts.  Low viability adds a wrinkle to the equation.  How old was the culture?  How was the culture stored before you received it?  Was it shipped during the heat of summer?

By the way, I do not know if you started with more than 2L of water, but the solution should be 2L in volume after boiling. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 11, 2015, 01:06:11 AM
WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

The batch should have started by now.  A quick search on that strain reveals that many people have reported slower than normal starts with WLP833.  The search results combined with what I have experienced over the years tells me that WLP833 more than likely loses viability faster than other more robust strains; otherwise, every one would be complaining about slow starts.  Low viability adds a wrinkle to the equation.  How old was the culture?  How was the culture stored before you received it?  Was it shipped during the heat of summer?

By the way, I do not know if you started with more than 2L of water, but the solution should be 2L in volume after boiling.

best by date was early december and I'm in the north east - it's not that hot here.  I had to special order it through the LHBS and he had it in the fridge.  that's all I know.  the starter was def fermenting b/c when I swirled it up it foamed up.

I didn't boil that starter very long so boil off should have been minimal.

so 31 hours in now and I'm not seeing much in the way of signs of life.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 11, 2015, 09:49:54 AM
finally some activity this morning!  hopefully things go smoothly from here on out.  I was really hoping for this method to work well for me and I was getting nervous.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 11, 2015, 12:16:22 PM
Lagers may not be the best way to try out this method, but I am glad you gave it a whirl.  It still seems like major under pitching to me, but then again, I am no yeast expert.  I can tell you that with my typical lager stir plate starters that I have never experienced more than 24 hrs until active fermentation is visible and well under way.
Granted, much more yeast is being pitched even if it is not quite as "healthy" as a starter shaken and pitched at high krausen. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 11, 2015, 01:51:00 PM
I wouldn't have tried out a new method with a sample that is darn near a year old. According to mr malty, since we've been continually referring back to that, at best the sample was 10% viable.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 11, 2015, 03:11:37 PM

I wouldn't have tried out a new method with a sample that is darn near a year old. According to mr malty, since we've been continually referring back to that, at best the sample was 10% viable.

Agreed. This seems like your smoking gun. You were probably bound to have problems no matter what method you used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 11, 2015, 03:19:38 PM
WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

The batch should have started by now.  A quick search on that strain reveals that many people have reported slower than normal starts with WLP833.  The search results combined with what I have experienced over the years tells me that WLP833 more than likely loses viability faster than other more robust strains; otherwise, every one would be complaining about slow starts.  Low viability adds a wrinkle to the equation.  How old was the culture?  How was the culture stored before you received it?  Was it shipped during the heat of summer?

By the way, I do not know if you started with more than 2L of water, but the solution should be 2L in volume after boiling.

best by date was early december and I'm in the north east - it's not that hot here.  I had to special order it through the LHBS and he had it in the fridge.  that's all I know.  the starter was def fermenting b/c when I swirled it up it foamed up.

I didn't boil that starter very long so boil off should have been minimal.

so 31 hours in now and I'm not seeing much in the way of signs of life.

did i miss something guys- OP said yeast he used was best by december, so that puts it production in Aug 2015.....unless he meant 2014-cant imagine that.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 11, 2015, 03:55:51 PM
WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

The batch should have started by now.  A quick search on that strain reveals that many people have reported slower than normal starts with WLP833.  The search results combined with what I have experienced over the years tells me that WLP833 more than likely loses viability faster than other more robust strains; otherwise, every one would be complaining about slow starts.  Low viability adds a wrinkle to the equation.  How old was the culture?  How was the culture stored before you received it?  Was it shipped during the heat of summer?

By the way, I do not know if you started with more than 2L of water, but the solution should be 2L in volume after boiling.

best by date was early december and I'm in the north east - it's not that hot here.  I had to special order it through the LHBS and he had it in the fridge.  that's all I know.  the starter was def fermenting b/c when I swirled it up it foamed up.

I didn't boil that starter very long so boil off should have been minimal.

so 31 hours in now and I'm not seeing much in the way of signs of life.

did i miss something guys- OP said yeast he used was best by december, so that puts it production in Aug 2015.....unless he meant 2014-cant imagine that.
I missed the best by part. Im used to wyeast where the date is when it was made, not best by. So I presumed it was packaged in December 14
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 11, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
Something else at play. Perhaps that starter never really had taken off? Wlp833 can tend to lag longer, but that's somewhat because it's usually pitched pretty cool. For me that's 46/47F and then kept at 48/49f.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 11, 2015, 05:03:40 PM
did i miss something guys- OP said yeast he used was best by december, so that puts it production in Aug 2015.....unless he meant 2014-cant imagine that.


I would not base the performance of any method on a culture that was shipped between mid-June and mid-September.  The temperature of the route that the culture took between the West Coast and the East Coast  is what matters.  It is not uncommon for the inside of a trailer be well over 100 degrees.  The yeast culture is living off of stores.  Hotter temperatures increase metabolism, which is why I do not order yeast in the summer or purchase commercial yeast cultures that were shipped during the summer.

With that said, it appears that WLP833, like dry BRY 97, is notorious for slow starts.   It is an outlier strain that is going to produce outlier results.  The lack of activity in the starter combined with the long lag time is also starting to raise red flags as to the condition of culture. 

I do not know where this pitch cold and allow the culture to come up to fermentation temperature because it lowers esters dogma originated or the belief that lagers are best fermented at 50F or below, but these myths are based on very dated information.  Every every lager strain in use today was selected for use at 13C/55F, which is the temperature of the Earth below the frost line.  I am starting to feel like Marshall's evil twin.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MerlinWerks on October 11, 2015, 05:10:59 PM
So ended up pitching the reserved slurry I had on yesterday's batch and it's bubbling away nicely. I now have my fermented-out SNS starter that I thought I would save and rejuvenate next week. But I was wondering what it would take to step this up to a quantity that could be split into multiple portions suitable for creating multiple SNS starters?

I realize that this will go beyond the simplicity of the SNS starter and will most likely require the use of an O2 stone to get the larger starter wort volume properly oxygenated.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 11, 2015, 06:45:16 PM
This thread has now grown to 20 pages. Please limit your questions to the method as originally described.  I know that people are just looking for more information.  However, there are many of you and only one of me.  Yeast is a complex subject that does not lend itself to short answers.  This thread has taken on a life of its own.  The replies to most of the tell me how it works in gory details, why should I switch to this method, and a starter that small cannot possibly work types of inquiries took at least thirty minutes to compose and proofread (a few of the replies took over an hour to compose).  The fact the forum software is configured such that one loses one's work if one's session times-out has caused the loss of several hours of work over the length of this thread.


Note to AHA IT: The forum software needs to be configured such that one does not lose one's work if one's session times-out during the composition of a post.  It's annoying to click the preview or post button only to have's one work trashed after re-authenticating.  The standard behavior for most forum software is to go through the authentication process again and then proceed to posting or previewing the post based on what button was clicked before the user was challenged for his/her credentials.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 11, 2015, 07:33:40 PM
Mark, thanks for your comments and especially your info.  I'll pass your comment along to the IT staff.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 11, 2015, 07:40:00 PM
I wouldn't have tried out a new method with a sample that is darn near a year old. According to mr malty, since we've been continually referring back to that, at best the sample was 10% viable.

as has been mentioned the manufacture date was early sept so well within the "good" window.

some temp shock of the yeast is possible.  since I've typically used a chilled and decanted starter this was another variable in the way I typically do things.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 11, 2015, 07:55:05 PM
This thread has now grown to 20 pages. Please limit your questions to the method as originally described.  I know that people are just looking for more information.  However, there are many of you and only one of me.  Yeast is a complex subject that does not lend itself to short answers.  This thread has taken on a life of its own.  The replies to most of the tell me how it works in gory details, why should I switch to this method, and a starter that small cannot possibly work types of inquiries took at least thirty minutes to compose and proofread (a few of the replies took over an hour to compose).  The fact the forum software is configured such that one loses one's work if one's session times-out has caused the loss of several hours of work over the length of this thread.


Note to AHA IT: The forum software needs to be configured such that one does not lose one's work if one's session times-out during the composition of a post.  It's annoying to click the preview or post button only to have's one work trashed after re-authenticating.  The standard behavior for most forum software is to go through the authentication process again and then proceed to posting or previewing the post based on what button was clicked before the user was challenged for his/her credentials.

do you have your log in set to time out?  I have yet to have the problem you speak of.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 11, 2015, 08:13:16 PM
do you have your log in set to time out?  I have yet to have the problem you speak of.

Good catch, Morty!  You're pretty smart for a new guy!  :)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 11, 2015, 09:22:37 PM
do you have your log in set to time out?  I have yet to have the problem you speak of.

No, the forum default session length is two hours.  One can see this default setting on the "Login" page.  Those who login on the home page never realize that there is a two hour limit for the forum.   The only way around it is to change the session time-out period or disable it from the Login page.  Even if one disables the time-out by checking the "Always stay logged in" checkbox on the Login page, the setting only remains in effect until one clears cookies, which I do every time I close my browser (a practice that everyone who does not wish to be tracked should do because sites do not have to honor the "do not track" setting in one's browser).

