Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => Yeast and Fermentation => Topic started by: smokeymcb on September 28, 2015, 02:32:43 pm

Title: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: smokeymcb on September 28, 2015, 02:32:43 pm
Hi all,

I've been doing a bunch of reading on this starter method and am planning on giving it a whirl for my next brew day (tomorrow or the next day depending).  I'm going to be making 5.5 gallons of 1.060ish lager with harvested 34/70.  I've got a WL vial of the yeast that I wanna use and am not sure how many liters of starter wort I should make. I've got a bunch of 1 gallon demijohns so no problem for the 3-4 times larger vessel.  My plan was to make the starter this evening and pitch tomorrow around mid day, once the wort is chilled.

Its my understanding that I can get away with a much smaller starter volume by doing this method which is great because I'm not really interested in spending a week building an enormous starter.  Am I right in thinking that most who use this method are doing a 1L starter for 5 gallons of ale?  If so would a 2L starter work for my 5.5 gallons of lager (almost doubling the pitch)?

Any help or advice from the bigger heads here would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance...

Rob.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: kramerog on September 28, 2015, 02:57:20 pm
I am guessing the shaking method you are referring too is the one in which the starter is in a soda bottle and intermittently the bottle is squeezed to push out the "stale" air in the bottle, allowed to suck in fresh air, and then shook to mix the fresh air with the wort.  However, demijohns cannot be squeezed.  From the yeast calculators, shaking is better than a normal fermentation, but not as good as constant stirring. 

If I was to do the shaking method, which I sometimes do, I would make 2-3 L of starter after checking with a yeast calculator and divide the starter between two 2L bottles. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Stevie on September 28, 2015, 03:02:39 pm
He is talking about Mark V's "shake it like it owes you money and pitch at high krausen" method. I can't answer your question, but I am sure Mark has answered this previously.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: kramerog on September 28, 2015, 03:16:53 pm
He is talking about Mark V's "shake it like it owes you money and pitch at high krausen" method. I can't answer your question, but I am sure Mark has answered this previously.

So is this what is being discussed: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24447.30?

If so make a 2L starter divided equally between two jugs unless you have specific knowledge of the best starter size for the yeast,
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: smokeymcb on September 28, 2015, 03:19:07 pm
He is talking about Mark V's "shake it like it owes you money and pitch at high krausen" method. I can't answer your question, but I am sure Mark has answered this previously.

I am.

I've been reading over a bunch of old threads on the topic and I found this one

I do not crash shaken starters.  However, then again, I never go beyond a liter for a 5 to 6-gallon batch of ale or lager.  Growth is exponential, not linear.  The difference between a 1L starter and a 2L starter is one replication period.

When the OP was using 6L of shaken starter for 10g of lager.  So, I guess I should be somewhere between 1L and 3L's for my 5 gallons...

Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: klickitat jim on September 28, 2015, 03:46:16 pm
I'm going to try to articulate in my pea brain terms what I think Mark has been saying.

His shaken not stired, pitch and high krausen method is not about pitching the correct number of cells. Its about pitching them in the correct state. So, assuming a fresh smack pack or vial, you prep 1L of starter wort by putting it in a vessel at least 4 times as big. The 3/4 empty vessel leaves enough space to shake it till its at least half foam. Pitch the smack pack or vial and cover with foil. It should reach high krausen at 12-16 hrs, at which point you pitch the whole shebang to your brew. The starter will have fresh healthy cells that are ready to continue reproducing,  rather than cells that have finished and gone dormant.

I'm not convinced I'm rewording what Mark has said correctly, and thats kinda why I did it. Now he can come along and correct me. And then I can learn it more better.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: smokeymcb on September 28, 2015, 03:59:21 pm
His shaken not stired, pitch and high krausen method is not about pitching the correct number of cells. Its about pitching them in the correct state. So, assuming a fresh smack pack or vial, you prep 1L of starter wort by putting it in a vessel at least 4 times as big. The 3/4 empty vessel leaves enough space to shake it till its at least half foam. Pitch the smack pack or vial and cover with foil. It should reach high krausen at 12-16 hrs, at which point you pitch the whole shebang to your brew. The starter will have fresh healthy cells that are ready to continue reproducing,  rather than cells that have finished and gone dormant.

This is how I had it pictured too.  I was more wondering if the same 1L starter was fine for a lager or an ale. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Pi on September 28, 2015, 04:13:11 pm
His shaken not stired, pitch and high krausen method is not about pitching the correct number of cells. Its about pitching them in the correct state.
This is what S.cerivasai was saying in a similar thread. He also advises against using a stir plate as this stresses the yeast. What is the argument for/against employing a stir plate when making a starter?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: dilluh98 on September 28, 2015, 04:21:10 pm
I believe the argument for using a stir plate is that it does continuously oxygenate the wort if a vortex is achieved. Mark's point is that the forces present in a starter that is stirred at such a high speed will cause damage to the yeast cells. It seems it's not so much a biochemical problem but a physical one. Apparently all that slamming around during long periods of stirring is detrimental to the cell walls of the yeast. The shaken not stirred method does employ very vigorous/violent stirring (shaking) but it is for a very short period of time (1 min) such that there is really no physical stress to the yeast. I take his method to heart and really shake the living daylights out of that one gallon jug to the point that the whole 1L starter is completely foam. The maximum degree of air-to-liquid surface area is achieved in that condition.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 05:12:09 pm
Steve:

The method is informally called "Shaken, not Stirred," or the "James Bond Method."


OP:

I never pitch larger than 1L per 5 gallons of normal gravity wort.  It does not matter if the batch is an ale or lager.  The only reason that doubling the pitch rate can be justified is that the length of the replication period is bounded by the metabolic rate, and the metabolic rate is slowed at lower temperatures.  However, one of the reasons why lager brewing made brewing possible on an industrial scale is that cold temperatures slow, if not completely stop the replication of wild microflora.

Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: smokeymcb on September 28, 2015, 05:29:54 pm
Thanks for popping in Mark.  I guess it'll be a 1L starter then. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Stevie on September 28, 2015, 05:37:31 pm

Steve:

The method is informally called "Shaken, not Stirred," or the "James Bond Method."
I know, but my name has the instructions built right in. ;)
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 05:52:31 pm
I believe the argument for using a stir plate is that it does continuously oxygenate the wort if a vortex is achieved.

The only time that a stirred starter begins to approach the surface area of a Shaken, not Stirred starter is when a vortex is created.  The vortex is needed overcome the low amount of surface area that is present when a 1L starter is made in a 2L Erlenmeyer flask as well as to overcome the geometry of a Erlenmeyer flask by creating a vacuum.  A stir plate cannot overcome the poor geometry of an Erlenmeyer flask once the culture starts outgassing.

When we use a stir plate to propagate yeast, we are using a process known as stirred suspension cell culturing.  Shear stress is a well-known problem with stirred cultures.  Shear stress is the stress placed on cells in turbulent flow.  The more turbulent the fluid, the greater the amount of shear stress.  I am convinced that the foul odors and tastes that one encounters with a stirred starter are the result of stress, not oxidation, as oxidation should not occur in a culture due the cell density and yeast's affinity for O2.

Shear stress in stirred cultures is a well studied problem. While we think of growing yeast biomass when the term culturing is thrown around, many other types of cells are propagated using the same basic techniques that we use for yeast (the medium may be different).   A device known as a bioreactor is used for very large scale cell culturing and dry yeast culturing.  There are numerous papers covering this area of research.

Quote
Mark's point is that the forces present in a starter that is stirred at such a high speed will cause damage to the yeast cells. It seems it's not so much a biochemical problem but a physical one. Apparently all that slamming around during long periods of stirring is detrimental to the cell walls of the yeast. The shaken not stirred method does employ very vigorous/violent stirring (shaking) but it is for a very short period of time (1 min) such that there is really no physical stress to the yeast. I take his method to heart and really shake the living daylights out of that one gallon jug to the point that the whole 1L starter is completely foam. The maximum degree of air-to-liquid surface area is achieved in that condition.

Yes, the key to success with the method is shaking the medium vigorously enough to turn it completely into foam (or at least darn near it) in a vessel with at least a 4:1 vessel volume to medium volume ratio.  Gas dissolves into a liquid at the interface between the gas and the liquid. The Shaken not, Stirred method works by creating a huge amount of surface area.  A gas-liquid foam has a very high specific surface area.  It is basically pockets of gas encased in thin layers of liquid.  The beauty of the technique is that the O2 that dissolves while the medium is still foam is available immediately to the culture. 

With the above said, shaking can be eliminated via direct O2 injection.  However, the technique is no longer low tech and low cost (or as my British friends would say, no longer as cheap and cheerful).
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 06:19:05 pm
His shaken not stired, pitch and high krausen method is not about pitching the correct number of cells. Its about pitching them in the correct state.

While there is a lower bound beneath which we should not go cell count-wise, Jim's assessment is correct.  We are not making beer with a starter.  We are propagating yeast; hence, we want to try our best to keep the yeast biomass in exponential (a.k.a. logarithmic) growth mode (we should use the same technique when making a stepped starter).  High krausen occurs when the yeast biomass reaches the point marked deceleration phase on the graph shown below.  We want to avoid having the culture enter the stationary phase because biomass growth from that point forward is for replacement only, and any replication from that point forward wastes ergosterol and unsaturated fatty acid reserves.


(http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv356/tonestack/Brewing/YeastGrowthCurve_zpsb66047c5.jpg)


Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: rcemech on September 28, 2015, 07:45:11 pm
Mark, how is this method much different from pitching a gently stirred starter (just enough action to keep the cells in suspension - all things being equal - proper O2 and nutrients) pitched at high krausen?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 08:39:03 pm
First and foremost, brewing yeast cells do not need to be stirred to remain in suspension, at least not before high krausen is reached.  Most brewing yeast strains exhibit what is known as NewFlo flocculation (the genes that are responsible for flocculation are known as FLO genes).  NewFlo strains do not flocculate until glucose, mannose, maltose, sucrose, and maltotriose have reached a genetically set level.   

