Author Topic: New starter procedure trial  (Read 33540 times)

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #285 on: October 10, 2015, 09:09:01 PM »
23 hours, still no airlock activity.

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

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

WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #286 on: October 10, 2015, 09:27:48 PM »
WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

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

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

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #287 on: October 11, 2015, 01:06:11 AM »
WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

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

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

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

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

so 31 hours in now and I'm not seeing much in the way of signs of life.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 01:08:09 AM by evil_morty »

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #288 on: October 11, 2015, 09:49:54 AM »
finally some activity this morning!  hopefully things go smoothly from here on out.  I was really hoping for this method to work well for me and I was getting nervous.

Offline brewinhard

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3272
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #289 on: October 11, 2015, 12:16:22 PM »
Lagers may not be the best way to try out this method, but I am glad you gave it a whirl.  It still seems like major under pitching to me, but then again, I am no yeast expert.  I can tell you that with my typical lager stir plate starters that I have never experienced more than 24 hrs until active fermentation is visible and well under way.
Granted, much more yeast is being pitched even if it is not quite as "healthy" as a starter shaken and pitched at high krausen. 

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #290 on: October 11, 2015, 01:51:00 PM »
I wouldn't have tried out a new method with a sample that is darn near a year old. According to mr malty, since we've been continually referring back to that, at best the sample was 10% viable.

RPIScotty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #291 on: October 11, 2015, 03:11:37 PM »

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Wort-H.O.G.

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4439
  • Play Nice
    • Harvey's Brewhaus
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #292 on: October 11, 2015, 03:19:38 PM »
WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

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

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

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

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

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

did i miss something guys- OP said yeast he used was best by december, so that puts it production in Aug 2015.....unless he meant 2014-cant imagine that.
Ken- Chagrin Falls, OH
CPT, U.S.Army
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Harveys-Brewhaus/405092862905115

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_Science_of_Mashing

Serving:        In Process:
Vienna IPA          O'Fest
Dort
Mead                 
Cider                         
Ger'merican Blonde
Amber Ale
Next:
Ger Pils
O'Fest

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #293 on: October 11, 2015, 03:55:51 PM »
WL833, 200g of starer in 2L of water.  1.051 on the wort.  10.5 gallons when all was said and done.

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

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

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

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

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

did i miss something guys- OP said yeast he used was best by december, so that puts it production in Aug 2015.....unless he meant 2014-cant imagine that.
I missed the best by part. Im used to wyeast where the date is when it was made, not best by. So I presumed it was packaged in December 14

Offline Wort-H.O.G.

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4439
  • Play Nice
    • Harvey's Brewhaus
New starter procedure trial
« Reply #294 on: October 11, 2015, 03:58:48 PM »
Something else at play. Perhaps that starter never really had taken off? Wlp833 can tend to lag longer, but that's somewhat because it's usually pitched pretty cool. For me that's 46/47F and then kept at 48/49f.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ken- Chagrin Falls, OH
CPT, U.S.Army
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Harveys-Brewhaus/405092862905115

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_Science_of_Mashing

Serving:        In Process:
Vienna IPA          O'Fest
Dort
Mead                 
Cider                         
Ger'merican Blonde
Amber Ale
Next:
Ger Pils
O'Fest

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #295 on: October 11, 2015, 05:03:40 PM »
did i miss something guys- OP said yeast he used was best by december, so that puts it production in Aug 2015.....unless he meant 2014-cant imagine that.


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

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

I do not know where this pitch cold and allow the culture to come up to fermentation temperature because it lowers esters dogma originated or the belief that lagers are best fermented at 50F or below, but these myths are based on very dated information.  Every every lager strain in use today was selected for use at 13C/55F, which is the temperature of the Earth below the frost line.  I am starting to feel like Marshall's evil twin.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 05:06:44 PM by S. cerevisiae »

Offline MerlinWerks

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #296 on: October 11, 2015, 05:10:59 PM »
So ended up pitching the reserved slurry I had on yesterday's batch and it's bubbling away nicely. I now have my fermented-out SNS starter that I thought I would save and rejuvenate next week. But I was wondering what it would take to step this up to a quantity that could be split into multiple portions suitable for creating multiple SNS starters?

I realize that this will go beyond the simplicity of the SNS starter and will most likely require the use of an O2 stone to get the larger starter wort volume properly oxygenated.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #297 on: October 11, 2015, 06:45:16 PM »
This thread has now grown to 20 pages. Please limit your questions to the method as originally described.  I know that people are just looking for more information.  However, there are many of you and only one of me.  Yeast is a complex subject that does not lend itself to short answers.  This thread has taken on a life of its own.  The replies to most of the tell me how it works in gory details, why should I switch to this method, and a starter that small cannot possibly work types of inquiries took at least thirty minutes to compose and proofread (a few of the replies took over an hour to compose).  The fact the forum software is configured such that one loses one's work if one's session times-out has caused the loss of several hours of work over the length of this thread.


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

Online denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 20888
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #298 on: October 11, 2015, 07:33:40 PM »
Mark, thanks for your comments and especially your info.  I'll pass your comment along to the IT staff.
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

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #299 on: October 11, 2015, 07:40:00 PM »
I wouldn't have tried out a new method with a sample that is darn near a year old. According to mr malty, since we've been continually referring back to that, at best the sample was 10% viable.

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

some temp shock of the yeast is possible.  since I've typically used a chilled and decanted starter this was another variable in the way I typically do things.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 07:46:56 PM by evil_morty »