(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv356/tonestack/Brewing/Screen%20Shot%202015-10-11%20at%205.02.15%20PM_zpscroak3om.png)

Most forums implement a session time-out period for security reasons.  Whether the time-out is from the second one logs into the forum or is based on a period of inactivity,  most forums do not trash a post that was in the process of being composed when the session times out when the user is prompted to re-authenticate upon clicking the Post or Preview buttons.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 11, 2015, 09:26:23 PM
How about typing the long stuff in Word and pasting to the forum?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 11, 2015, 09:51:34 PM
I use Word some of time.  However, I do not use it all of the time.

The AHA Forum is the only forum to which I have ever posted that trashes a post that is posted or previewed after the session times out.  There have been times on other forums where I started composing a post and walked away for several hours before returning to the post.  The forum did not trash my post when went clicked the Post or Preview button.  It merely challenged me for my credentials before allowing the operation to proceed.  I grew so frustrated of the behavior that I stopped posting to the forum for a while.  It can be maddening at times to see an hour of work trashed in a second.  I have grown so paranoid of the forum trashing a post that I usually select and copy the text before clicking the Post or Preview button.  However, there are times that I forgot to do so or forget to login via the login page so I can disable the session time-out.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 12, 2015, 12:08:37 AM
do you have your log in set to time out?  I have yet to have the problem you speak of.

No, the forum default session length is two hours.  One can see this default setting on the "Login" page.  Those who login on the home page never realize that there is a two hour limit for the forum.   The only way around it is to change the session time-out period or disable it is from the Login page.  Even if one disables the time-out by checking the "Always stay logged in" checkbox on the Login page, the setting only remains in effect until one clears cookies, which I do every time I close my browser (a practice that everyone who does not wish to be tracked should do because sites do not have to honor the "do not track" setting in one's browser).

this is what they call "page 3 information" where I'm from.

denny probably knows what I mean.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: neddles on October 12, 2015, 12:50:54 AM
do you have your log in set to time out?  I have yet to have the problem you speak of.

No, the forum default session length is two hours.  One can see this default setting on the "Login" page.  Those who login on the home page never realize that there is a two hour limit for the forum.   The only way around it is to change the session time-out period or disable it is from the Login page.  Even if one disables the time-out by checking the "Always stay logged in" checkbox on the Login page, the setting only remains in effect until one clears cookies, which I do every time I close my browser (a practice that everyone who does not wish to be tracked should do because sites do not have to honor the "do not track" setting in one's browser).

this is what they call "page 3 information" where I'm from.

denny probably knows what I mean.
That sounds kinda familiar.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 12, 2015, 03:11:10 PM
fermentation still seems to be going fairly normally.  I allowed the ferm temp to creep up to about 51F.  pretty soon I'll let it naturally rise as I see the airlock activity slowing down.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 12:07:35 PM
my chest freezer smells like farts right now.  the sulfur is flowing right now.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 01:23:47 PM
Sulfur production is normal for a lager strain.  At least it does not smell like rotten eggs.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 01:29:11 PM
By the way, sulfur production is usually the sign of a flocculent strain.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 02:11:41 PM
By the way, sulfur production is usually the sign of a flocculent strain.

yes, I've def run into this smell in the past with lagers.

I didn't know that it indicated a flocculent strain though.  I suppose this yeast does tend to finish a little high despite white labs claiming it's only a medium floccer.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 13, 2015, 02:17:29 PM
By the way, sulfur production is usually the sign of a flocculent strain.

yes, I've def run into this smell in the past with lagers.

I didn't know that it indicated a flocculent strain though.  I suppose this yeast does tend to finish a little high despite white labs claiming it's only a medium floccer.

flocculent of flatulent strain....    :o
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 02:22:44 PM
By the way, sulfur production is usually the sign of a flocculent strain.

yes, I've def run into this smell in the past with lagers.

I didn't know that it indicated a flocculent strain though.  I suppose this yeast does tend to finish a little high despite white labs claiming it's only a medium floccer.

flocculent of flatulent strain....    :o

I would have been disappointed if someone didn't go there  ;D
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 13, 2015, 02:26:39 PM
By the way, sulfur production is usually the sign of a flocculent strain.

yes, I've def run into this smell in the past with lagers.

I didn't know that it indicated a flocculent strain though.  I suppose this yeast does tend to finish a little high despite white labs claiming it's only a medium floccer.

flocculent of flatulent strain....    :o

I would have been disappointed if someone didn't go there  ;D

what can I say..im an old juvenile.

anyway,IME 833 produces sulfur first 48hrs or so, then drops off significantly. nothing residual in finished product.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 02:45:07 PM
what can I say..im an old juvenile.

anyway,IME 833 produces sulfur first 48hrs or so, then drops off significantly. nothing residual in finished product.

it's a yeast with a very distinctive flavor profile for sure.  it's one of the reasons I suspect that I really like the couple of ayinger beers I've tried.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: rabeb25 on October 13, 2015, 02:50:35 PM
what can I say..im an old juvenile.

anyway,IME 833 produces sulfur first 48hrs or so, then drops off significantly. nothing residual in finished product.

it's a yeast with a very distinctive flavor profile for sure.  it's one of the reasons I suspect that I really like the couple of ayinger beers I've tried.

Most likely due to the decoction mash.  8)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 02:54:01 PM
what can I say..im an old juvenile.

anyway,IME 833 produces sulfur first 48hrs or so, then drops off significantly. nothing residual in finished product.

it's a yeast with a very distinctive flavor profile for sure.  it's one of the reasons I suspect that I really like the couple of ayinger beers I've tried.

Most likely due to the decoction mash.  8)

now you've done it!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: BairsBrewing on October 13, 2015, 03:08:27 PM
So as I'm reading all this shaken not stirred commentary, I guess Bond had it right all along. Never will I stir going forward!. I have two homemade stir plates for sale on the cheap! Trade for a good vodka? Great info S.c and others!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 03:23:29 PM
So as I'm reading all this shaken not stirred commentary, I guess Bond had it right all along. Never will I stir going forward!. I have two homemade stir plates for sale on the cheap! Trade for a good vodka? Great info S.c and others!

I'm not sure I'd ditch my stir plates just yet!  I say try it yourself and make sure you are happy with the results.  Assuming this batch I'm making comes out reasonably good I'll try it again with an ale yeast (probably 1450).  If that goes well this could become my MO or the very least another tool in the toolbox to use when I don't have time to make multiple steps of starter ahead of time.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: BairsBrewing on October 13, 2015, 03:26:08 PM
I'm definitely a try and see. Thats how I got to where I am now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on October 13, 2015, 03:27:48 PM
For my latest lager (10 gallons), I made two 3-liter starters.  Since I have only one stir plate, I used pure O2 on the other one for 90 seconds before pitching the yeast.  The amount of final yeast mass after crashing was about the same.  May be worth further investigation... I didn't do a cell count or methylene blue stain for viability.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 13, 2015, 03:42:16 PM
what can I say..im an old juvenile.

anyway,IME 833 produces sulfur first 48hrs or so, then drops off significantly. nothing residual in finished product.

it's a yeast with a very distinctive flavor profile for sure.  it's one of the reasons I suspect that I really like the couple of ayinger beers I've tried.

Most likely due to the decoction mash.  8)

Nanananana....I can't hear you!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 13, 2015, 04:22:47 PM
What is everyone using for their starter bottle? As our batch sizes and gravity's vary, I think a 5L bottle would suffice. 5L media bottles are not cheap.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 04:31:37 PM
What is everyone using for their starter bottle? As our batch sizes and gravity's vary, I think a 5L bottle would suffice. 5L media bottles are not cheap.

since I make 10 gal batches I made a 2L starter.  I used a 5 gal better bottle for this.  A 3 gal better bottle might not be a bad option if I had to buy something.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on October 13, 2015, 04:32:49 PM
What is everyone using for their starter bottle? As our batch sizes and gravity's vary, I think a 5L bottle would suffice. 5L media bottles are not cheap.

1 gal. glass jug, like from apple juice.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 13, 2015, 04:42:05 PM

What is everyone using for their starter bottle? As our batch sizes and gravity's vary, I think a 5L bottle would suffice. 5L media bottles are not cheap.

1 gal. glass jug, like from apple juice.
+1 - LHBS sells them for about half the price of a good quality organic cider from the local bougie grocery store packed in the same jug. I prefer the option with the juice.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 13, 2015, 04:58:47 PM
My latest experience with the way I do it. (Oxygenate it like it owes you money)
I brewed a 1.058 APA and a 1.052 Stout  both with Wy1056 on 10/6. Today, 10/13, the APA is at 1.010 and 4.4 ph.  The stout is at 1.012 and 4.2 ph. They both still have a 1/4" of krausen, so now I'm just waiting for that to drop.