At this point, the only positive that stir plates bring to the table when propagating brewing yeast strains is degassing of the medium.  However, CO2 build up is not much of a problem when a culture is pitched 12 hours after it is inoculated.

To answer your question, is why would one want to use a stir plate when it basically brings little to the table and risks exposing the cells to continuous shear stress (even a slowly stirred culture undergoes turbulent flow)?  Why not just go with an easier and lower cost method that does not unnecessarily waste resources?  If stir plates are the answer, why do we not stir our batches of beer?  It would be easily to do with a continuous duty motor and a sanitized stainless steel paint stirrer.  A batch of beer would more than likely benefit more from continuous stirring than a culture because stirring would keep the cells in suspension long after glucose, mannose, maltose, sucrose, and maltotriose levels have fallen below the levels encoded a yeast strain's genetics.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: rcemech on September 28, 2015, 08:56:44 pm
First and foremost, brewing yeast cells do not need to be stirred to remain in suspension, at least not before high krausen is reached.  Most brewing yeast strains exhibit what is known as NewFlo flocculation (the genes that are responsible for flocculation are known as FLO genes).  NewFlo strains do not flocculate until glucose, mannose, maltose, sucrose, and maltotriose have reached a genetically set level.   

At this point, the only positive that stir plates bring to the table when propagating brewing yeast strains is degassing of the medium.  However, CO2 build up is not much of a problem when a culture is pitched 12 hours after it is inoculated.

To answer your question, is why would one want to use a stir plate when it basically brings little to the table and risks exposing the cells to continuous shear stress (even a slowly stirred culture undergoes turbulent flow)?  Why not just go with an easier and lower cost method that does not unnecessarily waste resources?  If stir plates are the answer, why do we not stir our batches of beer?  It would be easily to do with a continuous duty motor and a sanitized stainless steel paint stirrer.  A batch of beer would more than likely benefit more from continuous stirring than a culture because stirring would keep the cells in suspension long after glucose, mannose, maltose, sucrose, and maltotriose levels have fallen below the levels encoded a yeast strain's genetics.

It might be practical for a 5 gallon batch, but using your 4/1 method could become troublesome for a 10 gallon plus batch.

I really appreciate your posts. The rabbit hole has been drilled much deeper here now and it looks like I'm gonna have to cut the belay line.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 28, 2015, 09:39:12 pm
It might be practical for a 5 gallon batch, but using your 4/1 method could become troublesome for a 10 gallon plus batch.

I was referring to continuously stirring a 5-gallon batch with a stirrer and a motor.  I know very few people who would be able to shake 5 gallons of wort that vigorously.

Quote
The rabbit hole has been drilled much deeper here now and it looks like I'm gonna have to cut the belay line.

I am not attempting to make anyone's life more difficult.  In fact, I am attempting to remove a barrier to entry and reduce the complexity of moving to liquid yeast cultures.  So many new brewers today believe that a stir plate, a stir bar, and an Erlenmeyer flask are required to produce a healthy liquid culture that many choose to stick with dry yeast.   A one U.S. gallon glass jug can often be acquired as waste that once held juice or vinegar.  Thirty-eight millimeter polyseal reusable caps can usually be had for less than a dollar each.  It does not get much lower cost than a glass jug that would have more than likely found its way into a landfill and less than a dollar for a reusable cap.  That sure beats $70.00 to $150.00 for a stir plate, a couple of dollars for a stir bar, and another $20.00 to $25.00 for a 2L Erlenmeyer flask.  A process does not get much simpler than shaking.  All one needs to do after inoculating and shaking or shaking and inoculating is to loosen to cap enough that the culture can outgas, and then wait for high krausen to appear.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Stevie on September 28, 2015, 09:53:39 pm
Mark, I haven't used you method as I have been simply been getting fresh smack packs and brewing sub 1.040 beers that I then repitch at a thick rate of 60-100ml into my later batches. I do plan on trying it but will likely crash at krausen or pitch into 1 quart of the actual beer shaken to foam. That said, have you brought this to HBT or BN Forums yet? Not flaming, just curious if you had and what sort of reaction you received.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: hopfenundmalz on September 29, 2015, 12:11:11 am
I want to say that now that the weather is turning cooler, the brewing will resume. The first beer will use US-05. The next will be some 022 Essex, and I will shake that starter like it owes me some big money. Will do a liter in a 4 liter jug to be more Metric in my process. I am an engineer!
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 29, 2015, 12:13:20 am
As far as I am concerned, posting anything on HBT that goes against the narrative is asking for trouble.  I am too old to waste my time fighting with trolls, strawman sockpuppets, and cult of personality fanboys.  The BN is a "for profit" organization.  I post to this forum and a couple of British brewing forums.   
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 29, 2015, 12:14:12 am
Will do a liter in a 4 liter jug to be more Metric in my process. I am an engineer!

It's a curse, isn't it?  :D
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 29, 2015, 12:23:08 am
The next will be some 022 Essex

Where are you getting WLP022 this time of year?  I am going to open ferment next time I use that strain.  The beer that I made was not as fruity as I expected.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: RPIScotty on September 29, 2015, 12:42:52 am
Also an engineer and also trying this for my 1 gal batches next time. I've got another baby on the way but we will see when I can brew next! Count me in on the "Shake it like Thorogood from one Bourbon, one Scotch and one Beer is my tenant" method.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: rcemech on September 29, 2015, 01:04:05 am
It might be practical for a 5 gallon batch, but using your 4/1 method could become troublesome for a 10 gallon plus batch.

I was referring to continuously stirring a 5-gallon batch with a stirrer and a motor.  I know very few people who would be able to shake 5 gallons of wort that vigorously.

Quote
The rabbit hole has been drilled much deeper here now and it looks like I'm gonna have to cut the belay line.

I am not attempting to make anyone's life more difficult.  In fact, I am attempting to remove a barrier to entry and reduce the complexity of moving to liquid yeast cultures.  So many new brewers today believe that a stir plate, a stir bar, and an Erlenmeyer flask are required to produce a healthy liquid culture that many choose to stick with dry yeast.   A one U.S. gallon glass jug can often be acquired as waste that once held juice or vinegar.  Thirty-eight millimeter polyseal reusable caps can usually be had for less than a dollar each.  It does not get much lower cost than a glass jug that would have more than likely found its way into a landfill and less than a dollar for a reusable cap.  That sure beats $70.00 to $150.00 for a stir plate, a couple of dollars for a stir bar, and another $20.00 to $25.00 for a 2L Erlenmeyer flask.  A process does not get much simpler than shaking.  All one needs to do after inoculating and shaking or shaking and inoculating is to loosen to cap enough that the culture can outgas, and then wait for high krausen to appear.

What would your procedure look like for a 15 gallon batch of <1.060 beer?

Also, by going deeper down the rabbit hole" I am praising your knowledge and you've awoken my desire to go back and learn a lot more about yeast/yeast management. It's a good thing!
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: hopfenundmalz on September 29, 2015, 03:29:00 am
The next will be some 022 Essex

Where are you getting WLP022 this time of year?  I am going to open ferment next time I use that strain.  The beer that I made was not as fruity as I expected.
A brewpub that under pitches and open ferment s and top crops.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: riceral on September 29, 2015, 02:49:13 pm
As far as I am concerned, posting anything on HBT that goes against the narrative is asking for trouble.  I am too old to waste my time fighting with trolls, strawman sockpuppets, and cult of personality fanboys.  The BN is a "for profit" organization. I post to this forum and a couple of British brewing forums.

And I am glad you do. I am sometimes lost in your explanations from my limited knowledge, but I am learning and trying things as I go along.

I visit other sites and take things with a healthy dose of sketpticism. I don't post on any other site and only post here a few times.

I think we are benefiting from your thoughts and the thoughts and ideas of others who "goes against the narrative."
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: smokeymcb on September 29, 2015, 03:36:11 pm
As far as I am concerned, posting anything on HBT that goes against the narrative is asking for trouble.  I am too old to waste my time fighting with trolls, strawman sockpuppets, and cult of personality fanboys.  The BN is a "for profit" organization. I post to this forum and a couple of British brewing forums.

And I am glad you do. I am sometimes lost in your explanations from my limited knowledge, but I am learning and trying things as I go along.

I visit other sites and take things with a healthy dose of sketpticism. I don't post on any other site and only post here a few times.

I think we are benefiting from your thoughts and the thoughts and ideas of others who "goes against the narrative."

I agree 100%!  I am a member of a bunch of brewing forums including the big one and I have noticed that any one going against the grain will be ridiculed by everyone until one of the "big name" members agrees.  Then its treated like common knowledge there.

I haven't been a member here long and haven't made many posts but I'd like to throw out a big "thumbs up" to the not only very knowledgeable but also very civil, open minded brewers who populate this place.  I've learned a lot in my short stay and will be learning even more with my attempt at a "underpitched" (as most would tell me) lager.

Again, thanks everyone...
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: 69franx on September 29, 2015, 03:40:06 pm
Rob, I think that the more time you spend here, the more you will like it and slowly spend a lot less time elsewhere. I never experienced issues on the other large site that I started with, but it was obvious to me as a newbie that I would learn better, faster, more here with more confidence in what I was hearing. Welcome aboard
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 29, 2015, 04:49:16 pm
I think we are benefiting from your thoughts and the thoughts and ideas of others who "goes against the narrative."

