Author Topic: New starter procedure trial  (Read 56566 times)

Offline Joe Sr.

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4459
  • Chicago - NORTH SIDE
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #195 on: October 06, 2015, 08:56:12 pm »
Mark, I may have used the wrong phrasing and inadvertently insulted you.

I'll second that.  Certainly not my intention.

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

Join the club, buddy!

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

As far as the James Bond Method (or is it the Broccoli Method?) I feel like it's sort of back to the future.  I've only been using a stir plate for something approximating the past 5 years.  All my starters before that were shaken.  There's more nuance to Mark's approach than I used back then, but it's not like non-stirred starters have never been made before. 
It's all in the reflexes. - Jack Burton

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #196 on: October 06, 2015, 11:22:33 pm »

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

Me, too....

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

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

Offline brewinhard

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 3272
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #197 on: October 06, 2015, 11:33:38 pm »

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

Me, too....

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

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

Yes, your avatar says it all!   ;D

EDIT- Man, I go away for one day and check back in to find 5 more pages of posts on this.  Crazy reading, keep it coming. It really is making me think about doing this for my next batch (cal common). 
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 11:35:11 pm by brewinhard »

Offline brewday

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Chicago
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #198 on: October 06, 2015, 11:56:39 pm »
Crazy reading, keep it coming. It really is making me think about doing this for my next batch (cal common).

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

I like it.
Jon Weaver

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #199 on: October 06, 2015, 11:59:02 pm »
Today

Made 1200ml starters (2) for 1.060 pale and stout. Made starters at 0800, oxygenated with a little shaking. Done brewing at 1600 so I checked on my starters. They both were covered in foam and had yeast setting in the bottom. So I swirled and pitched. They were volcanic and smelled like heaven. I anticipate these beers will go just fine

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #200 on: October 07, 2015, 01:26:59 am »
As far as the James Bond Method (or is it the Broccoli Method?) I feel like it's sort of back to the future.  I've only been using a stir plate for something approximating the past 5 years.  All my starters before that were shaken.  There's more nuance to Mark's approach than I used back then, but it's not like non-stirred starters have never been made before.

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


Offline Joe Sr.

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4459
  • Chicago - NORTH SIDE
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #201 on: October 07, 2015, 01:38:34 am »
The difference between what I did and what thousands of over brewers have done is that I noticed the improvement and went about attempting to repeat and quantify it.

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

My wife will be glad if I ditch the stir plates.  They're noisy little buggers.
It's all in the reflexes. - Jack Burton

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #202 on: October 07, 2015, 02:17:20 am »
The difference between what I did and what thousands of over brewers have done is that I noticed the improvement and went about attempting to repeat and quantify it.

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

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

I wonder if some of the reluctance might come from not wanting to throw away stirplates that someone told us we can't make beer without?

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 #203 on: October 07, 2015, 02:25:10 am »
I'll say that I have $9 invested in my stir plate ($6 of that is the bar), and would have no problem with giving it up. I'm looking forward to trying out Mark's technique once I get my current glut of pilot brewing over with.
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 ynotbrusum

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4245
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #204 on: October 07, 2015, 02:52:25 am »
So O2 is what we are after, right?  I will start infusing with a scintered stone and using a drawn off and quickly chilled portion of the wort that I intend to brew, and if I am going from a smack pack or pure pitch, I will be varying the volume and temperature of the starter with the gravity (lighter or bigger OG) and style of beer (ale versus lager yeast).  This is in contrast to my propensity to merely repitch within a week of harvest....sounds like it should work, also though, with a slurry repitch into a starter, because this way I get the benefit of the successive generations, right? I have no empirical evidence, but I think yeast do their best work a few generations removed from the laboratory packaging.  So, I won't abandon repitching.
Hodge Garage Brewing: "Brew with a glad heart!"

RPIScotty

  • Guest
New starter procedure trial
« Reply #205 on: October 07, 2015, 02:22:52 pm »
maximum_cell_density_for_1L = 200 billion

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

our_culture_cell_count_low = 50 billion

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

our_culture_cell_count_high = 200 billion

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

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

Assumption - Vessel must be 4 times the size of starter volume and is scalable (scaling factor for 1 Gallon batch = 4):


Assumption - Culture will saturate the starter wort:

Given that my input may be smaller than an entire smack pack (I typically split it into 2 or 3 containers to save some for the next batch), how is my input (initial cell count) going to affect the above calculations?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 02:35:50 pm by RPIScotty »

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #206 on: October 07, 2015, 03:56:57 pm »
Here are a few metrics:

maximum cell density for 1ml = ~200 million

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #207 on: October 07, 2015, 04:49:11 pm »
The fact that the starter volume should be no more than 1/4th of the vessel volume when making a starter using my method does not impact these values.

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

RPIScotty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #208 on: October 07, 2015, 05:07:33 pm »
Here are a few metrics:

maximum cell density for 1ml = ~200 million

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


RPIScotty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #209 on: October 07, 2015, 05:09:55 pm »
The fact that the starter volume should be no more than 1/4th of the vessel volume when making a starter using my method does not impact these values.

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

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

I think Mark hints at that large of a starter (2L) not being necessary even for a lager. I'd have to reread it but I believe he stated that a few times over the 2-3 different posts concerning the topic.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 05:12:19 pm by RPIScotty »