Author Topic: New starter procedure trial  (Read 43121 times)

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #210 on: October 07, 2015, 05:17:00 PM »
The fact that the starter volume should be no more than 1/4th of the vessel volume when making a starter using my method does not impact these values.

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

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

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

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

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

RPIScotty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #211 on: October 07, 2015, 05:23:03 PM »
I'm making 10 gallons of lager.  he does not recommend a larger starter for lagers but I am under the impression that starter size is scaling linearly with batch size.  so 1L for 5 gal and 2L for 10 gal.

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

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

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

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #212 on: October 07, 2015, 05:25:43 PM »
I'm making 10 gallons of lager.  he does not recommend a larger starter for lagers but I am under the impression that starter size is scaling linearly with batch size.  so 1L for 5 gal and 2L for 10 gal.

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

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

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

shaking 2L?  no problem!

Offline 69franx

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3180
  • Bloatarian Brewing League
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #213 on: October 07, 2015, 06:57:01 PM »
Morty, the other option is splitting the vial/pack into 2 1L starters. Initial pitch rate is lower, but should get you into the same ball park for the starters. 1L max density is around 200B cells if given proper carbon source and aeration at least as I understand it. This is what I did for my 10 gallon batch of pilsner a couple months back, but I did split the batch into 2 fermenters. Very happy with the results, if you are splitting as well, I highly recommend this path. If using a larger fermenter, then I am not 100% certain but think you can still go this route
Frank L.
Fermenting: Ringler Pilsner (thanx Ron)
Conditioning: BVIP (thanx Denny)
In keg: Traquair House Clone (Skotrat style)
In the works:  Czech Dark Lager, American Pale Ale

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #214 on: October 07, 2015, 07:32:29 PM »
I'm making 10 gallons of lager.  he does not recommend a larger starter for lagers but I am under the impression that starter size is scaling linearly with batch size.  so 1L for 5 gal and 2L for 10 gal.

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

You can also use two one gallon jugs with a liter of media (starter wort) in each jug.  Half of a Wyeast smack pack or White Labs vial is enough yeast for a 1L starter.  Unless you split the culture poorly, there will be no difference in time to high krausen between pitching a single 2L starter or two 1L starters.  The starters will more than likely be waiting on you.  You can also use a 3 or 5 gallon Better Bottle.  The 4:1 ratio is the minimum, not the maximum.

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #215 on: October 07, 2015, 08:27:20 PM »
Mark, using o2 reduces the need for the extra space, right. My 1200ml in a 2L flask, oxygenated and lazy shook, sure seem to be doing the trick. Yesterday they were prepared at 0800 and pitched at 1600. 8 hrs and they had visible krausen, yeast accumulating in the bottom, and were volcanic when I swirled them to pitch. I checked the fermentors at 0800 this morning and they had two inches of krausen and were bubbling every couple seconds.  (30L Speidels with 6 gallons of beer /3 gallons of head space) thats pretty darn good in my opinion.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #216 on: October 07, 2015, 09:01:59 PM »
Mark, using o2 reduces the need for the extra space, right.

Yes, but pure O2 does not fit the low-cost, low-tech mantra (or was that cheap and easy?). :)
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 09:39:25 PM by S. cerevisiae »

Offline rcemech

  • 1st Kit
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #217 on: October 07, 2015, 09:18:04 PM »
Mark, using o2 reduces the need for the extra space, right.

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

True, but if you got it already it's not costly to use and there are a lot of people that make more than just 5 gal batches. So some sort of scalability would be nice. Figuring if it's linear or not would be very beneficial for one.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #218 on: October 07, 2015, 10:03:25 PM »
True, but if you got it already it's not costly to use and there are a lot of people that make more than just 5 gal batches. So some sort of scalability would be nice. Figuring if it's linear or not would be very beneficial for one.