I am a lightweight in that area compared to Denny and Marshall.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Pi on September 30, 2015, 01:47:37 pm
I want to try this method. I did a Vienna last weekend using my standard stir plate method. Its chugging along after 3 days at 50* but seems a little sluggish. If I were to do the same recipe again Using this method, could i grow a healthy crop using a little slurry from this sluggish batch, or should I start over using a fresh vial of WLP830?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 30, 2015, 02:56:57 pm
I would just repitch the slurry straight.  No yeast culture performs its best on the initial pitch.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: beersk on September 30, 2015, 05:54:06 pm
Also an engineer and also trying this for my 1 gal batches next time. I've got another baby on the way but we will see when I can brew next! Count me in on the "Shake it like Thorogood from one Bourbon, one Scotch and one Beer is my tenant" method.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
*Off topic*

You're Derek, aren't you? If so, what happened to your old name/account? I recognize the bit that is under your username.

*On topic*

Mark, it's good to know it's not just me that experiences a sluggish fermentation and not as good a beer from a first generation. It's kind of annoying really.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Stevie on September 30, 2015, 06:01:16 pm

You're Derek, aren't you? If so, what happened to your old name/account? I recognize the bit that is under your username.

Dude!!! Now the FBI will need to relocate him again. Good going.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: beersk on September 30, 2015, 06:01:57 pm

You're Derek, aren't you? If so, what happened to your old name/account? I recognize the bit that is under your username.

Dude!!! Now the FBI will need to relocate him again. Good going.
Sh*t...what've I done!
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: RPIScotty on September 30, 2015, 06:04:16 pm
Also an engineer and also trying this for my 1 gal batches next time. I've got another baby on the way but we will see when I can brew next! Count me in on the "Shake it like Thorogood from one Bourbon, one Scotch and one Beer is my tenant" method.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
*Off topic*

You're Derek, aren't you? If so, what happened to your old name/account? I recognize the bit that is under your username.

I sure am. I'm not sure what happened. I had taken a little time off of researching and brewing to get my house (new baby coming) and yard in order. I tried to sign in again and it wasn't letting me. The only thing I can think is that I fat fingered the delete account button somehow.

I'm back! Looking to get a BDSA in the bottle before the new addition to my family gets here!
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on September 30, 2015, 06:31:52 pm
Mark, it's good to know it's not just me that experiences a sluggish fermentation and not as good a beer from a first generation. It's kind of annoying really.

I never judge a yeast culture/strain by the initial pitch results.  My best beers come from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th repitches.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: beersk on September 30, 2015, 07:49:32 pm
Mark, it's good to know it's not just me that experiences a sluggish fermentation and not as good a beer from a first generation. It's kind of annoying really.

I never judge a yeast culture/strain by the initial pitch results.  My best beers come from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th repitches.

Righteous. And I agree. I'm always afraid I'm not being sanitary enough when I harvest yeast, even though I'm pretty OCD about it.

Derek, welcome back.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 01, 2015, 06:36:29 pm
Mark-
so for 5-gal of average OG lager beer...say around 1.052-055, what size starter are you pitching at high krausen or shortly thereafter? i'd likely go around 1.030 on my starter wort....1L, 1.5L?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: a10t2 on October 01, 2015, 08:17:00 pm
The method is informally called "Shaken, not Stirred," or the "James Bond Method."

Can we call it the "Broccoli Method"? Fleming's Bond drinks stirred gin martinis as any proper Englishman would. ;)
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 01, 2015, 08:32:06 pm
Mark-
so for 5-gal of average OG lager beer...say around 1.052-055, what size starter are you pitching at high krausen or shortly thereafter? i'd likely go around 1.030 on my starter wort....1L, 1.5L?

I never pitch more than a 1L starter per 5 gallons of wort, ale or lager.  I often pitch 300ml starters in 5-gallon ale batches, but it is not something that I recommend to people who do not like British-style ale (i.e., an ale with detectable amount of fruitiness).  I would bump your starter gravity up to 1.040 when using a culture that is under 4 months old.  The extra carbon can be beneficial, and the cells are healthy enough to withstand the gravity.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: blatz on October 01, 2015, 08:41:21 pm
ken/mark - how many vials/packs of lager yeast are you starting with?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 01, 2015, 09:00:32 pm
ken/mark - how many vials/packs of lager yeast are you starting with?

me- i have not deviated from the yeast calc estimates and recommended amounts for stir plate and lagers....so that's why i'm asking because one vial or smack pack in 1L of 1.040 wort is clearly significantly less than what we are used to pitching. seems to be just fine based upon others trying this method- i just haven't done it as of yet.

for ales, i've skipped the starter all together with white labs pure pitch- 1-4 week old yeast up to 1.065OG with great results.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: brewinhard on October 01, 2015, 09:37:22 pm
ken/mark - how many vials/packs of lager yeast are you starting with?

Yes, I too am curious about this one as well.  1 pack in 1 qt starter (1.040) shaken method pitched at high krausen sounds really low to me especially when pitched at 50F...

At least compared to past practices (and every pitching rate calculator out there). And if the starter is supposed to ferment at room temps (i.e. 70F or so) and then pitched at high krausen isn't there risk of shocking the yeast when pitching the warmer starter into significantly cooler wort?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 02, 2015, 06:14:38 pm
ken/mark - how many vials/packs of lager yeast are you starting with?

I usually start with a couple of 4mm loop scrapes from slant that I used to inoculate 40ml or autoclaved 5% w/v (1.020) wort.  That culture is stepped to 600ml or 1L.   It's not something that I would recommend to other people. When using commercial yeast, I have never used more than one White Labs vial or a Wyeast smack pack. 


Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: morticaixavier on October 02, 2015, 06:30:43 pm
ken/mark - how many vials/packs of lager yeast are you starting with?

Yes, I too am curious about this one as well.  1 pack in 1 qt starter (1.040) shaken method pitched at high krausen sounds really low to me especially when pitched at 50F...

At least compared to past practices (and every pitching rate calculator out there). And if the starter is supposed to ferment at room temps (i.e. 70F or so) and then pitched at high krausen isn't there risk of shocking the yeast when pitching the warmer starter into significantly cooler wort?

the key, as Mark has pointed out, is that the difference between 200 billion cells and 400 billion cells is ~ 90 minutes of lag time. as long as the cells are really healthy and have a good reserve of sterols and o2 they are fully capable of reproducing the rest of the way in your wort without throwing stress flavors. It's a different paradigm than the yeast calculators use.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: evil_morty on October 02, 2015, 06:58:51 pm
the key, as Mark has pointed out, is that the difference between 200 billion cells and 400 billion cells is ~ 90 minutes of lag time. as long as the cells are really healthy and have a good reserve of sterols and o2 they are fully capable of reproducing the rest of the way in your wort without throwing stress flavors. It's a different paradigm than the yeast calculators use.

has anyone tested this out with a lager yet? 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: morticaixavier on October 02, 2015, 07:00:27 pm
the key, as Mark has pointed out, is that the difference between 200 billion cells and 400 billion cells is ~ 90 minutes of lag time. as long as the cells are really healthy and have a good reserve of sterols and o2 they are fully capable of reproducing the rest of the way in your wort without throwing stress flavors. It's a different paradigm than the yeast calculators use.

has anyone tested this out with a lager yet?

I have not.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: evil_morty on October 02, 2015, 07:08:43 pm
the key, as Mark has pointed out, is that the difference between 200 billion cells and 400 billion cells is ~ 90 minutes of lag time. as long as the cells are really healthy and have a good reserve of sterols and o2 they are fully capable of reproducing the rest of the way in your wort without throwing stress flavors. It's a different paradigm than the yeast calculators use.

has anyone tested this out with a lager yet?

I have not.

I'm planning to brew next week and while I will likely use a stir plate for the first small step of my starter I was planning on pulling about 1.5 gallons (out of 10 gallons) and using this as my second "starter" before pitching the whole 1.5 gallons into the remaining 8.5 gallons at high krausen.  on the 1.5 gallon ferment I don't plan on constantly aerating it or anything.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: blatz on October 02, 2015, 07:17:58 pm
i've been doing, including two recent lagers, the process you mention evil_morty

on my pilsner i grew up 3 vials in 2.75L in a 5L flask, put on my stir plate, fermented, crashed.  on brewday, I decanted and ran 4L of the chilled main wort into the flask, aerated and put into my fermentation fridge, then ran the remaining 11gal into my conical.  once the 4L was at high krausen i pitched the whole flask into the conical.

I did the same, albeit collected yeast from dump valve for the pils and ran 4L of vienna into the flask and followed the same procedure in my other conical.

so far, i've been very happy with my results.  my pils finished quickly and cleanly - i just kegged and it seems great.  vienna is still awaiting to be kegged, but it also seemed to ferment strongly and samples have been great.

I should caveat this is NOT the process that Mark is recommending. 

for an APA, i pitched 2 vials of 001 into 2L of chilled wort from the kettle, and once at high krausen, pitched in the main wort - similar to my lager process, but without and prior growth on stir plate.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: evil_morty on October 02, 2015, 07:22:04 pm
i've been doing, including two recent lagers, the process you mention evil_morty

on my pilsner i grew up 3 vials in 2.75L in a 5L flask, put on my stir plate, fermented, crashed.  on brewday, I decanted and ran 4L of the chilled main wort into the flask, aerated and put into my fermentation fridge, then ran the remaining 11gal into my conical.  once the 4L was at high krausen i pitched the whole flask into the conical.

I did the same, albeit collected yeast from dump valve for the pils and ran 4L of vienna into the flask and followed the same procedure in my other conical.

so far, i've been very happy with my results.  my pils finished quickly and cleanly - i just kegged and it seems great.  vienna is still awaiting to be kegged, but it also seemed to ferment strongly and samples have been great.

I should caveat this is NOT the process that Mark is recommending. 

for an APA, i pitched 2 vials of 001 into 2L of chilled wort from the kettle, and once at high krausen, pitched in the main wort - similar to my lager process, but without and prior growth on stir plate.