These are my second trial of this yeast method. The first trial was not as quick to drop gravity, but I built those starters the night before so I think I was at the tail end of high krausen. These latest were built morning of brew day and pitched at high krausen 8 hrs later. I think that is the difference im seeing.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 05:55:49 PM
1 gal. glass jug, like from apple juice.

A 5L media bottle is a want, not a need.  I used a one U.S. gallon glass jug for a very long time.    A 2L starter can be made using two one U.S. gallon glass jugs.  The culture is split between the jugs.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 13, 2015, 06:20:37 PM
here's one for you Mark- I have what will be 4wk old wlp833 slurry, and want to make a non stir plate starter for 1.048OG lager.

what would you do? slurry is thick, with very little hop/break sediment.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 06:44:51 PM
here's one for you Mark- I have what will be 4wk old wlp833 slurry, and want to make a non stir plate starter for 1.048OG lager.

what would you do? slurry is thick, with very little hop/break sediment.

if replication really is the key to a nice clean ferment I think I'd take a portion that you suspect is about 100B cells and make a starter to pitch at high krausen.  at least that's what I would probably try if I was going for a James Bond starter.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 06:54:51 PM
here's one for you Mark- I have what will be 4wk old wlp833 slurry, and want to make a non stir plate starter for 1.048OG lager.

what would you do? slurry is thick, with very little hop/break sediment.

Four weeks is old, but not ancient.  We are looking at 50% viability as the worse case scenario.  Unless you really want to make a starter, I would pitch about 200ml of thick slurry straight into 5 gallons.  I would also ensure that the wort was well aerated.  Do you have at least 200ml of slurry?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 13, 2015, 06:59:18 PM

here's one for you Mark- I have what will be 4wk old wlp833 slurry, and want to make a non stir plate starter for 1.048OG lager.

what would you do? slurry is thick, with very little hop/break sediment.

Four weeks is old, but not ancient.  We are looking at 50% viability as the worse case scenario.  Unless you really want to make a starter, I would pitch about 200ml of thick slurry straight into 5 gallons.  I would also ensure that the wort was well aerated.  Do you have at least 200ml of slurry?

Yes plenty of slurry .So that would be my normal way to go- although I would have used 250ml as recommended by mr.malty.

If I did go starter route just for sale of trying this no stir plate method-what would you recommend


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 07:00:23 PM
if replication really is the key to a nice clean ferment

Actually, replication is the key to a yeast strain exhibiting its unique character, as the flavor compounds unique to a strain are produced during replication.  The higher the pitch rate, the lower the difference between two strains. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 07:03:52 PM
if replication really is the key to a nice clean ferment

Actually, replication is the key to a yeast strain exhibiting its unique character, as the flavor compounds unique to a strain are produced during replication.  The higher the pitch rate, the lower the difference between two strains.

I was mostly talking about avoiding ester production.  This could be wrong but I seem to remember that yeast growth uses up "X" compound that is later not available to produce esters.  As you can see I've really studied this  ;D
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 07:10:27 PM
If I did go starter route just for sale of trying this no stir plate method-what would you recommend

Let's say that your mix of yeast and organic material yeast yields approximately 2 billion cells per milliliter (there's no way to now for certain without a cell count).  The worse case scenario is 1 billion viable cells per milliliter.  Depending on the cell size, you are going to max out at approximately 200 billion cells with a 1L starter.  You want at least 50% growth, so you are looking at 100ml of slurry.  I personally would pitch 75ml of slurry into 10% w/v (1.040) starter, but I am a gambling man.  If you are going to go through the trouble of preparing a starter, then you might as well go for significant new growth.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 13, 2015, 07:16:12 PM
If I did go starter route just for sale of trying this no stir plate method-what would you recommend

Let's say that your mix of yeast and organic material yeast yields approximately 2 billion cells per milliliter (there's no way to now for certain without a cell count).  The worse case scenario is 1 billion viable cells per milliliter.  Depending on the cell size, you are going to max out at approximately 200 billion cells with a 1L starter.  You want at least 50% growth, so you are looking at 100ml of slurry.  I personally would pitch 75ml of slurry into 10% w/v (1.040) starter, but I am a gambling man.  If you are going to go through the trouble of preparing a starter, then you might as well go for significant new growth.
so thats 100ml surry in 1.040 wort- 1L?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 08:42:05 PM
I was mostly talking about avoiding ester production.  This could be wrong but I seem to remember that yeast growth uses up "X" compound that is later not available to produce esters.  As you can see I've really studied this  ;D

I believe that the compound to which you are referring is called Acetyl-CoA (Acetyl coenzyme A).  While Acetyl-CoA consumption does increase with an increase in growth, it is only half of the story.  Higher alcohol production increases with cell growth. 

Esters are formed by condensation reactions between alcohols and carboxylic acids. The condensation reaction produces an ester plus a water molecule.  A carboxylic acid is an acid with a carboxyl group (i.e., an acid with COOH in its formula).  Acetic acid is a carboxylic acid with the formula CH3COOH.  Hexanoic acid is a carboxylic acid with the formula C5H11COOH.  Finally, heptanoic acid is also a carboxylic acid with the formula C6H13COOH.  There are more carboxylic acids, but we will stick with these three for this discussion.

The ester amyl acetate (banana) is the condensation reaction between amyl alcohol (actually 1-pentanol) and acetic acid. 

C5H11OH + CH3COOH  → C7H14O2 + H2O

The ester ehtyl hexanoate (red apple, star anise, or strawberry) is the condensation reaction between ethanol and hexanoic acid.

CH3CH2OH + C5H11COOH  → C8H16O2 + H2O

The ester ethyl heptanoate (grape) is the condensation reaction between ethanol and heptanoic acid.   

CH3CH2OH + C6H13COOH  → C9H18O2 + H2O

What's weird about esters is that the curve is u-shaped with respect to pitch rate.  Ester production is increased when pitching low and high.  The mid-point pitching rate produces the lowest ester profile.  As much good as Jamil has done for amateur brewers (i.e., those who brew solely for the love of brewing), pimping the 1 million cells per degree Plato rule has hurt as much as it has helped the community.  We now have an entire generation of home brewers who believe that the only proper pitch rate is 1 million cells per degree Plato.  Things are not that simple.  Professional brewers pitch for desired performance.  They pitch low if they want esters and pitch closer to 1 million cells per degree Plato if they want to produce a low ester beer (while temperature does play a role, it only does so as a metabolic rate modifier).  Professional brewers can push the performance in either direction because they know their yeast strains very well.  Amateur brewers should adopt a more open mindset when it comes to pitching rates.  There is no one proper pitching rate.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 08:46:01 PM
I was mostly talking about avoiding ester production.  This could be wrong but I seem to remember that yeast growth uses up "X" compound that is later not available to produce esters.  As you can see I've really studied this  ;D

I believe that the compound to which you are referring is called Acetyl-CoA (Acetyl coenzyme A).  While Acetyl-CoA consumption does increase with an increase in growth, it is only half of the story.  Higher alcohol production increases with cell growth. 

Esters are formed by condensation reactions between alcohols and carboxylic acids. The condensation reaction produces an ester plus a water molecule.  A carboxylic acid is an acid with a carboxyl group (i.e., an acid with COOH in its formula).  Acetic acid is a carboxylic acid with the formula CH3COOH.  Hexanoic acid is a carboxylic acid with the formula C5H11COOH.  Finally, Heptanoic acid is also a carboxylic acid with the formula C6H13COOH.  There are more carboxylic acids, but we will stick with these three for this discussion.

The ester amyl acetate (banana) is the condensation reaction between amyl alcohol (actually 1-pentanol) and acetic acid. 

C5H11OH + CH3COOH  → C7H12O2 + H2O

The ester ehtyl hexanoate (red apple, star anise, or strawberry) is the condensation reaction between ethanol and hexanoic acid.

CH3CH2OH + C5H11COOH  → C8H16O2 + H2O

The ester ethyl heptanoate (grape) is the condensation reaction between ethanol and heptanoic acid.   

CH3CH2OH + C6H13COOH  → C9H18O2 + H2O

What's weird about esters is that the curve is u-shaped with respect to pitch rate.  Ester production is increased when pitching low and high.  The mid-point pitching rate that produces the lowest ester profile.  As much good as Jamil has done for the amateur brewers (i.e., those who brew solely for the love of brewing), pimping the 1 million cells per degree Plato rule has hurt as much as it has helped the community.  We now have an entire generation of home brewers who believe that the only proper pitch rate is 1 million cells per degree Plato.  Things are not that simple.  Professional brewers pitch for desired performance.  They pitch low if they want esters and pitch closer to 1 million cells per degree Plato if they want to produce a low ester beer (while temperature does play a role, it only does so as a metabolic rate modifier).  Professional brewers can push the performance in either direction because they know their yeast strains very well.  Amateur should adopt a more open mindset when it comes to pitching rates.  There is no one proper pitching rate.

in general I'm going for minimal ester production.  higher alcohol creation doesn't sound great either.  I want smooth beer!  no burning please.

in the past I've done a decent job of accomplishing this.  so where is the bottom of that U?

eta:  if 1M is the wrong rate, what is the right one?  and how wide and flat is the bottom of the U?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 08:52:03 PM
so thats 100ml surry in 1.040 wort- 1L?