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

Shaken, not stirred is low-cost, low-tech way to make a starter that uses what is effectively waste equipment-wise.  I developed this method when money was much tighter than it is today. Other than my 10-gallon Vollrath-based St. Pat's kettle and my Superb PC-100 stove (the two big expenditures that I made after struggling with a keggle that was made from a culled keg and a cheap blow torch type turkey fryer stove), my brew house was a combination of make-do and repurposed equipment.  The good thing was that used regulators and soda kegs were dirt cheap back then compared to today, and they were much nicer than the saved from the scrap heap stuff that is sold for good money today.  The bad thing was that cheap used refrigerators burned enormous amounts of electricity.  My first brewing refrigerator added $23.00 a month to my electric bill, and it was not a huge refrigerator.  I can run my current brewing refrigerator for the lion's share of a year on $23.00 worth of electricity.

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #219 on: October 07, 2015, 10:09:46 PM »
Holy cow, are you saying that I just invented a new way of doing starters?

dfhar

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #220 on: October 07, 2015, 10:46:53 PM »
Mark, I'm wondering what the absolute difference is in the levels of UFA and ergosterol reserves between a high krausen culture and a starter culture which has fermented out and been crashed. If those nutrients are used for reproduction but post-HK reproduction is for replacement only, those reserves should be depleted proportionally to the amount of replacement, no? I don't imagine that there is a significant amount of replacement happening relative to the size of the culture as a whole, so why would the reserves of HK cells and cold crashed cells differ?

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

RPIScotty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #221 on: October 07, 2015, 11:19:12 PM »


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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline hopfenundmalz

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 9880
  • Milford, MI
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #222 on: October 08, 2015, 12:27:11 AM »
True, but if you got it already it's not costly to use and there are a lot of people that make more than just 5 gal batches. So some sort of scalability would be nice. Figuring if it's linear or not would be very beneficial for one.

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

Shaken, not stirred is low-cost, low-tech way to make a starter that uses what is effectively waste equipment-wise.  I developed this method when money was much tighter than it is today. Other than my 10-gallon Vollrath-based St. Pat's kettle and my Superb PC-100 stove (the two big expenditures that I made after struggling with a keggle that was made from a culled keg and a cheap blow torch type turkey fryer stove), my brew house was a combination of make-do and repurposed equipment.  The good thing was that used regulators and soda kegs were dirt cheap back then compared to today, and they were much nicer than the saved from the scrap heap stuff that is sold for good money today.  The bad thing was that cheap used refrigerators burned enormous amounts of electricity.  My first brewing refrigerator added $23.00 a month to my electric bill, and it was not a huge refrigerator.  I can run my current brewing refrigerator for the lion's share of a year on $23.00 worth of electricity.
I have told some friends that their "free" fridges are far from free.
Jeff Rankert
AHA Lifetime Member
BJCP National
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild
Home-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #223 on: October 08, 2015, 02:46:24 AM »
Mark, I'm wondering what the absolute difference is in the levels of UFA and ergosterol reserves between a high krausen culture and a starter culture which has fermented out and been crashed. If those nutrients are used for reproduction but post-HK reproduction is for replacement only, those reserves should be depleted proportionally to the amount of replacement, no? I don't imagine that there is a significant amount of replacement happening relative to the size of the culture as a whole, so why would the reserves of HK cells and cold crashed cells differ?

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

There is a difference between ergosterol and UFA levels between high krausen and quiescent cells.  The compounds are used during metabolism.  Ergosterol is to yeast cells what chloresterol is to animal cells. Sharing the compounds between mother and daughter cells for spreads the compounds even thinner.  Technically, ergosterol is a provitamin form of vitamin D2.

dfhar

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #224 on: October 08, 2015, 03:02:10 AM »
There is a difference between ergosterol and UFA levels between high krausen and quiescent cells.

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

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

I'm also wondering whether shear stress can cause permanent damage to a culture. Let's say I grew a culture on a stir plate, cold crashed it, then decanted the spent wort. Then I added fresh wort, removed the stir plate, and let the starter ferment and the cells rebuild their reserves. Are the cells going to be different (e.g. mutated? damaged?) compared to those in a non-stirred starter inoculated with a smack pack? Does this potential damage heal when the culture is allowed to grow in a non-stirred medium (e.g. when fermenting a 5 gallon batch of beer)?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2015, 03:45:28 AM by dfhar »