I think it has at least the similarity that the goal is healthy, active yeast vs just having a lot of yeast (which may not be as healthy or active, jury maybe still out on that??)
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 02, 2015, 07:23:40 pm
I'm planning to brew next week and while I will likely use a stir plate for the first small step of my starter I was planning on pulling about 1.5 gallons (out of 10 gallons) and using this as my second "starter" before pitching the whole 1.5 gallons into the remaining 8.5 gallons at high krausen.  on the 1.5 gallon ferment I don't plan on constantly aerating it or anything.

I would recommend against using a stir plate and my method.   You will not get the same effect because the stir plate will have stressed the cells.  Plus, can you shake a six-gallon carboy like it owes you money? 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: evil_morty on October 02, 2015, 07:28:06 pm
I'm planning to brew next week and while I will likely use a stir plate for the first small step of my starter I was planning on pulling about 1.5 gallons (out of 10 gallons) and using this as my second "starter" before pitching the whole 1.5 gallons into the remaining 8.5 gallons at high krausen.  on the 1.5 gallon ferment I don't plan on constantly aerating it or anything.

I would recommend against using a stir plate and my method.   You will not get the same effect because the stir plate will have stressed the cells.  Plus, can you shake a six-gallon carboy like it owes you money?

firstly, I'd like to do 2 steps as a little insurance to make sure that the yeast is good before I commit to the brew day.  I could skip the stir bar on that and just ferment 1-2L in my 5L flask with some extreme shaking.

I would be fermenting the second step (1-2 gallons) in a bucket so yes, I could shake the living hell out of that.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: mabrungard on October 02, 2015, 08:24:19 pm
has anyone tested this out with a lager yet?

I sort of have. I just made a Munich Dunkel with WY 2308 and first created a 2L starter that was fuller fermented out and then chilled and decanted.

I use an in-line oxygenation system. I ran off about 4L of oxygenated Dunkel wort into the 6L starter vessel and spun up the stir plate for about 15 minutes. That wort was probably around 70F. I can attest that I had one angry and ready to go army of yeast in about an hour or two.  The subsequent fermentation was very active at 50F.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 02, 2015, 08:27:35 pm
I would be fermenting the second step (1-2 gallons) in a bucket so yes, I could shake the living hell out of that.

Hopefully, your bucket seals better than an Ale Pail.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: evil_morty on October 02, 2015, 08:36:47 pm
I would be fermenting the second step (1-2 gallons) in a bucket so yes, I could shake the living hell out of that.

Hopefully, your bucket seals better than an Ale Pail.

I've never noticed them to leak just from shaking in my pre-O2 stone days.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 02, 2015, 08:41:40 pm
Yeast biomass grows exponentially, not linearly; therefore, the difference between 200 billion and 400 billion cells is not as great as people think when pitched into 19L of non-high osmotic pressure inducing wort.   The yeast biomass grows at a rate of 2n, where n is the number of minutes that have elapsed since the end of the lag phase divided by the replication period in minutes, which is approximately 90 minutes for ales on average, slightly longer for lagers due the effect that reduced temperatures have on metabolism. 

Maximum cell density is approximately 200 million cells per milliliter.  The maximum cell density for 1L of wort is approximately 1,000 * 200 million = 200 billion cells. The maximum cell density for a 5-gallon batch is 19 * 200 billion = 3.8 trillion cells.  All of these densities are bounded by having sufficient carbon (sugar is carbon bound to water) and O2 to support maximum cell density growth.

If we know the initial cell count and how long the culture has been in the exponential phase, we can obtain a rough approximation of the cell count using the following formula:

cell_count_at_time_t_in_minutes = initial_cell_count * 2(t / replication_period_in_minutes)

Re-writing the equation to solve for (t / replication_period_in_minutes) (a.k.a. number of replication periods)

number_of_replication_periods = log(target_cell_count / initial_cell_count) / log(2)


initial_cell_count = 200 billion (1L starter)
number_of_replication_periods = log(3.8 trillion/ 200 billion) / log(2) = 4.25

initial_cell_count = 400 billion (2L starter)
number_of_replication_periods = log(3.8 trillion/ 400 billion) / log(2) = 3.25

In essence, the difference between pitching a 200 billion cell culture and a 400 billion cell culture is roughly 90 minutes of replication time with ales, slightly longer with lagers due to reduced metabolic rate.

initial_cell_count = 100 billion (500ml starter)
number_of_replication_periods = log(3.8 trillion/ 100 billion) / log(2) = 5.25

The difference between pitching a 100 billion cell culture and a 400 billion cell culture is roughly 180 minutes of replication time with ales, slightly longer with lager due to reduced metabolic rate.


As long as there is enough carbon to support growth, enough O2 to support cellular health, and our brewery hygiene is sound, it does not make a difference if we pitch 100 billion or 400 billion cells.  The only time that pitching a huge starter over a smaller starter pitched at the peak of health makes sense is when we are pitching high gravity wort because it is more difficult to dissolve O2 into high gravity wort, and high gravity wort places osmotic pressure on the cells.  Dissolved O2 is critical to yeast cell health, and high osmotic pressure takes its toll on yeast cells.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: evil_morty on October 02, 2015, 11:15:21 pm
So what would you suggest here.  I'm looking at making 10 gallons of 1.051 lager.  Since I mash overnight the night before the actual brew day I'll be able to pull some amount of 1.046ish wort off to make a "shaken not stirred starter" that would hopefully be ready the next day to pitch into the rest of the wort.

I'm starting from a vial so I would like to do one step ahead of time.  I don't really have a small vessel I can shake.  I guess I could try a growler?  not sure how much I trust myself to get one of those super clean.  I have a 5L flask b/c I've typically used a stir plate.  So for step one what volume and gravity (1.040 like usual?) of wort should I make?  Should I decant off the beer from this starter like I have in the past?  If no should I ferment this at lager temps?

And then the night before I actually complete the brew how many gallons should I be pitching my first step into?  I was planning to ferment this at lager temps.  Is it likely this will be going strong by mid day the next day?

in case it's relevant I'll be using WL833.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: RPIScotty on October 02, 2015, 11:21:11 pm
I think you'll find all your answers back a few posts in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 03, 2015, 01:41:15 am
So what would you suggest here.  I'm looking at making 10 gallons of 1.051 lager.  Since I mash overnight the night before the actual brew day I'll be able to pull some amount of 1.046ish wort off to make a "shaken not stirred starter" that would hopefully be ready the next day to pitch into the rest of the wort.

There is no need to step the starter.  The difference between a 1L starter and a 2L starter is one replication period. You will be incubating your lager starter at room temperature, so a 2L starter will require roughly 90 minutes of an additional incubation time (and a vessel of at least 8L in volume).  A 2L starter will be ready pitch if you make it the evening before you brew.  I would make the 2L starter with 200 grams of DME. If you do not have a scale that can weigh in grams, 200 grams is 7 dry ounces.   You should be able to get at least 300 billion cells in addition to the viable cells in the vial.   If you pitch that starter at high krausen, it will get the job done. 

If you want to eliminate the possibility of shock, you may want to start to cool your starter an hour or so before you pitch by placing it in your fermentation chamber.  When making lager,  I usually pitch a starter at 20C/68F into approximately 18C/65F wort and then place the fermentation vessel in my lager fermentation chamber set to hold the wort at 13C/55F.  I rarely if ever ferment a lager below that temperature.  Most production lager strains were selected for their ability to produce a quality product at 13C/55F.

Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: evil_morty on October 03, 2015, 02:08:10 am
So what would you suggest here.  I'm looking at making 10 gallons of 1.051 lager.  Since I mash overnight the night before the actual brew day I'll be able to pull some amount of 1.046ish wort off to make a "shaken not stirred starter" that would hopefully be ready the next day to pitch into the rest of the wort.

There is no need to step the starter.  The difference between a 1L starter and a 2L starter is one replication period. You will be incubating your lager starter at room temperature, so a 2L starter will require roughly 90 minutes of an additional incubation time (and a vessel of at least 8L in volume).  A 2L starter will be ready pitch if you make it the evening before you brew.  I would make the 2L starter with 200 grams of DME. If you do not have a scale that can weigh in grams, 200 grams is 7 dry ounces.   You should be able to get at least 300 billion cells in addition to the viable cells in the starter.   If you pitch that starter at high krausen, it will get the job done. 

If you want to eliminate the possibility of shock, you may want to start to cool your starter an hour or so before you pitch by placing it in your fermentation chamber.  When making lager,  I usually pitch a starter at 20C/68F into approximately 18C/65F wort and then place the fermentation vessel in my lager fermentation chamber set to hold the wort at 13C/55F.  I rarely if ever ferment a lager below that temperature.  Most production lager strains were selected for their ability to produce a quality product at 13C/55F.

a starter that small scares the hell out of me.  fermentation has always been like magic to me in that I follow instructions and guidelines and hope for the best.  why even make a starter?  what is the starter doing for me here?  is getting the yeast going in the right amount of starter the main issue and then after that it just doesn't matter much?  we are talking the difference between something like 80B cells and probably less than 200B cells (just guessing after making a 2L starter) when most experts out there would say I should be pitching close to 600B or more.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 03, 2015, 02:49:45 am
a starter that small scares the hell out of me.  fermentation has always been like magic to me in that I follow instructions and guidelines and hope for the best.  why even make a starter?  what is the starter doing for me here?  is getting the yeast going in the right amount of starter the main issue and then after that it just doesn't matter much?  we are talking the difference between something like 80B cells and probably less than 200B cells (just guessing after making a 2L starter) when most experts out there would say I should be pitching close to 600B or more.

A 2L starter is not a small starter by any stretch of the imagination.  I do not know who the "experts" are, but I would love to see their sources.  I am willing to bet that their guidelines are based more on folklore passed down from other brewers who received the information as folklore from other brewers than anything grounded in science.  A 2L liter starter pitched into 10 gallons (38L) is a 1:19 step.  That's well within the realm of a healthy culture that is pitched into well-aerated wort.  It takes log(19) / log(2)  = 4.25 replication (doubling) periods for 400 billion cells to grow into 7.6 trillion cells.   It's just basic biological science. 