Yes, 1L of 1.040 wort contains 100 grams of dissolved DME, which makes it a 100 grams / 1000 milliliters * 100 =  a 10% weight by volume (w/v) solution.  Weight by volume and weight by weight are the same when the solvent is water because 1 milliliter of water weighs one gram.   A 10% w/v solution is a 10 Plato solution, and a 10 Plato solution has a specific gravity of 1.040 at the temperature at which the hydrometer was calibrated. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 13, 2015, 09:19:21 PM
in general I'm going for minimal ester production.  higher alcohol creation doesn't sound great either.  I want smooth beer!  no burning please.

in the past I've done a decent job of accomplishing this.  so where is the bottom of that U?

eta:  if 1M is the wrong rate, what is the right one?  and how wide and flat is the bottom of the U?

You are looking at the problem too simplistically.  The higher alcohol bogeyman is yet another home brewing myth.   Beer is bland and boring without higher alcohols.   All beers contain esters, even lager.  If you doubt me, taste wort and then taste the resulting beer.  They are not the same.  The difference is the result of alcohols, esters, an other metabolic byproducts.

Much of what is taught to the amateur brewing community about fermentation is dumbed-down to the point where so much information is lost as to render it useless.  For example, here's how a yeast propagator whose target market is primarily professional brewers describes a yeast strain.

"This yeast is a very popular and very flocculent lager strain from Northern Europe. It produces a beer with a good balance of flavors, particularly between the esters and higher alcohols, which makes a very drinkable beer. This yeast produces less sulfur compounds than most other flocculent strains."

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 13, 2015, 10:30:00 PM
I'll bet that the U is not always symmetrical or the same for each yeast in every circumstance. So far I've not experienced the over pitch upright of the U. Not saying it doesn't exist. But with the yeasts I have over pitched, they were grossly over pitched and still rather bland. I used to try for super clean fermentation by way of low ester, till I realized that what i really wanted was eliminating off flavors and TRYING FOR appropriate levels of esters.

editted to add TRYING FOR... the original way made it sound like I dont want appropriate levels of esters
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 11:12:30 PM
in general I'm going for minimal ester production.  higher alcohol creation doesn't sound great either.  I want smooth beer!  no burning please.

in the past I've done a decent job of accomplishing this.  so where is the bottom of that U?

eta:  if 1M is the wrong rate, what is the right one?  and how wide and flat is the bottom of the U?

You are looking at the problem too simplistically.  The higher alcohol bogeyman is yet another home brewing myth.   Beer is bland and boring without higher alcohols.   All beers contain esters, even lager.  If you doubt me, taste wort and then taste the resulting beer.  They are not the same.  The difference is the result of alcohols, esters, an other metabolic byproducts.

Much of what is taught to the amateur brewing community about fermentation is dumbed-down to the point where so much information is lost as to render it useless.  For example, here's how a yeast propagator whose target market is primarily professional brewers describes a yeast strain.

"This yeast is a very popular and very flocculent lager strain from Northern Europe. It produces a beer with a good balance of flavors, particularly between the esters and higher alcohols, which makes a very drinkable beer. This yeast produces less sulfur compounds than most other flocculent strains."

if there are no general guidelines I guess there is no point in talking about it then.  I don't have a chem degree or the time to iterate over this stuff and figure out where the limits are.  That would be a full time job.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 13, 2015, 11:18:42 PM
I'll bet that the U is not always symmetrical or the same for each yeast in every circumstance. So far I've not experienced the over pitch upright of the U. Not saying it doesn't exist. But with the yeasts I have over pitched, they were grossly over pitched and still rather bland. I used to try for super clean fermentation by way of low ester, till I realized that what i really wanted was eliminating off flavors and appropriate levels of esters.

considering how many things end up not being detectable via triangle test I have to wonder if a general guideline could work out in most cases but really I have no way to tell.  just a suspicion.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on October 13, 2015, 11:24:50 PM
As interested as I am in this shaken method, I still have trouble seeing how it can be that much better than my stir plate.  For example, I pitched 1 smack pack of Born on date 8/16/15 of Wyeast California Lager into a 2.5 qt starter (per Mr. malty) for a 1.055 OG.  (5.5 gallons).  Approximately 5 hrs after pitching at 60F there was definite fermentation activity in the wort itself (circulating yeast) and moderate airlock movement. 

I am curious how the shaken method could improve this....I would feel that it would not be an improvement if the time it took for noticeable fermentation was longer. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 13, 2015, 11:57:58 PM
I'll bet that the U is not always symmetrical or the same for each yeast in every circumstance. So far I've not experienced the over pitch upright of the U. Not saying it doesn't exist. But with the yeasts I have over pitched, they were grossly over pitched and still rather bland. I used to try for super clean fermentation by way of low ester, till I realized that what i really wanted was eliminating off flavors and appropriate levels of esters.

considering how many things end up not being detectable via triangle test I have to wonder if a general guideline could work out in most cases but really I have no way to tell.  just a suspicion.
Generalizations work but only generally.  I have to agree with mark that one set pitching rate is not going to achieve the optimum effect for every strain or style.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 14, 2015, 12:24:04 AM
considering how many things end up not being detectable via triangle test I have to wonder if a general guideline could work out in most cases but really I have no way to tell.  just a suspicion.

You are not looking for a guideline.  You are looking for a "cookbook" approach to fermentation.    You want someone to write pitch N number of cells into V volume of wort, hold at T temperature, and it will work every time. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: evil_morty on October 14, 2015, 01:37:09 AM
considering how many things end up not being detectable via triangle test I have to wonder if a general guideline could work out in most cases but really I have no way to tell.  just a suspicion.

You are not looking for a guideline.  You are looking for a "cookbook" approach to fermentation.    You want someone to write pitch N number of cells into V volume of wort, hold at T temperature, and it will work every time.

Tell me more!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: hopfenundmalz on October 14, 2015, 02:15:17 AM
considering how many things end up not being detectable via triangle test I have to wonder if a general guideline could work out in most cases but really I have no way to tell.  just a suspicion.

You are not looking for a guideline.  You are looking for a "cookbook" approach to fermentation.    You want someone to write pitch N number of cells into V volume of wort, hold at T temperature, and it will work every time.

Tell me more!
It might be get to know how X yeast works in your system with your procedures and adjust accordingly. Listen to your yeast, talk to your yeast. Give them a good home with all the tools to do their job and be happy. This is only a little in jest, a little.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 14, 2015, 02:48:23 AM
Mark (S. cerevisiae) - I typically brew batches around 1.070 - 80 with WLP001. For the most part, 001 is saved from batch to batch without washing. My method being a dose of spring water, swirl like mad, and fill-up with trub-and-all, two Star-San sanitized 1/2 gallon mason jars. A few days before brew day, I take a large slurry, perhaps a cup, and start it up again with a 3 liter stirred starter.

I brew 4-5 batches a year, and this process has thus far worked well. The yeast is by all means, not fresh, but the stirred starter generally produces a nice visible layer of new creamy yeast. I have no means of measuring yeast viability or growth of the starter batch; however, every batch following this methodology has worked out well and produced the beer I enjoy consuming.

I will to try your process for an upcoming batch and would appreciate your advice in approximating the correct amount of yeast slurry and starter size for a 1.070 - 80 batch. Considering the slurry is 4 months old or older, and saved from batch to batch, where should I start? Approximately how much slurry and what starter size?

Also, my next batch will be a Heady Topper recipe with a new package of Vermont IPA Yeast (GY054). Using your process, what size shaken starter do you suggest?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 14, 2015, 11:28:46 AM
Considering the slurry is 4 months old or older, and saved from batch to batch, where should I start? Approximately how much slurry and what starter size?

Also, my next batch will be a Heady Topper recipe with a new package of Vermont IPA Yeast (GY054). Using your process, what size shaken starter do you suggest?

Everything you need to answer your own questions is either here in this thread or here:

The way you use your yeast -
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24439.msg311815#msg311815 (https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24439.msg311815#msg311815)

Building a Large Starter - https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24416.0 (https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24416.0)

Shaken Not Stirred Lager Starter - https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24460.0 (https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24460.0)

Repitching Yeast - https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24539.0 (https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24539.0)

You can probably use the methods of estimating viability in most calculators (if for nothing else) to give you a ballpark of viability for your slurry.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Whiskers on October 14, 2015, 11:19:12 PM
I understand that cutting down overall replication time is a good thing as it reduces the time need for the yeast to "own the wort."  I also understand that this shaken-not-stirred technique is less likely to damage cells.  However, because the total number of cells being pitched is less, owing to the smaller starter volume, isn't the overall number of replications greater in the final beer wort?  Don't the number of replications influence the ester/phenol/fusel character of the beer? 

