Author Topic: New starter procedure trial  (Read 56561 times)

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #180 on: October 06, 2015, 06:48:44 pm »
Preferred nomenclature?

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

 :D

You forgot

(4) James Bond Method

Offline blatz

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 3511
  • Paul Blatz - Jupiter, FL
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #181 on: October 06, 2015, 06:50:44 pm »
With that said, I am amazed at how reticent home brewers are to experiment with anything other than recipe ingredients or diverge from home brewing dogma these days.  Almost every batch of beer that I make is truly an experiment.

I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.
The happiest people don’t necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have.

BJCP National: F0281

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #182 on: October 06, 2015, 06:53:08 pm »
I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.

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

RPIScotty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #183 on: October 06, 2015, 07:03:13 pm »
I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.

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

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

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

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #184 on: October 06, 2015, 07:06:07 pm »
I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.

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

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

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

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

eta: fermentation seems like a high risk area to me so I get extra conservative.  managing the ingredients, mash, hopping, etc. is a piece of cake compared to making sure the ferment goes the way it should.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 07:09:02 pm by evil_morty »

RPIScotty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #185 on: October 06, 2015, 07:08:34 pm »
I think you're jsut a lot more interested in the yeast/fermentation science aspect of brewing than some of us are.  personally, i just want reliable and consistent fermentation from my yeast, and over the years the process i settled into has done just that - virtually every time I am completely happy with the fermentation side of things - its hard to make deviations from a process that serves you well.  Not to mention I don't use sexy strains - i mainly use 001/1056 and 830 with rare exception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One may squibble and squabble over the details (I personally enjoy the dialogue and the posts by Mark) but ultimately we have a low tech, low stress way to make a healthy, viable starter.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 07:13:38 pm by RPIScotty »

Offline narvin

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2534
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #186 on: October 06, 2015, 07:11:37 pm »
So, what concentration of dissolved oxygen would one be shooting for here?  The concept of foam seems imprecise to me.  Obviously we've all heard of the 8ppm limit of solubility in wort at room temperature.  Is the foam continuously aerating it as it settles?  Kai has done an experiment with an aquarium pump and sterile filter pushing air through a tube that rests just above the surface (to avoid foaming), and it seems like this would be similar.

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

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #187 on: October 06, 2015, 07:12:48 pm »
As they say, "Different strokes......"

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

RPIScotty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #188 on: October 06, 2015, 07:14:03 pm »
As they say, "Different strokes......"

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

"Everybody is a staaaarrrr........"

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #189 on: October 06, 2015, 07:17:33 pm »
To loop back to the original post, Denny, the resident King of KISS and "Cheap'N'Easy" brewing, has endorsed this method. That to me says a ton.

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

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

but seriously his sample size is only one at this point and he even pointed that out.  it seems like a handful of people have had good luck with it which is promising though.

Offline a10t2

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4696
  • Ask me why I don't like Chico!
    • SeanTerrill.com
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #190 on: October 06, 2015, 08:24:30 pm »
Is the foam continuously aerating it as it settles?  Kai has done an experiment with an aquarium pump and sterile filter pushing air through a tube that rests just above the surface (to avoid foaming), and it seems like this would be similar.

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

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

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

I'd be wary of injecting O2 after the yeast are in suspension. Pure oxygen is pretty toxic.
Sent from my Microsoft Bob

Beer is like porn. You can buy it, but it's more fun to make your own.
Refractometer Calculator | Batch Sparging Calculator | Two Mile Brewing Co.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 24631
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #191 on: October 06, 2015, 08:26:18 pm »

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

Me, too....

http://brulosophy.com/2015/09/24/be-a-homebrewer-an-open-letter-from-denny-conn/
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 24631
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #192 on: October 06, 2015, 08:28:49 pm »

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

A CLEAN hippie, please!
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #193 on: October 06, 2015, 08:38:22 pm »
So, what concentration of dissolved oxygen would one be shooting for here?  The concept of foam seems imprecise to me.  Obviously we've all heard of the 8ppm limit of solubility in wort at room temperature.  Is the foam continuously aerating it as it settles?  Kai has done an experiment with an aquarium pump and sterile filter pushing air through a tube that rests just above the surface (to avoid foaming), and it seems like this would be similar.

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

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


[1] onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03614.x/pdf
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 12:25:52 am by S. cerevisiae »

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #194 on: October 06, 2015, 08:40:24 pm »
A CLEAN hippie, please!

I can vouch for the fact that Denny is a clean hippie.  There was no commune funk on him at NHC. :)