By the way, there are two major reasons why we use a starter.  The first reason is to lower the probability that wild microflora will gain control of the batch.  Bacteria multiply 8-fold in the same amount of time that yeast double.   The second reason why we make a starter is to bring the culture out of quiescence before pitching, which reduces lag time, which, in turn, allows the culture to start reproducing faster.  The faster a culture starts reproducing after being pitched, the lower the probability that house microflora will gain a foothold in the fermentation.  Every other reason is subordinate to these two reasons.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: narcout on October 03, 2015, 05:43:46 am
According to the Mr. Malty website, the metric used by that particular yeast calculator came from George Fix's book An Analysis of Brewing Techniques. 

Someone who owns a copy (I do not) might be able to trace it further.  Maybe it's been superseded at this point. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on October 03, 2015, 10:47:38 am

So what would you suggest here.  I'm looking at making 10 gallons of 1.051 lager.  Since I mash overnight the night before the actual brew day I'll be able to pull some amount of 1.046ish wort off to make a "shaken not stirred starter" that would hopefully be ready the next day to pitch into the rest of the wort.

There is no need to step the starter.  The difference between a 1L starter and a 2L starter is one replication period. You will be incubating your lager starter at room temperature, so a 2L starter will require roughly 90 minutes of an additional incubation time (and a vessel of at least 8L in volume).  A 2L starter will be ready pitch if you make it the evening before you brew.  I would make the 2L starter with 200 grams of DME. If you do not have a scale that can weigh in grams, 200 grams is 7 dry ounces.   You should be able to get at least 300 billion cells in addition to the viable cells in the vial.   If you pitch that starter at high krausen, it will get the job done. 

If you want to eliminate the possibility of shock, you may want to start to cool your starter an hour or so before you pitch by placing it in your fermentation chamber.  When making lager,  I usually pitch a starter at 20C/68F into approximately 18C/65F wort and then place the fermentation vessel in my lager fermentation chamber set to hold the wort at 13C/55F.  I rarely if ever ferment a lager below that temperature.  Most production lager strains were selected for their ability to produce a quality product at 13C/55F.

Mark- is this math suggested for 5 or 10 gallons?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: evil_morty on October 03, 2015, 11:30:59 am
a starter that small scares the hell out of me.  fermentation has always been like magic to me in that I follow instructions and guidelines and hope for the best.  why even make a starter?  what is the starter doing for me here?  is getting the yeast going in the right amount of starter the main issue and then after that it just doesn't matter much?  we are talking the difference between something like 80B cells and probably less than 200B cells (just guessing after making a 2L starter) when most experts out there would say I should be pitching close to 600B or more.

A 2L starter is not a small starter by any stretch of the imagination.  I do not know who the "experts" are, but I would love to see their sources.  I am willing to bet that their guidelines are based more on folklore passed down from other brewers who received the information as folklore from other brewers than anything grounded in science.  2L liter starter pitched into 10 gallons (38L) is a 1:19 step.  That's well within the realm of a healthy culture that is pitched into well-aerated wort.  It takes log(19) / log(2)  = 4.25 replication (doubling) periods for 400 billion cells to grow into 7.6 trillion cells.   It's just basic biological science. 

By the way, there are two reasons major reasons why we use a starter.  The first reason is to lower the probability that wild microflora will gain control of the batch.  Bacteria multiply 8-fold in the same amount of time that yeast double.   The second reason why we make a starter is to bring the culture out of quiescence before pitching, which reduces lag time, which, in turn, allows the culture to start reproducing faster.  The faster a culture starts reproducing after being pitched, the lower the probability that house microflora will gain a foot hold in the fermentation.  Every other reason is subordinate to these two reasons.

the experts?  Chris White/Jamil or whoever contributed to the pitching rate calculators out there.  I'm not saying you are wrong or anything but you must at least realize what you are saying flies in the face of what most people have been doing for years.

page 122 of Yeast.  # cells to pitch = 1.5M * mL of wort * deg Plato, which is around 700B in the case of my example lager.

But back to your process...

can I make a shaken starter in a flask?  will foil on top keep things from leaking out and making a mess?  Also, in the case of the 10 gal of wort, can I over oxygenate it with pure O2 or is this simply not possible?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: klickitat jim on October 03, 2015, 12:24:00 pm
I guess what mark is saying is that if your yeast are at healthy high krausen you don't need 700B because they will go from 300B to 600b to 1.2T in about an hour and a half
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: RPIScotty on October 03, 2015, 12:50:53 pm

I guess what mark is saying is that if your yeast are at healthy high krausen you don't need 700B because they will go from 300B to 600b to 1.2T in about an hour and a half

This sounds like a ver succinct and accurate interpretation.

I think it's important to note that Mark isn't saying this method is a replacement for any others. It's just easier, less equipment intensive and guided by biology to provide an extremely active and healthy starter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: klickitat jim on October 03, 2015, 01:48:08 pm
Looking at Mr Malty, the only thing contrary to what Mark says is that Jamil claimed a stirplate is the best way to continually add oxygen. Other than that, jamil says 1gm dme to 10ml water, oxygenated, pitched at high krausen, which he quotes Doss from Wyeast as esimated to occur with a fresh sample in a 2L starter in 12-18 hrs. What Mark is saying is not really contrary to the basics on the Mr Malty site. I think the discrepancy regarding recommended cell counts is due to the calculator being designed for using yeast starters that are fermented out, decanted and pitched, rather than at high krausen.

Im not as far along as Denny in my trial, but so far I can say that my oxygenated and shook starters of 1056 smelled fantastic as compared to my normal stirplated stanky ones. The fermentation took off like a rocket, I actually had some blowoff in my 30L Speidels that had 3 gallons of headspace with a 1.055 beer. That blowoff was just about 18 hrs in, thats when I found it, no idea exactly when it happened. The beer fermented out as usual in about the usual time.

I dont doubt Mark's comments about shear stress on a stirplate, I just haven't seen it with my own eyes. It makes sense though I dont know that its like the Bataan death march. You can't duspute that a lot of great beer has been made with stirplate yeast.

I just think that Marks method does not fly in the face of current theory
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 03, 2015, 01:55:09 pm
Mark- is this math suggested for 5 or 10 gallons?

10 gallons
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: brewinhard on October 03, 2015, 02:56:26 pm
A couple questions.

1.  Can this shaken method also be viable when using a not super fresh pack/vial of yeast (i.e. as in a couple mos old?)

2.  When doing a lager starter at warmer temps (70-75F) once it hits high krausen, the starter can be cooled to 50F prior to pitching into a chilled 50F batch of wort to minimize shock stress and off flavors of pitching into a warmer wort to obtain a cleaner lager profile?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 03, 2015, 03:02:18 pm
I think the discrepancy regarding recommended cell counts is due to the calculator being designed for using yeast starters that are fermented out, decanted and pitched, rather than at high krausen.

I am curious as to where the calculator writers acquired their data.  What I believe is going on with respect to pitching rates is that they are based on cropped yeast, which is a different animal.  The stresses placed on yeast cells at the home brewing level are much lower than the stresses placed on yeast cells in a commercial brewery.  Most home brewing fermentations have a fluid column that is around one foot tall. 

Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 03, 2015, 03:08:17 pm
A couple questions.

1.  Can this shaken method also be viable when using a not super fresh pack/vial of yeast (i.e. as in a couple mos old?)

Yes

Quote
2.  When doing a lager starter at warmer temps (70-75F) once it hits high krausen, the starter can be cooled to 50F prior to pitching into a chilled 50F batch of wort to minimize shock stress and off flavors of pitching into a warmer wort to obtain a cleaner lager profile?

I have already answered this question in this thread (page 4).
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: klickitat jim on October 03, 2015, 03:14:55 pm
I think the discrepancy regarding recommended cell counts is due to the calculator being designed for using yeast starters that are fermented out, decanted and pitched, rather than at high krausen.

I am curious as to where the calculator writers acquired their data.  What I believe is going on with respect to pitching rates is that they are based on cropped yeast, which is a different animal.  The stresses placed on yeast cells at the home brewing level are much lower than the stresses placed on yeast cells in a commercial brewery.  Most home brewing fermentations have a fluid column that is around one foot tall.
And "commercial" is not all the same, right? Are Budweisers fermenters the same size as Walking Man in Stevenson? The difference between commercial and home brewing may not be drastic when talking recipe percentages, water profile, hopping ratios and methods, but it seems like it has to be when it comes to yeast.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: zorch on October 03, 2015, 05:43:26 pm
Mark, I've been following these "shaken not stirred" threads with great interest.   Watching home-brewing knowledge progress is like a model of society at large;  established dogma from "elders/experts" gets challenged by new data, followed by some pushback from the community, followed by acceptance as the "new dogma".  Repeat.   Otherwise I would be still be pitching bread yeast into lager wort at 65 degrees, chilling to 50 after pitching, then racking to a secondary after the bubbles in my airlock slow to less than one per minute... :)

What do you recommend for very high gravity worts of 1.090 and above?   Wouldn't the higher osmotic stress in these worts indicate a larger starter is required?

Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: denny on October 03, 2015, 05:52:16 pm
the key, as Mark has pointed out, is that the difference between 200 billion cells and 400 billion cells is ~ 90 minutes of lag time. as long as the cells are really healthy and have a good reserve of sterols and o2 they are fully capable of reproducing the rest of the way in your wort without throwing stress flavors. It's a different paradigm than the yeast calculators use.

has anyone tested this out with a lager yet?

I have not.