Is the idea here that the number of healthy, non-shear-stressed, cells are roughly equal when comparing a larger, fermented out starter to a small, non-stirred, shaken one?  If the quiescent cells in the fermented out starter just need more time to wake up, contamination is not an issue, and plenty of nutrients and O2 are available in the final wort, how would the final beer fermentations happen differently?  Ignoring contamination and time-to-own-the-wort, how would the final fermenations differ between, say, a 1L high krausen starter and a 1L NON-stirred, but fermented out and decanted starter?  Again, assuming good O2 and nutrients in the final wort. 

Thanks, I've just had these things on my mind over the last few weeks when reading about these 'new' techniques. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 17, 2015, 04:38:43 AM
So last minute brew for tomorrow and I gave Mark's recommended method a shot. Used my flask because I like the volume markers, and I'm not sure how clean my gallon jugs are. So far I'm wondering if Mark's theory that the large amount of foam helps to give extra oxygen to the yeast. If you look at the progression of photos below, my foam went from about a liter to less than 100ml in about 10 minutes. I'll reserve judgement for when the beer is done, just wanted to mention that.

(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/16/bdce3093499313defce310e48d50239e.jpg)
11:24

(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/16/8a8259759d986c02078b23b04979b030.jpg)
11:26

(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/16/b06dfe6f915e2a8a62a22bffb23769de.jpg)
11:28

(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/16/c4a2f12e04b487775f0d1cb7d243c189.jpg)
11:34
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Phil_M on October 17, 2015, 04:07:07 PM
I think the idea is that when there's maximum foam, there is also maximum surface area, which maximizes the oxygen entering the solution. (The walls of the bubbles.)

I'm giving this a shot today. It seems my normal procedure is a bit like this, but on a stirplate. I've only once let a starter ferment all the way out, and it stank so bad I didn't repeat it. Usually I'll make a start the night before, then leave it on a stir plate for between 8-16 hours depending on the brew day. I'm going to give the whole "shaken, not stirred" method a shot today, no stir plate.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 17, 2015, 04:10:03 PM
I get that the liquid to air interface created by the foam is the main thought, but my foam lasted 30minutes and was 10% of its initial volume after 10 minutes. That's where I am questioning the theory. I don't doubt the beer will be fine though.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: yso191 on October 17, 2015, 04:25:49 PM
It doesn't make any sense to me, the idea that the foam disappearing would indicate that there is nothing to this method.  I would expect the foam to disappear - what else could it do?  The role of the foam is to have greater surface area for oxygen to get absorbed.  Once it is absorbed into the wort the job is done - the oxygen has saturated the wort.  But maybe I'm missing what is being said above.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 17, 2015, 04:43:05 PM
Right, the air to surface would be useful during the period of uptake by the yeast, but that must be longer than 10-30 min
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 17, 2015, 05:14:29 PM
Right, the air to surface would be useful during the period of uptake by the yeast, but that must be longer than 10-30 min

According to Chris White, dissolved O2is taken up by the yeast during the first thirty minutes.  An Erlenmeyer is a miserable vessel in which to make a shaken, not stirred starter due to its geometry.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 17, 2015, 05:15:44 PM
Thanks Mark

Why such a bad vessel? I got about the same amount of foam as in pictures you have posted. I used a sold stopped to seal it up and gave it a good vertical shaking.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: leejoreilly on October 17, 2015, 06:14:57 PM
It doesn't make any sense to me, the idea that the foam disappearing would indicate that there is nothing to this method.  I would expect the foam to disappear - what else could it do?  The role of the foam is to have greater surface area for oxygen to get absorbed.  Once it is absorbed into the wort the job is done - the oxygen has saturated the wort.  But maybe I'm missing what is being said above.

But is the oxygen in the bubbles really absorbed back into the wort, or is it just encapsulated in the foamy bubbles? Once the bubbles bursts, the O2 is just released back into the air, not into the wort. Just like using a stone, if the O2 is bubbling to the surface it is escaping, not absorbing. It would seem that any O2 absorption occurs during the shaking, not as a result of the collapsing foam.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 17, 2015, 06:51:09 PM
The O2 that escapes is gone, not the O2 that is absorbed, right.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Phil_M on October 17, 2015, 07:03:24 PM
But is the oxygen in the bubbles really absorbed back into the wort, or is it just encapsulated in the foamy bubbles? Once the bubbles bursts, the O2 is just released back into the air, not into the wort. Just like using a stone, if the O2 is bubbling to the surface it is escaping, not absorbing. It would seem that any O2 absorption occurs during the shaking, not as a result of the collapsing foam.

It's not the air in the bubbles that's driving the oxygenation of the starter, it's the surface area. Oxygen will dissolve into wort at a rate that's based on surface area and pressure. By maximizing the surface area of the wort, there's then more wort touching air. A diffusion stone works similarly. Folks don't just put a blanket of O2 on the beer and let it dissolve into the wort, they use an aeration wand. That wand creates thousands of tiny bubbles, which again increase the surface area of the wort that's in contact with oxygen. Running the stone too hard such that the bubbles break the surface doesn't mean that you're not oxygenating the wort, just that you're wasting O2.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: a10t2 on October 17, 2015, 07:04:29 PM
Based on Mark's previous comments, the purpose of the foam is to expose at least some of the cells directly to the atmosphere, akin to being streaked on a plate.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 17, 2015, 07:16:10 PM
But is the oxygen in the bubbles really absorbed back into the wort, or is it just encapsulated in the foamy bubbles? Once the bubbles bursts, the O2 is just released back into the air, not into the wort. Just like using a stone, if the O2 is bubbling to the surface it is escaping, not absorbing. It would seem that any O2 absorption occurs during the shaking, not as a result of the collapsing foam.

You are comparing apples to oranges.  Bubbling a gas through a liquid is not the same thing as a gas-liquid foam. The ratio of liquid to gas is inverted in a gas-liquid foam.  A gas-liquid foam is composed of pockets of gas entrapped in extremely thin layers of liquid.  O2 is absorbed at the boundary between the liquid and the gas.  It does not take long to saturate a liquid when the depth is less than the thickness of a human hair and gas appears on both sides. We are taking about a depth measured in nanometers.  The liquid will saturate based on Henry's law.  The only way to force more O2 to dissolve is to increase the pressure of the gas (as we do with CO2 when force carbonating a keg).  Pure O2 saturates at 40ppm because pure O2 contain five times the amount of O2 as air.

Now, the $10,000 question here is do the cells pick up any non-dissolved O2 when the culture is pitched before shaking?  Dissolved O2 from air peaks at around 8 parts per million.  The O2 in air is 21 parts per hundred.  If a wort bubble is the same thickness as a soap bubble, we are looking at a range of 10 to 1,000 nanometers. The diameter of Saccharomyces cell ranges from 5 to 10 micrometers.

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 17, 2015, 07:17:45 PM
According to Chris White, dissolved O2is taken up by the yeast during the first thirty minutes.  An Erlenmeyer is a miserable vessel in which to make a shaken, not stirred starter due to its geometry.

Doh! I was ready to buy a rubber stopper for my 5L flask. Is a straight-walled bottle materially better?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 17, 2015, 08:07:00 PM
Why such a bad vessel?

It's a cone.  The pressure increases as the wort is forced into the cone.

Quote
I got about the same amount of foam as in pictures you have posted. I used a sold stopped to seal it up and gave it a good vertical shaking.

It only looks like you obtained the same amount of foam.   First off, the starter in the photos is only 600ml in volume. Secondly, there is more foam per inch in a cylinder than in a cone, and the media bottle gets wider from bottom to top.    An Erlenmeyer flask is a compromise piece of culturing glassware at best.  It is a poor man's Fernbach flask, which has a short and broad cone in order to maximize surface area.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernbach_flask

The fact that Erlenmeyer flasks and stir plates became the gold standard in home brewing instead of being seen as the compromise devices that they are blows my mind. A stir plate is a poor man's compromise orbital shaker. 
 
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 17, 2015, 08:30:01 PM
The original volume was 1000ml. After shaking there was about 1400ml of foam and the liquid volume was about 600ml. The flasks lowest graduation is 1000ml, so those are obviously SWAG estimates. Like I mentioned, my jugs were of questionable cleanliness as they had not been touched in over two years. I cleaned one today during post brew clean up and will give it a shot for the kolsch I am brewing a few weeks from now.

Edit - I wonder if there is a foam stabilizer that could be utilized without harming the yeast or inhibiting their ability to access the O2. Maybe very small touch of agar agar or xanthan gum?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 17, 2015, 09:02:45 PM
Edit - I wonder if there is a foam stabilizer that could be utilized without harming the yeast or inhibiting their ability to access the O2. Maybe very small touch of agar agar or xanthan gum?

Why would you want add foam stabilizer?  The wort that is in gas-liquid foam form is saturated by the time the foam collapses.  After working with a class O3/O4 strain1, I can say without reservation that most of the strains that are sold by Wyeast and White Labs fall into class O1 or class O2 with respect to O2 demand.  Class O1 oxygen demands can be met by 4ppm dissolved O2 (a.k.a. half air saturated wort).  Class O2 oxygen demands can be met by 8ppm dissolved O2 (a.k.a. fully air saturated wort).  There are yeast performance downsides to over oxgenation.

[1] B.H. Kirsop, Oxygen in Brewery Fermentation, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03614.x/pdf
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 17, 2015, 09:03:57 PM
I was going there off of the idea that the juice is the foam. If 30min or foam is good, well ok.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 17, 2015, 09:40:55 PM
I was going there off of the idea that the juice is the foam. Is 30min or foam is good, well ok.

Five minutes of foam is okay.  Do not think of the foam as some kind of secret sauce where magical things happen to the yeast cells.  It is little more than a low-tech way to ensure that the medium is well aerated.   
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 17, 2015, 09:44:24 PM
I suppose this method may be why the wine whip/mix-stir aeration method works well for wort. I get a dense foam that last hours when using my mix-stir. That is by far my favorite piece of low tech and practically unbreakable piece of kit.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 17, 2015, 10:12:25 PM
Just a side note, blowing Oxygen through wort is not a waste of oxygen. I've seen a waste of oxygen. I know how a waste of oxygen thinks.

Back to regular programing
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 17, 2015, 11:52:28 PM
Do you attach a drill to the mix-stir?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 17, 2015, 11:56:40 PM
Do you attach a drill to the mix-stir?

Yep. Love my mix stir. I use it to whip up the wort until it gets to the top of the bucket, then pitch.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 18, 2015, 12:43:02 AM
Do you attach a drill to the mix-stir?

Yep. Love my mix stir. I use it to whip up the wort until it gets to the top of the bucket, then pitch.
I've heard Zainashef say numerous times not to do that because once the stuff that makes foam has made foam it will never make foam again.
Title: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 18, 2015, 12:43:48 AM
The braun hefe has started to form. 5 hours after pitching. Looking good so far
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 18, 2015, 12:54:44 AM
Do you attach a drill to the mix-stir?

Yep. Love my mix stir. I use it to whip up the wort until it gets to the top of the bucket, then pitch.
I've heard Zainashef say numerous times not to do that because once the stuff that makes foam has made foam it will never make foam again.

I've heard that too, Jim. I don't know - I get good, thick foam on my beers. Doesn't seem to be any dropoff in foam quality since I bought the mix stir.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 18, 2015, 01:07:04 AM
Do you attach a drill to the mix-stir?

Yep. Love my mix stir. I use it to whip up the wort until it gets to the top of the bucket, then pitch.
I've heard Zainashef say numerous times not to do that because once the stuff that makes foam has made foam it will never make foam again.

I've heard that too, Jim. I don't know - I get good, thick foam on my beers. Doesn't seem to be any dropoff in foam quality since I bought the mix stir.
I have foamed the bjeebers out of wort in the past, like mix stir like crazy till it was climbing out of the bucket. No body or head issues. So, if one thing isnt matching your own experience,  dont you have some cause to wonder about other things?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 18, 2015, 01:23:23 AM
I have foamed the bjeebers out of wort in the past, like mix stir like crazy till it was climbing out of the bucket. No body or head issues. So, if one thing isnt matching your own experience,  dont you have some cause to wonder about other things?

Well, yeah. I think it's theoretical like HSA, but not a problem at home. I respect his abilities and work with Mr Malty, but I've had good luck pitching less than his most of his recommendations. Mark's 'nuclear bomb' analogy comes to mind.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 18, 2015, 01:40:52 AM
Right. I hope the point is coming through that if a noted expert says something that you find not to be true in your experience, its not time to burn them in effigy,  but maybe time to rethink things. Home brewing isnt a religion that you must follow teaching perfectly. Its ok to listen, learn, adapt, move along.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: HoosierBrew on October 18, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
I agree. No effigy needed. I just try to absorb as much info as I can and see if it works as advertised for me. Maybe, maybe not. I learn either way.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 18, 2015, 02:01:38 AM
Totally
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 18, 2015, 03:31:33 AM
Right. I hope the point is coming through that if a noted expert says something that you find not to be true in your experience, its not time to burn them in effigy,  but maybe time to rethink things. Home brewing isnt a religion that you must follow teaching perfectly. Its ok to listen, learn, adapt, move along.

I blame the current state of home brewing on the overuse of brewing software.  Software can make complex processes appear to be simple. The truth is that the yeast models are overly simplistic.  They treat all yeast strains equally.   If we treated people like the yeast calculators treat yeast strains, everyone would have the genetics to become a professional athlete.   

It is often said that engineering is theory plus practice.  I say that brewing is brewing science plus practice.  Without knowledge of the underlying science, one will always treat certain practices as black magic.  Conversely, without practice, all of the brewing science knowledge in the world is useless when it comes to actually producing beer.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 18, 2015, 02:35:01 PM
To add clarity, I shake the starter like it owes me money, and pitch the yeast into the dense foam at its maximum? From the dump, are you swirling/mixing again or leaving it as-is?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Stevie on October 18, 2015, 03:17:27 PM
I shook after adding the yeast, I believe mark shakes than pitches. The beer is going off like gangbusters and the ferm freezer is smelling pretty awesome. I'm using 1028. Last time I brewed with 1028 was years ago, but I don't recall this level of vigor.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 18, 2015, 03:36:10 PM
I shook after adding the yeast, I believe mark shakes than pitches. The beer is going off like gangbusters and the ferm freezer is smelling pretty awesome. I'm using 1028. Last time I brewed with 1028 was years ago, but I don't recall this level of vigor.

Mark pitches post shake.

I have some glass one gallon jugs somewhere around the house. I'll see if any of the rubber stoppers I have on hand will fit. The cheap metal lids do not provide a good seal.

Would a glass sun tea jar (no spigot) work well? With a large opening, it would make cleaning easy.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 18, 2015, 03:50:45 PM

Mark pitches post shake.

No, I pitch the culture prior to shaking.  I have always inoculated pre-shake.  In fact, the method grew out of my desire to evenly distribute the cells in the culture after pitching.   


https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24447.30
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 18, 2015, 04:08:06 PM
No, I pitch the culture prior to shaking.  I have always inoculated pre-shake.  In fact, the method grew out of my desire to evenly distribute the cells in the culture after pitching.
[/quote]

Sorry Mark - my mistake.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dzlater on October 18, 2015, 04:56:11 PM
Gave this a try today with a two month old pure pitch pouch of White Labs Irish Ale yeast. I made the starter last night at 9:00 pm pitched into the fermenter today at 12:00 noon. One thing to rember if you are going to do this is to leave some extra room in the fermenter for the starter, I think I'm going to need a blowoff tube.

This is the starter when I pitched the yeast.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/dpzlater/20151017_205512_resized_zpsbd6dwhje.jpg) (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/dpzlater/media/20151017_205512_resized_zpsbd6dwhje.jpg.html)

This is the starter before pitching.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/dpzlater/20151018_114456_resized_zpstojr0vgl.jpg) (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/dpzlater/media/20151018_114456_resized_zpstojr0vgl.jpg.html)

Here is the fermenter.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/dpzlater/20151018_115215_resized_zpszy40a4cp.jpg) (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/dpzlater/media/20151018_115215_resized_zpszy40a4cp.jpg.html)

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 18, 2015, 04:57:25 PM
dzlater - what size starter?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dzlater on October 18, 2015, 05:15:11 PM
1 quart, 100 grams DME, gallon jug, og of beer was 1.045.
I didn't use any pitching rate calculator.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 18, 2015, 06:36:58 PM
1 quart, 100 grams DME, gallon jug, og of beer was 1.045.
I didn't use any pitching rate calculator.

What is your beers target gravity?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dzlater on October 18, 2015, 08:26:07 PM
1 quart, 100 grams DME, gallon jug, og of beer was 1.045.
I didn't use any pitching rate calculator.

What is your beers target gravity?

I guess somewhere between 1.013 and 1.010?
The yeast website says "Attenuation 69-74%"
I mashed at 154.
Pitched yeast at 68.
And put in a 66 water bath.
Here is the whole recipe

Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Boil Size: 7.24 gal
Post Boil Volume: 6.24 gal
Batch Size (fermenter): 6.00 gal   
Bottling Volume: 6.00 gal
Estimated OG: 1.044 SG
Estimated Color: 10.6 SRM
Estimated IBU: 21.3 IBUs
Brewhouse Efficiency: 95.00 %
Est Mash Efficiency: 95.0 %
Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
Amt                   Name                                     Type          #        %/IBU         
7 lbs                 Vienna Malt (Briess) (3.5 SRM)           Grain         1        88.9 %       
8.0 oz                Carapils (Briess) (1.5 SRM)              Grain         2        6.3 %         
4.0 oz                Caramel/Crystal Malt - 40L (40.0 SRM)    Grain         3        3.2 %         
2.0 oz                Roasted Barley (Simpsons) (550.0 SRM)    Grain         4        1.6 %         
0.5 oz                Target [11.00 %] - Boil 40.0 min         Hop           5        17.2 IBUs     
1.0 oz                East Kent Goldings (EKG) [5.00 %] - Boil Hop           6        4.1 IBUs     
1.0 pkg               Irish Ale Yeast (White Labs #WLP004)     Yeast         7        -             






Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 18, 2015, 10:17:13 PM
This is the starter when I pitched the yeast.