I'm planning to brew next week and while I will likely use a stir plate for the first small step of my starter I was planning on pulling about 1.5 gallons (out of 10 gallons) and using this as my second "starter" before pitching the whole 1.5 gallons into the remaining 8.5 gallons at high krausen.  on the 1.5 gallon ferment I don't plan on constantly aerating it or anything.

How long for the "second" starter?  In theory I don't see any big red flags with your plan.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 03, 2015, 06:08:35 pm
What do you recommend for very high gravity worts of 1.090 and above?   Wouldn't the higher osmotic stress in these worts indicate a larger starter is required?

Each yeast strain is unique, but higher gravity wort generally requires higher pitching rates due to the fact it is more difficult to dissolve O2 in high gravity wort, high osmotic pressure causes loss of turgor pressure, and lower dissolved O2 affects yeast cell heath. With a high gravity wort, it is best to use a strain that has been proven to hold its own against the double whammy of high osmotic pressure and high alcohol. 

I always recommend using yeast cropped from a proven good fermentation for high gravity wort.  In fact, I recommend using cropped yeast for standard gravity brewing over propagating a new culture.  Cropped yeast has proven itself in one's brewery, and it has also had time to adjust to one's brewery.  A brewer really does not know what a strain is capable of producing unless he/she repitches it a couple of times.  I used to use a strain from BrewTek called CL-210 Scottish Bitter.   The initial pitch was okay, but it was not until I had repitched the strain a couple of times that I started to appreciate its uniqueness.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: brewinhard on October 03, 2015, 06:19:02 pm

I have already answered this question in this thread (page 4).

Gotcha.  Missed that even after reading it twice.  Man, I need new glasses.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: smokeymcb on October 24, 2015, 06:54:27 pm
Hi all, O.P. here...

I thought I'd give an update as to what I did.  I originally was going to do the shaken not stirred starter with a vial of harvested 34/70 but I think it may have been too old because it did nothing in my starter for 3 days.  I put off brewing while waiting for signs.  I gave up on it and made 2l of starter wort, split it between 2 one gallon jugs and dry pitched half a pack of 34//70 in each.  I shook like crazy and went to brewing. By the time the brew was finished and chilled, the starters were raging.  I pitched them (on a friday) and left for the weekend, so unfortunately, I don't know what kind of lag was involved but everything was cruising when I returned on the sunday.   Today was racking day and the sample tastes amazingly clean and crisp, with no off flavours that I could taste.  I've put it to lager for a few weeks.

I know what I've done isn't really what Mark is suggesting but its kind of along the same lines as there are lots who would call one pack of dry lager yeast in 5.5 gallons of 1.062 wort (FG was 1.007), a severe underpitch which is guaranteed to produce nothing of a drinkable nature.  I will definitely be trying something a little closer to Marks original technique on my next brew as well.

Thanks for teaching me something different Mark, I appreciate the shared knowledge...
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: RPIScotty on October 24, 2015, 11:14:37 pm

Dry yeast is saturated with ergosterol and UFA beyond the levels you could ever get in a home brew starter because it is grown in bioreactors designed to do so. A single package generally has enough nutrient reserves to multiply to full cell density in a 5 gallon batch with no aeration whatsoever. Not saying the technique didn't work for you.

It was a repitch. Not a new package.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: RPIScotty on October 24, 2015, 11:28:29 pm

It was a repitch. Not a new package.
Go back and read his post past the 3rd sentence.

Understood. Didn't catch that.


Sent via Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Frankenbrew on October 25, 2015, 05:13:16 pm
I finally tried the James Bond method. I had about 120 ml of dense slurry of WLP 029 3rd. generation that was a bit older than two months. I usually pitch the slurry directly from the fridge, but it takes up to 36 hours to form a layer of krausen and start blowing off CO2. I made a 1 L starter using this method, and it took off like a rocket in less than 8 hours. Amazing. I'll never go back if this is what I get from this method. Thanks, Mark!
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: HydraulicSammich on October 25, 2015, 08:13:20 pm
Whew!
Nerve racking trying something new.  I finally gave the procedure a try.  1 L, 1 two month old smack pack.  Pack was expanded.  I was expecting at least twelve hours to high krausen.  Sixteen hours later it appeared high krausen had taken place hours ago.  It probably occurred around the seven hour mark.  Is this possible?  There was a nice slurry at the bottom of the flask like it had dropped out and was going dormant.  Does the age or viability have this kind of effect on high krausen time?  I did use an Erlenmeyer if that makes a difference.  The house temp was around 65.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Frankenbrew on October 25, 2015, 09:11:28 pm
Whew!
Nerve racking trying something new.  I finally gave the procedure a try.  1 L, 1 two month old smack pack.  Pack was expanded.  I was expecting at least twelve hours to high krausen.  Sixteen hours later it appeared high krausen had taken place hours ago.  It probably occurred around the seven hour mark.  Is this possible?  There was a nice slurry at the bottom of the flask like it had dropped out and was going dormant.  Does the age or viability have this kind of effect on high krausen time?  I did use an Erlenmeyer if that makes a difference.  The house temp was around 65.

I think the expected peak of krausen occurs sometime around 8 hours.

The other thing I see that you did was to use an Erlenmeyer flask. I think you're supposed to use a one gallon jug so that you can shake the starter wort so hard that it completely turns to foam. You need room enough to create a 4 to 1 ratio of foam to wort.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: klickitat jim on October 25, 2015, 10:03:45 pm
Im 6 batches into this method, 5 with <1 month old 1056 and 1 with 2 month old 1257. All of these have reached HK at around 8 hrs. I use erlenmeyers but I dont shake, I oxygenate. I dont think that part matters a whole bunch. Though clearly if you are shaking, having a bigger volume of head space will help. Theres optimum and then there's good enough.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: brewday on October 25, 2015, 10:31:55 pm
I think either way gets the job done.  Though not exactly his method, thanks to Mark the majority of my starters going back to January have been 1L in a flask, hit with the O2 wand and not stirred.  I usually get HK in around 7-8 hours this way.  It's easy to miss.  My results seem to match those reporting on the 1G jug "shake like it owes you" method.

Edit:  Thanks you too, Jim.  I seem to remember you talking about hitting your starters with the wand and stirring slowly around that time.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: HydraulicSammich on October 25, 2015, 10:35:13 pm
Good info, thanks.
I used a 5 L Erlenmeyer with a solid stopper and was able to shake well.  The short krausen time fooled me.  I totally expected at least 12 hours.  Now I can work it into my timeline.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: klickitat jim on October 26, 2015, 12:11:58 am
I think either way gets the job done.  Though not exactly his method, thanks to Mark the majority of my starters going back to January have been 1L in a flask, hit with the O2 wand and not stirred.  I usually get HK in around 7-8 hours this way.  It's easy to miss.  My results seem to match those reporting on the 1G jug "shake like it owes you" method.

Edit:  Thanks you too, Jim.  I seem to remember you talking about hitting your starters with the wand and stirring slowly around that time.
Yes I give 1200ml (because that's about what I can pour off of a 1/2 gallon canned wort before I get to the trub) with o2 for guesstimate 20-30 seconds. I give it a few shakes then add the yeast. I cover with foil and leave it alone. At about 8 hrs its ready.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 26, 2015, 01:08:57 am
Whew!
Nerve racking trying something new.  I finally gave the procedure a try.  1 L, 1 two month old smack pack.  Pack was expanded.  I was expecting at least twelve hours to high krausen.  Sixteen hours later it appeared high krausen had taken place hours ago.  It probably occurred around the seven hour mark.  Is this possible?  There was a nice slurry at the bottom of the flask like it had dropped out and was going dormant.  Does the age or viability have this kind of effect on high krausen time?  I did use an Erlenmeyer if that makes a difference.  The house temp was around 65.

What was the strain? How big was the Erlenmeyer?  I need data points.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on October 26, 2015, 01:37:15 am
Yes I give 1200ml (because that's about what I can pour off of a 1/2 gallon canned wort before I get to the trub) with o2 for guesstimate 20-30 seconds. I give it a few shakes then add the yeast. I cover with foil and leave it alone. At about 8 hrs its ready.

I have always said that my method was a poor man's O2 bottle and diffusion stone.  Your results matching mine leads me to believe that having the wort saturated early may make a difference in the length of the lag phase. 

I wish that I was closer to retirement.  I would have more time to run experiments that I need to run.  I barely have enough time to brew and maintain my yeast bank.  I finally managed to subculture two strains today that I have put off subculturing since April.  The slants that held the strains were subcultured over a year ago, and one of the cultures is pain in the backside to grow on solid media.   I inoculated 40ml of autoclaved wort with one of the strains even though I do not plan to use it for a couple of weeks because I did not want to have to subculture the strain in a few weeks.  That choice is going to cause me to perform an intermediate step.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 04, 2015, 12:08:06 am
I believe the argument for using a stir plate is that it does continuously oxygenate the wort if a vortex is achieved.

The only time that a stirred starter begins to approach the surface area of a Shaken, not Stirred starter is when a vortex is created.  The vortex is needed overcome the low amount of surface area that is present when a 1L starter is made in a 2L Erlenmeyer flask as well as to overcome the geometry of a Erlenmeyer flask by creating a vacuum.  A stir plate cannot overcome the poor geometry of an Erlenmeyer flask once the culture starts outgassing.

When we use a stir plate to propagate yeast, we are using a process known as stirred suspension cell culturing.  Shear stress is a well-known problem with stirred cultures.  Shear stress is the stress placed on cells in turbulent flow.  The more turbulent the fluid, the greater the amount of shear stress.  I am convinced that the foul odors and tastes that one encounters with a stirred starter are the result of stress, not oxidation, as oxidation should not occur in a culture due the cell density and yeast's affinity for O2.

Shear stress in stirred cultures is a well studied problem. While we think of growing yeast biomass when the term culturing is thrown around, many other types of cells are propagated using the same basic techniques that we use for yeast (the medium may be different).   A device known as a bioreactor is used for very large scale cell culturing and dry yeast culturing.  There are numerous papers covering this area of research.