That starter appears to be larger than a liter.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 18, 2015, 10:27:27 PM
Recipe Specifications

Ingredients:
------------
Amt                   Name                                     Type          #        %/IBU         
7 lbs                 Vienna Malt (Briess) (3.5 SRM)           Grain         1        88.9 %       
8.0 oz                Carapils (Briess) (1.5 SRM)              Grain         2        6.3 %         
4.0 oz                Caramel/Crystal Malt - 40L (40.0 SRM)    Grain         3        3.2 %         
2.0 oz                Roasted Barley (Simpsons) (550.0 SRM)    Grain         4        1.6 %         
0.5 oz                Target [11.00 %] - Boil 40.0 min         Hop           5        17.2 IBUs     
1.0 oz                East Kent Goldings (EKG) [5.00 %] - Boil Hop           6        4.1 IBUs     
1.0 pkg               Irish Ale Yeast (White Labs #WLP004)     Yeast         7        -           

You are a better man than me.  I want to use domestic malt, but I cannot stand Briess malt.  Rahr was better than Briess, but it was also too bland for me.   
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dzlater on October 18, 2015, 10:48:59 PM

         
==
You are a better man than me.  I want to use domestic malt, but I cannot stand Briess malt.  Rahr was better than Briess, but it was also too bland for me.
[/quote]

   Actually I have no idea what brand malt I used. The home brew store doesn't label the grain bins with the malting company and I forgot to ask. The "Briess in the recipe is just what came up in Beersmith.
I don't have a lot of experiance with the differances between various maltsters.  I'm not sure I could tell the differance unless I had the same recipe side by side.
I never brewed a recipe with say Briess malt and then brewed again using a different brand so I could compare them.
    And that was a quart starter maybe a bit more. I added maybe an extra cup or so to account for boil off maybe it didn't boil off as much as I thought,

Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on October 18, 2015, 10:57:46 PM
1 quart, 100 grams DME, gallon jug, og of beer was 1.045.
I didn't use any pitching rate calculator.

What is your beers target gravity?

I guess somewhere between 1.013 and 1.010?         

Sorry - what is your beers starting target gravity?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 18, 2015, 11:13:43 PM
This thread has been a great resource for a ton of useful information but maybe it's time to start breaking off your brew sessions to a separate thread.

Or at least wait until your batch is done to report here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 19, 2015, 01:01:10 AM
Most of our threads ramble and meander off track. I don't see a problem. But either way... no worries
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on October 19, 2015, 01:22:15 AM
Just a thought.


Sent via Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 19, 2015, 01:37:46 AM
Its all good. You're probably right.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: dzlater on October 19, 2015, 10:13:18 AM
1 quart, 100 grams DME, gallon jug, og of beer was 1.045.
I didn't use any pitching rate calculator.

What is your beers target gravity?

I guess somewhere between 1.013 and 1.010?         

Sorry - what is your beers starting target gravity?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 19, 2015, 01:50:22 PM
Most of our threads ramble and meander off track. I don't see a problem. But either way... no worries

Maybe it is time to spin-off one or more related threads, so that we can limit this monster to brewer feedback and general usage questions?  Science is an evolutionary process that is based on experimentation and repeatibility, which means that every brewer's experience with this method is an important data point.  That being said, I vote for staying on topic as much as possible for fear that a lot of good information will get buried in the noise.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on October 19, 2015, 04:03:24 PM
I just pulled final samples from the 1.060 APA and 1.055 Stout that I have going. APA is 1.010 4.3ph and the Stout is 1.012 4.2ph. Both taste bright clean and excellent. They reached this gravity in 6 days using fresh smack packs of Wy1056 with 1200ml oxygenated 8 hour high krausen starters. Im sold.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on November 07, 2015, 05:13:00 PM
Mark or Denny - do you decant or pitch the entire starter?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: beersk on November 07, 2015, 06:05:00 PM
Mark or Denny - do you decant or pitch the entire starter?
The entire starter is pitched at high krausen.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on November 07, 2015, 06:55:29 PM
Yeah, I figured it would be difficult to chill and decant an active fermentation.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narcout on November 07, 2015, 07:35:06 PM
Yeah, I figured it would be difficult to chill and decant an active fermentation.

It can be done, at least with some strains.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on November 08, 2015, 05:25:39 PM
Mark or Denny - do you decant or pitch the entire starter?
The entire starter is pitched at high krausen.

Yep.  Or in my close close to high krausen.  I was a littlle late.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on November 08, 2015, 08:01:50 PM
Yeah, it sounds like typical high krausen time for a fairly fresh pack of yeast and 1 L starter is about 8 hrs time.  So if one wants to pitch at "raging" high krausen it is probably best to make the starter 1st thing in the morning (if that is when you are brewing) and then get the brew day going.  By the end of the day you may be waiting for 1-2 hrs for the krausen to peak and pitch, but oh well.  The wort in the fermenter will be acclimating to its new temp. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on November 08, 2015, 11:43:54 PM
Yeah, it sounds like typical high krausen time for a fairly fresh pack of yeast and 1 L starter is about 8 hrs time.  So if one wants to pitch at "raging" high krausen it is probably best to make the starter 1st thing in the morning (if that is when you are brewing) and then get the brew day going.  By the end of the day you may be waiting for 1-2 hrs for the krausen to peak and pitch, but oh well.  The wort in the fermenter will be acclimating to its new temp.
Exactly what ive found and what I do. Brewing two a day there's not much waiting for the 8 hrs. With lagers (next brew day) I'll be chilling my starter wort overnight in the 50F chest freezer, making starters bright n early, and ball parking high krausen at about 12 hours. We'll see I guess.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: brewinhard on November 08, 2015, 11:47:47 PM
Do you mean you are making the starter wort the night before and pitching the yeast the following morning into 50F starter wort, then pitching that at high krausen after chilling your main batch to pitching temps?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on November 09, 2015, 12:12:17 AM
Do you mean you are making the starter wort the night before and pitching the yeast the following morning into 50F starter wort, then pitching that at high krausen after chilling your main batch to pitching temps?
No, I make my starter wort in a pressure cooker in 1/2 gallon mason jars. So I'll put two of those jars in the cooler the night before to build my starters at temp. I'm just trying to avoid off flavors in the starter from doing them too warm, and at the same time I won't have a temp shock issue when its time to pitch.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Whiskers on November 11, 2015, 07:55:51 AM
My last batch was a 1.066 ale that I pitched with an O2-dosed/not stirred starter, made the morning of brew day.  17gal. batch, 3.5L starter.  So, I'm above the below 1.06 boundary where one starts to consider the wort being of the high-gravity sort.  Anyway, the starter was pitched into the wort at 10pm in well-O2-ed wort at 64degF.  Maybe 2min. at 1L/min through a 2um stone at the bottom of a 22gal conical.  There was no CO2 evolution at 9am the next morning.  My standard 2L-pure O2 started, stirplate, stepped to 2gal, pure O2 started, non-stirplate procedure, settled and decanted, would have shown evolution the next morning.  Solid CO2 by 7pm same day.  The yeast was wyeast west yorkie.  Anyway, the first few days were held at 65degF and I had ramped it up to 69degF by day seven.  Held there for another week and have now crashed gradually to 35degF.  Gravity was steady for several days at 1.018.  Was aiming for 1.015-1.016 but there you go.  Samples smell great and are as clear as glass as you might expect.  Mash at 152degF and xtal malt ~8%.  Quite excited about this one.

Going to try O2 dosed, non-stirred, high-krausen starters for the next few batches of ales.  Might try O2-dosed, stirred, high krausen starters too.  Not sure I buy the cell damage from stirring end of things.  I'd like to test the litre starter per 5gal high krausen thing in comparison to my previous, larger volume, decanted method with that being the main difference. 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on December 06, 2015, 08:29:32 PM
I followed this process with for an recently brewed Heady Topper clone. It worked well and I will certainly use this method again for future brews.

I bought a 5L Pyrex media bottle on eBay for $40 shipped.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on February 10, 2016, 04:17:46 AM
I have followed Mark's "shaken, not stirred" starter for two brews now, both with the Vermont Ale Strain or Conan. It was a breeze with the 5L bottle and results were just as good as the starter but with less hassle.

I do not pitch immediately but chill and decant.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on February 10, 2016, 09:24:35 AM


I do not pitch immediately but chill and decant.

Kind of defeats the purpose, no?

Glad it worked out for you though.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on February 10, 2016, 02:11:05 PM
Not sure if it entirely defeats the purpose - not pitching immediately. I understood this process as an optimal yeast building method vs. stir plate. Pitching @ high K is preferred but not required. Foaming the wort & yeast give it the oxygen needed for a healthy build.

Perhaps I misunderstood.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: RPIScotty on February 10, 2016, 04:46:55 PM
I was always under the assumption that pitching at or around HK was the essence of the method. Yeast activity and replication peaks there.

I know Jim, in his 1LO2HK starters, sort of confirms this by straying from the method of preparation but still pitching at HK.

If it works for you doing it that way then there is nothing wrong about it. Results are what matters.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Phil_M on February 10, 2016, 05:56:51 PM
FWIW, I used the shaken not stirred method for my NB dry Irish stout that's fermenting for St. Patrick's day.

I've brewed this kit several times. This time, I followed the method and pitched just as the yeast was hitting high krausen. I've never seen such a rapid fermentation from 1084 before, even had to use a blowoff tube. None of my prior batches even approached needing that.

Could be something wild got into the beer, still haven't tasted it. Also, beer was being fermented at 62oF.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Indy574 on February 11, 2016, 01:39:11 AM
Wish I would have caught this thread a week sooner, I'm 90% done with my homemade stir plate. I guess I will have to try both and pitch the loser...pun intended. Great read btw.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on February 11, 2016, 04:06:10 AM
FWIW, I used the shaken not stirred method for my NB dry Irish stout that's fermenting for St. Patrick's day.

I've brewed this kit several times. This time, I followed the method and pitched just as the yeast was hitting high krausen. I've never seen such a rapid fermentation from 1084 before, even had to use a blowoff tube. None of my prior batches even approached needing that.

Could be something wild got into the beer, still haven't tasted it. Also, beer was being fermented at 62oF.
Unless you have a repeated history of infecting beers, its HK pitching making the diff. Remember, bugs multiply much slower and they are dormant. Unless you pitched a pile of active bugs...
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: klickitat jim on February 11, 2016, 04:09:59 AM
Wish I would have caught this thread a week sooner, I'm 90% done with my homemade stir plate. I guess I will have to try both and pitch the loser...pun intended. Great read btw.
Dont feel bad. Building was fun, right? Plus you can use the stirplate later to mix agar with wort when you get into slanting cultures.

In my opinion and experience, pitching at high krausen eliminates the need for pitching calculators and counting cells and stirplates. At least at the homebrew level (<1BBL)
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Phil_M on February 11, 2016, 12:24:52 PM
Unless you have a repeated history of infecting beers, its HK pitching making the diff. Remember, bugs multiply much slower and they are dormant. Unless you pitched a pile of active bugs...

Had a couple infected beers last year, but I'm confident that it was the blow off tube I was using. (Which has since been replaced.)

What's really incredible is I got such a reaction even though the beer was temp controlled. If this is going to become a common thing I'm going to have to get some larger fermenters.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Indy574 on February 11, 2016, 10:55:04 PM
I may have missed something in my reading. After shaking and letting it stand for 30 minutes for the foam to drop, I would then unscrew the cap and pour in my package of yeast.
Does the lid remain loose or does it get screwed on tight?  Does one put an airlock on it or a foam stopper?  Like I said must of missed something.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: narvin on February 11, 2016, 11:09:05 PM
Unless you have a repeated history of infecting beers, its HK pitching making the diff. Remember, bugs multiply much slower and they are dormant. Unless you pitched a pile of active bugs...

Had a couple infected beers last year, but I'm confident that it was the blow off tube I was using. (Which has since been replaced.)

What's really incredible is I got such a reaction even though the beer was temp controlled. If this is going to become a common thing I'm going to have to get some larger fermenters.

Did you make starters before?  I chill and decant but get very aggressive fermentation with a proper pitch rate, even when pitching 5 degrees below fermentation temperature.  An active starter has less lag time but I haven't seen a difference in total fermentation time.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: Phil_M on February 12, 2016, 11:51:37 AM
Yes, in fact I used to use a stir plate. I did the typical let them ferment out/cold crash/decant setup for the most part.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: ultravista on May 02, 2018, 01:46:12 AM
S. cerevisiae - what are your thoughts on the shaken starter method now?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on May 02, 2018, 02:34:45 PM
S. cerevisiae - what are your thoughts on the shaken starter method now?

He's not around any more.  My thoughts, FWIW, are that it's the only starter method I use.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MattyAHA on January 29, 2019, 07:56:48 PM
im about brew a german pilsner and this method has me curious, the only other vessel i have that is big enough is a 6 gallon fermonster , so normally for average strength lagers i would make a 2 stage starter 2liters x 2 and i pitch cold 45F, so to achieve enough healthy yeast cells using the shaken method how much wort should i start with? would you still need to chill and decant? pitching at high krausen for ales is great and a practice i employ but as i mentioned i pitch lagers cold so maybe this method is probably not suitable for lagers correct?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on January 29, 2019, 08:04:53 PM
im about brew a german pilsner and this method has me curious, the only other vessel i have that is big enough is a 6 gallon fermonster , so normally for average strength lagers i would make a 2 stage starter 2liters x 2 and i pitch cold 45F, so to achieve enough healthy yeast cells using the shaken method how much wort should i start with? would you still need to chill and decant? pitching at high krausen for ales is great and a practice i employ but as i mentioned i pitch lagers cold so maybe this method is probably not suitable for lagers correct?

First, yer kinda missing the point...cell count is irrelevant.  Yeast vitality is what counts.  I start my lagers in the low 50s and still use the 1 qt. starter. for a 5.5 gal. batch.  Making it in a 6 gal. container is gonna make it difficult to shake it enoough to get the required foam, isn't it?  Go buy a gal. of apple juice and use that container!
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MattyAHA on January 29, 2019, 08:11:47 PM
holy cow i did miss the point, 1 qt start is enough for a lager? this is getting better and better, im so indoctrinated with the old way, x amount of starter wort and x amount of cells blah blah blah, so seriously, 1 qt starter shaken til its foam let it get to high krausen and its ready to go?
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on January 29, 2019, 08:45:11 PM
holy cow i did miss the point, 1 qt start is enough for a lager? this is getting better and better, im so indoctrinated with the old way, x amount of starter wort and x amount of cells blah blah blah, so seriously, 1 qt starter shaken til its foam let it get to high krausen and its ready to go?

When we were in Australia for ANHC, I told Chris White about this method, expecting him to freak out.  He said "Great!  Homebrewers are way too hung up on numbers!"  All I can tell ya is that it's worked for me on both ales and lagers.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MattyAHA on January 29, 2019, 08:53:44 PM
Thats really cool man, im gonna give it a go and see what happens thanks alot , one more thing if you can clarify for me, i will have the starter at room temperature so you think i should pitch at high krausen even though the wort will be in the 40's or 50's or chill the starter temp down first a few hours before pitching?Do you continuously shake as much as possible to keep it foam or just in the beginning? thanks again
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on January 29, 2019, 10:13:42 PM
Thats really cool man, im gonna give it a go and see what happens thanks alot , one more thing if you can clarify for me, i will have the starter at room temperature so you think i should pitch at high krausen even though the wort will be in the 40's or 50's or chill the starter temp down first a few hours before pitching?Do you continuously shake as much as possible to keep it foam or just in the beginning? thanks again

Room temp absolutely.  No need ot chill.  "Temp shock" is a myth.  I shake it every time I walk by.  Always remember "Reality often astonished theory."
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MattyAHA on January 30, 2019, 12:04:08 AM
im stoked, this is really frickn cool and cant wait to see what happens, 1 qt starter for a lager, im selling my stir plate if this works out for me \m/  \m/
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: BrewBama on January 30, 2019, 12:22:59 AM
... im selling my stir plate if this works out for me \m/  \m/

I have one that’s been sitting on the shelf a cpl years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: denny on January 30, 2019, 06:36:16 PM
im stoked, this is really frickn cool and cant wait to see what happens, 1 qt starter for a lager, im selling my stir plate if this works out for me \m/  \m/

I haven't used my stir plate in so long I don't even know where it is any more.
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MattyAHA on January 30, 2019, 07:16:54 PM
lol, im excited to give this method a go, tomorrow is brew day \m/ \m/. 1 qt james bond starter for a german pilsner,  the idea of using less dme/water and not having to step up the starter is awesome cash saving,time saving and im a lazy bastardo so perfect, a little apprehensive but like Denny said reality often astonishes theory worse comes to worst i make crappy beer throw some gro kashi in it feed it to my tomatos lol 
Title: Re: New starter procedure trial
Post by: MattyAHA on January 31, 2019, 01:56:04 AM
one thing though just made the starter and i can get 90% foam after shaking but in 3 minutes it dies down