Quote
Mark's point is that the forces present in a starter that is stirred at such a high speed will cause damage to the yeast cells. It seems it's not so much a biochemical problem but a physical one. Apparently all that slamming around during long periods of stirring is detrimental to the cell walls of the yeast. The shaken not stirred method does employ very vigorous/violent stirring (shaking) but it is for a very short period of time (1 min) such that there is really no physical stress to the yeast. I take his method to heart and really shake the living daylights out of that one gallon jug to the point that the whole 1L starter is completely foam. The maximum degree of air-to-liquid surface area is achieved in that condition.

Yes, the key to success with the method is shaking the medium vigorously enough to turn it completely into foam (or at least darn near it) in a vessel with at least a 4:1 vessel volume to medium volume ratio.  Gas dissolves into a liquid at the interface between the gas and the liquid. The Shaken not, Stirred method works by creating a huge amount of surface area.  A gas-liquid foam has a very high specific surface area.  It is basically pockets of gas encased in thin layers of liquid.  The beauty of the technique is that the O2 that dissolves while the medium is still foam is available immediately to the culture. 

With the above said, shaking can be eliminated via direct O2 injection.  However, the technique is no longer low tech and low cost (or as my British friends would say, no longer as cheap and cheerful).

just for reference, my stirred starters dont smell or taste bad nor laden with anything foul...not sure why just is the case.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: brewinhard on November 04, 2015, 12:25:20 am
I agree.  I don't understand why people say they are having stirred starters taste/smell bad/foul.  Mine pretty much always smell like beer and usually a fairly clean version of the batch I plan on making since it just has extra light DME in it.  If it smells off, then I don't use it (dry yeast to the rescue), but I have only had that happen once in my 10+ years of brewing. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Stevie on November 04, 2015, 12:51:55 am
Mine for sure smell stale. Think back to college when you had to clean up the fallen soldiers.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 04, 2015, 12:56:10 am
If your culture does not smell off, then you are not spinning it fast enough to cause much in the way of turbulence, which means that you are depending on the tiny amount of surface area in the flask for O2 pickup.
Title: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 04, 2015, 01:20:25 am
If your culture does not smell off, then you are not spinning it fast enough to cause much in the way of turbulence, which means that you are depending on the tiny amount of surface area in the flask for O2 pickup.

Like said, not sure as reasons why. I use pure o2 before pitching and turning stir plate on.my flask is 4L.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 04, 2015, 01:25:06 am
Like said, not sure as reasons why. I use pure o2 before pitching and turning stir plate on.my flask is 4L.

Therein lies the difference between the way that you make a stirred starter versus 99.9% of the home brewers that use a stir plate.  You would achieve equal or better results without stirring.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 04, 2015, 01:29:40 am

Like said, not sure as reasons why. I use pure o2 before pitching and turning stir plate on.my flask is 4L.

Therein lies the difference between the way that you make a stirred starter versus 99.9% of the home brewers that use a stir plate.  You would achieve equal or better results without stirring.

Will be doing exactly that for this weekends IPA with wlp090. Using a vial with 1 liter 1.040 wort, using O2 and then just let it reach high krausen and pitch into my IPA. looking forward to trying it out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Whiskers on November 04, 2015, 03:29:23 am
I'd guess though that the increased O2 pickup with a stirred starter is to do with increasing the concentration gradient much more than it does with increasing surface area.  I'd also guess that a gentle stir would be enough to get you most of the way there.  Movement in a solid beer fermentation seems nearly on par with what I get with stir plates with a gentle dimple. 

And by my calcs there is way more O2 in the headspace of a starter than is needed to re-saturate the wort many, many times over.  The only reason I use foil is because it keeps the neck sanitary/clean. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 04, 2015, 04:29:43 am
I'd guess though that the increased O2 pickup with a stirred starter is to do with increasing the concentration gradient much more than it does with increasing surface area.  I'd also guess that a gentle stir would be enough to get you most of the way there.  Movement in a solid beer fermentation seems nearly on par with what I get with stir plates with a gentle dimple. 

And by my calcs there is way more O2 in the headspace of a starter than is needed to re-saturate the wort many, many times over.  The only reason I use foil is because it keeps the neck sanitary/clean.

You are not getting anywhere near the level of O2 pickup that would you obtain in a shaken, not stirred culture or direct O2 injected culture of equal size if you are only gently stirring the culture.  Not to mention that it is taking much longer to pick up O2 than in a shaken, not stirred starter or a directly injected starter.  I have already shown that surface area to volume ratio trumps laminar or turbulent flow.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Whiskers on November 04, 2015, 05:08:20 am
I don't recall that being demonstrated, either experimentally or theoretically.  I'm no yeast expert but I have done a lot of diffusion research.  And I'm not talking about initially saturating the wort, but maintaining saturation as the yeast consumes the O2. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 04, 2015, 06:41:38 am
I don't recall that being demonstrated, either experimentally or theoretically.  I'm no yeast expert but I have done a lot of diffusion research.  And I'm not talking about initially saturating the wort, but maintaining saturation as the yeast consumes the O2.

If you scroll down to Example 18-1.1 Aeration of a fermentation broth, you will discover that my assertion that increasing the surface area per unit volume trumps increasing the mass transfer coefficient (i.e. increasing laminar or turbulent flow) is correct.  Gas-liquid foam, with its high specific surface area, is one of the reasons, if not the sole reason why the Shaken, not stirred works as well as it does for being such a trivial technique. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=dq6LdJyN8ScC&pg=PA513&lpg=PA513&dq=Gas+diffusion+across+different+pressures&source=bl&ots=vKUx5Cngnm&sig=60l3GRMJLKC9mixHloplXHIgrRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE4Q6AEwB2oVChMIidDjq6LbyAIVQ1Y-Ch3iggtN#v=onepage&q=Gas%20diffusion%20across%20different%20pressures&f=


The average culture that is shipped with 100B cells contains at least 50B cells when pitched.  That's at most two replication periods when pitched into 1L of wort.  Brewing yeast cells are Crabtree positive, which means that they do not respire in wort.  How much O2 does a culture need post lag phase?  Additionally, having fully saturated wort from the time zero reduces the lag period, which allows the exponential phase to start earlier.

Finally, there is no compelling evidence that supports the notion that a covered, gently stirred culture is continuously aerated.   What I found interesting is that Neva Parker stated that a stir plate does not aerate culture when asked last week.  Here is a scientist who runs the analytical side of White Labs claiming that a stir plate does not aerate a culture.  If anyone has the equipment to test such an assertion, it is Neva.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Whiskers on November 04, 2015, 07:29:13 am
OK I'll go with that.  I'm not doubting that shaking with a large head space brings the wort to saturation quickly.  It's just that once the yeast start picking up that initial 8ppm or whatever saturation is, with a stagnant wort, the only way it's going to get any more is from diffusion across the interface.  That's not going to be very much once diffusion starts and the concentration gradient drops off drastically.  With even a gently stirred wort, the concentration of O2 at the interface will be the same as it is everywhere else in the wort, dropping as the yeast consume the O2.  This speeds diffusion as it increases the gradient.  If it's stagnant, the interface remains near saturation with respect to the headspace, and diffusion is slowed.  See Fick's 2nd law.  Solutions are reasonably simple with simple, well-defined boundary conditions. 

It's generally the O2 availability that limits the cell density (for a starter) in most cases, right?  If you raise the saturation by injecting pure O2, say to 12 or 15ppm, even with a stagnant wort, don't you get more cells because of this?  I thought that this was the case, and not just homebrewer heresy.  If it was the case, then I was thinking that adding more during the drop from 8 to 0 would also create more cells.  Not the case?

On another note, 8ppm in a litre is 8mg.  3L of 23wt% O2 air, with air at 1.23g/L, means there is about 850mg of O2 in the head space.  I bring this up because it seems to me it puts to rest the idea of needing to bring any air into the head space from outside the container.  You could re-saturate 100x with what is already present in the head space. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: atodd on November 04, 2015, 01:55:02 pm
I used this method for my first lager (Wyeast 2124), I pitched the starter after ~16 hours and it was bubbling away.  I did pitch the yeast when the wort was 55F which may have been a little low for an initial pitch, but the beer was done fermenting within a week and tasted great.  I will be using this method again and sharing it with friends as I find this much easier to use and less time constraints opposed to using my stirrer plate. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: charles1968 on November 04, 2015, 02:52:52 pm
On another note, 8ppm in a litre is 8mg.  3L of 23wt% O2 air, with air at 1.23g/L, means there is about 850mg of O2 in the head space.  I bring this up because it seems to me it puts to rest the idea of needing to bring any air into the head space from outside the container.  You could re-saturate 100x with what is already present in the head space.

That's interesting. I guess the pertinent question is how quickly the yeast use up the O2 when they become active. It would also be interesting to know how much O2 they need to build up ergosterol sufficient to ferment a 5 gallon batch that hasn't been aerated. I reckon a good starter can provide all the ergosterol needed, obviating the need to aerate the main wort.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: narcout on November 04, 2015, 05:46:41 pm
What I found interesting is that Neva Parker stated that a stir plate does not aerate culture when asked last week.

I honestly don't care very much about the answer to this question anymore, but I didn't interpret her response in the same way.

Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 04, 2015, 06:37:43 pm
It's generally the O2 availability that limits the cell density (for a starter) in most cases, right?

No, that assumption is not correct. The primary limiting factor is available carbon followed by room to grow, nitrogen, and oxygen (O2). Brewing yeast strains are Crabtree positive, which means that they do not respire in wort that contains more than 0.3% glucose.  All replication in wort is fermentative.  O2 is used for ergosterol and unsaturated fatty acid biosynthesis.  Ergosterol and UFAs are synthesized primarily during the lag phase.  These compounds factor into cellular health, which means that cells will stop budding if they compounds drop too low.

Quote
If you raise the saturation by injecting pure O2, say to 12 or 15ppm, even with a stagnant wort, don't you get more cells because of this?  I thought that this was the case, and not just homebrewer heresy.  If it was the case, then I was thinking that adding more during the drop from 8 to 0 would also create more cells.  Not the case?

It's more of a home brewing oversimplification that is based on old and erroneous information than flat out heresy.  Many older home brewing books stated that the growth phase was an aerobic phase, which is incorrect.  Additionally, not all strains require the same level of O2 saturation.   Dissolved O2 level can even be an inhibitor to growth.  Brian H. Kirsop published a seminal paper on the subject in 1973 entitled "Oxygen in Brewery Fermentation."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03614.x/pdf

Here's paragraph from the above linked paper that offers food for thought:

"Inhibitory effects of excessive oxygen on the growth of yeast are known and have been reviewed12,30.  Such inhibition is unusual in brewery circumstances, but it has been found24 that one yeast strain with a very low oxygen requirement grows less rapidly if oxygen-saturated wort is used as the medium. Excessive aeration has been held to lead to diminished yeast crop and increased flocculence87,58 and an oxygen atmosphere in the head space above a culture medium has been found to inhibit yeast growth."

Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: charles1968 on November 04, 2015, 09:19:44 pm
"Inhibitory effects of excessive oxygen on the growth of yeast are known and have been reviewed12,30.  Such inhibition is unusual in brewery circumstances.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Whiskers on November 04, 2015, 09:26:54 pm
Thanks for clarifying.  So, assuming an initial saturation, whether it be 8ppm from air or more with pure O2, the difference in cell count between a stirred and stagnant starter is not significant, or is it significant and due to something other than O2?  Wyeast seems to say stirring makes more (but not that much more) but doesn't say why.  The yeast book implies it makes a chunk more, and I think the MB Raines text says it can make a phenomenal difference. 

It's been a few years since I made a lager.  My general approach was to make a liter or two to get the yeast going, and pitch the whole starter into another 2gal starter (was generally making a 16.5-17gal batch of 1.060 lager).  The second stage was in a 3gal carboy with no way to utilize a stir bar.  (I would have been using a stir plate/bar for the  initial liter)  I thought I could make up for the no-stir by leaving the O2 tubing and stone in the wort for the first couple of hours - under a big foil cap of course.  I'd come by every 20 min and give the wort another 20s blast two or three times.  Hard to measure volume by looking at a layer on the bottom of a carboy, but there seemed to be quite a bit more yeast compared to the times when I'd do the 2gal with only one initial blast of O2.  I probably should have measured the solids once decanting the beer, but I never did. 

Thanks for linking the paper too. 
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 05, 2015, 04:16:22 pm
My 1L no stir plate prior to pitch. IPA Wort is all ready when this baby hits high krausen.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/05/2c26125bc2054f8552ea2db1c8d23463.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 06, 2015, 01:32:43 pm
My 1L no stir plate prior to pitch. IPA Wort is all ready when this baby hits high krausen.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/05/2c26125bc2054f8552ea2db1c8d23463.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

never made it to high krausen-nice thin layer though around 10pm when going to bed so i pitched it. this morning activity has started.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 06, 2015, 02:05:36 pm
never made it to high krausen-nice thin layer though around 10pm when going to bed so i pitched it. this morning activity has started.

Some cultures never develop much of a head on starter for some reason whereas others produce a sizable head.  Bottom fermenting ale and lager yeast strains tend be part of the former group.  With bottom fermenters, high krausen often looks more like a thin layer of foam or even foam patches than a typical krausen.   

Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 06, 2015, 02:15:54 pm
never made it to high krausen-nice thin layer though around 10pm when going to bed so i pitched it. this morning activity has started.

Some cultures never develop much of a head on starter for some reason whereas others produce a sizable head.  Bottom fermenting ale and lager yeast strains tend be part of the former group.  With bottom fermenters, high krausen often looks more like a thin layer of foam or even foam patches than a typical krausen.

it was wlp090. it was definitely fermenting. pitched 4 week old yeast into starter around 6am so by 10pm figured i was in pretty good shape.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 06, 2015, 02:56:39 pm
it was wlp090. it was definitely fermenting. pitched 4 week old yeast into starter around 6am so by 10pm figured i was in pretty good shape.

I do not have any experience with that culture.   What does the head look like when fermenting a batch of beer?
Title: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 06, 2015, 03:07:35 pm
Doesn't go krausen crazy by any means. Starter wort depth for 1L in my 5L flask was about 1.5 inch. Thin layer of krausen and lots of yeast clumps circles on top.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: brewday on November 06, 2015, 03:50:59 pm
Doesn't go krausen crazy by any means. Starter wort depth for 1L in my 5L flask was about 1.5 inch. Thin layer of krausen and lots of yeast clumps circles on top.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That matches my experience with 090 non-stirred starters.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 06, 2015, 06:55:53 pm
realized I have no point of reference as all my starters have been stir plate, and you don't usually really see krausen like still starter.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 06, 2015, 07:18:41 pm
I am more interested in seeing what WLP090 looks like when fermenting a batch of beer at full tilt.  There is zero doubt in my mind that WLP090 is an isolate from either BRY 96 or Whitbread "B."   My bet is that WLP090 is a Whitbread "B" isolate because it is fast fermenter.  House strains that descend from Whitbread "B" appear to dominate the San Diego brewing scene.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Whiskers on November 06, 2015, 07:51:55 pm
Is there any use in trying to guess where in the progression of stages the starter is based on CO2 evolution, or are there too many contributing factors to make this tek at all useful?  The reason I ask is because once I'm confident that the starter is into the CO2 phase, I used to turn off the stirplate, but I have a feeling that the drop of antifoam I used for the boil is squashing the head.  Even solid top croppers don't seem to make too much of head.  However, it's easy to put your ear near the foil cap and listen to the CO2 crackling.  If one could detect the time at which the crackling slows down a bit, could you say that you are at the beginning of the stationary phase or the end of it? 
Title: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 06, 2015, 08:35:24 pm
I am more interested in seeing what WLP090 looks like when fermenting a batch of beer at full tilt.  There is zero doubt in my mind that WLP090 is an isolate from either BRY 96 or Whitbread "B."   My bet is that WLP090 is a Whitbread "B" isolate because it is fast fermenter.  House strains that descend from Whitbread "B" appear to dominate the San Diego brewing scene.
I will post one

Fermentation at 18 hrs
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/06/84686702bcad88a3e38ba9d55dff21fd.jpg)
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/06/a85a1354f1e3ce67557e8836c303f335.jpg)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 06, 2015, 11:04:11 pm
Thanks for the posting the photo.   Please let me know if the head gets bigger and/or if it switches over from being a foam head to being a yeast head.   I am curious as to the origin of this yeast strain.
Title: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 06, 2015, 11:05:55 pm
Thanks for the posting the photo.   Please let me know if the head gets bigger and/or if it switches over from being a foam head to being a yeast head.   I am curious as to the origin of this yeast strain.

Sure thing. Will take another tomorrow a.m. And p.m.   After that it will be approaching 72 hrs and winding down.

Edit: wlp090 is by far my favorite ale yeast. Love how it lets the malt and hops shine in pale ales and IPAs . Strong fast fermenter that is extremely clean and great attenuation. Flocs very well. Reminds me most of wlp007.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 07, 2015, 12:29:30 pm
Mark- +33 hrs. Very much all foam 4"
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/07/2cd214b789ce3a6225171eff0dd6af4c.jpg)
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/07/ea95b586603a1a21b6a355e048ef12da.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 07, 2015, 12:40:02 pm
Edit: wlp090 is by far my favorite ale yeast. Love how it lets the malt and hops shine in pale ales and IPAs . Strong fast fermenter that is extremely clean and great attenuation. Flocs very well. Reminds me most of wlp007.

That assessment makes perfect sense.  WLP007 is Whitbread "B."  It looks like the WLP090 is the result of a San Diego brewery (Stone?) placing selective pressure.  A strain called Hook Norton is also alleged to have descended from Whitbread "B."   Hook Norton appears to be very popular with British brewers.
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: S. cerevisiae on November 07, 2015, 12:47:18 pm
Mark- +33 hrs. Very much all foam 4"
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/07/2cd214b789ce3a6225171eff0dd6af4c.jpg)
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/07/ea95b586603a1a21b6a355e048ef12da.jpg)

You posted the photo while I was composing my last post.  That head definitely looks like Whitbread "B."  Unless it falls into that super thin yeast head that BRY 96 produces some of the time, I going to assume that WLP090 a Whitbread "B" isolate.  About the only yeast identification tests that we have available to us at home are giant colony morphology and solidified Wallerstein Nutrient Broth (WLN).  WLN contains bromocresol green, which is a dye that yeast strains take up differently.   
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 07, 2015, 01:07:16 pm
It will start falling 72-96hrs as it winds down. Similar characteristics to 007  and both do well in the 65-68F range. 090 is super clean without any esters and slightly higher attenuation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: ultravista on November 07, 2015, 04:01:06 pm
Mark or Denny - do you decant or pitch the entire starter?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 08, 2015, 07:07:41 pm
Mark- as Normal, krausen has dropped to less than inch of all foam at +60 hrs.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/08/1f9f551b0b338c150eacade6b326863d.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: brewinhard on November 08, 2015, 07:58:15 pm
Wort hog, what are you fermenting in?  Big mouth bubbler?  Is there an airlock on that?
Title: Re: Shaken not stirred lager starter?
Post by: Wort-H.O.G. on November 08, 2015, 08:22:34 pm

Wort hog, what are you fermenting in?  Big mouth bubbler?  Is there an airlock on that?

Yes bmb- yes airlock


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk