Author Topic: New starter procedure trial  (Read 32940 times)

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #330 on: October 13, 2015, 06:44:51 PM »
here's one for you Mark- I have what will be 4wk old wlp833 slurry, and want to make a non stir plate starter for 1.048OG lager.

what would you do? slurry is thick, with very little hop/break sediment.

if replication really is the key to a nice clean ferment I think I'd take a portion that you suspect is about 100B cells and make a starter to pitch at high krausen.  at least that's what I would probably try if I was going for a James Bond starter.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #331 on: October 13, 2015, 06:54:51 PM »
here's one for you Mark- I have what will be 4wk old wlp833 slurry, and want to make a non stir plate starter for 1.048OG lager.

what would you do? slurry is thick, with very little hop/break sediment.

Four weeks is old, but not ancient.  We are looking at 50% viability as the worse case scenario.  Unless you really want to make a starter, I would pitch about 200ml of thick slurry straight into 5 gallons.  I would also ensure that the wort was well aerated.  Do you have at least 200ml of slurry?

Offline Wort-H.O.G.

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4439
  • Play Nice
    • Harvey's Brewhaus
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #332 on: October 13, 2015, 06:59:18 PM »

here's one for you Mark- I have what will be 4wk old wlp833 slurry, and want to make a non stir plate starter for 1.048OG lager.

what would you do? slurry is thick, with very little hop/break sediment.

Four weeks is old, but not ancient.  We are looking at 50% viability as the worse case scenario.  Unless you really want to make a starter, I would pitch about 200ml of thick slurry straight into 5 gallons.  I would also ensure that the wort was well aerated.  Do you have at least 200ml of slurry?

Yes plenty of slurry .So that would be my normal way to go- although I would have used 250ml as recommended by mr.malty.

If I did go starter route just for sale of trying this no stir plate method-what would you recommend


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 #333 on: October 13, 2015, 07:00:23 PM »
if replication really is the key to a nice clean ferment

Actually, replication is the key to a yeast strain exhibiting its unique character, as the flavor compounds unique to a strain are produced during replication.  The higher the pitch rate, the lower the difference between two strains. 

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #334 on: October 13, 2015, 07:03:52 PM »
if replication really is the key to a nice clean ferment

Actually, replication is the key to a yeast strain exhibiting its unique character, as the flavor compounds unique to a strain are produced during replication.  The higher the pitch rate, the lower the difference between two strains.

I was mostly talking about avoiding ester production.  This could be wrong but I seem to remember that yeast growth uses up "X" compound that is later not available to produce esters.  As you can see I've really studied this  ;D

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #335 on: October 13, 2015, 07:10:27 PM »
If I did go starter route just for sale of trying this no stir plate method-what would you recommend

Let's say that your mix of yeast and organic material yeast yields approximately 2 billion cells per milliliter (there's no way to now for certain without a cell count).  The worse case scenario is 1 billion viable cells per milliliter.  Depending on the cell size, you are going to max out at approximately 200 billion cells with a 1L starter.  You want at least 50% growth, so you are looking at 100ml of slurry.  I personally would pitch 75ml of slurry into 10% w/v (1.040) starter, but I am a gambling man.  If you are going to go through the trouble of preparing a starter, then you might as well go for significant new growth.

Offline Wort-H.O.G.

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4439
  • Play Nice
    • Harvey's Brewhaus
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #336 on: October 13, 2015, 07:16:12 PM »
If I did go starter route just for sale of trying this no stir plate method-what would you recommend

Let's say that your mix of yeast and organic material yeast yields approximately 2 billion cells per milliliter (there's no way to now for certain without a cell count).  The worse case scenario is 1 billion viable cells per milliliter.  Depending on the cell size, you are going to max out at approximately 200 billion cells with a 1L starter.  You want at least 50% growth, so you are looking at 100ml of slurry.  I personally would pitch 75ml of slurry into 10% w/v (1.040) starter, but I am a gambling man.  If you are going to go through the trouble of preparing a starter, then you might as well go for significant new growth.
so thats 100ml surry in 1.040 wort- 1L?
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 #337 on: October 13, 2015, 08:42:05 PM »
I was mostly talking about avoiding ester production.  This could be wrong but I seem to remember that yeast growth uses up "X" compound that is later not available to produce esters.  As you can see I've really studied this  ;D

I believe that the compound to which you are referring is called Acetyl-CoA (Acetyl coenzyme A).  While Acetyl-CoA consumption does increase with an increase in growth, it is only half of the story.  Higher alcohol production increases with cell growth. 

Esters are formed by condensation reactions between alcohols and carboxylic acids. The condensation reaction produces an ester plus a water molecule.  A carboxylic acid is an acid with a carboxyl group (i.e., an acid with COOH in its formula).  Acetic acid is a carboxylic acid with the formula CH3COOH.  Hexanoic acid is a carboxylic acid with the formula C5H11COOH.  Finally, heptanoic acid is also a carboxylic acid with the formula C6H13COOH.  There are more carboxylic acids, but we will stick with these three for this discussion.

The ester amyl acetate (banana) is the condensation reaction between amyl alcohol (actually 1-pentanol) and acetic acid. 

C5H11OH + CH3COOH  → C7H14O2 + H2O

The ester ehtyl hexanoate (red apple, star anise, or strawberry) is the condensation reaction between ethanol and hexanoic acid.

CH3CH2OH + C5H11COOH  → C8H16O2 + H2O

The ester ethyl heptanoate (grape) is the condensation reaction between ethanol and heptanoic acid.   

CH3CH2OH + C6H13COOH  → C9H18O2 + H2O

What's weird about esters is that the curve is u-shaped with respect to pitch rate.  Ester production is increased when pitching low and high.  The mid-point pitching rate produces the lowest ester profile.  As much good as Jamil has done for amateur brewers (i.e., those who brew solely for the love of brewing), pimping the 1 million cells per degree Plato rule has hurt as much as it has helped the community.  We now have an entire generation of home brewers who believe that the only proper pitch rate is 1 million cells per degree Plato.  Things are not that simple.  Professional brewers pitch for desired performance.  They pitch low if they want esters and pitch closer to 1 million cells per degree Plato if they want to produce a low ester beer (while temperature does play a role, it only does so as a metabolic rate modifier).  Professional brewers can push the performance in either direction because they know their yeast strains very well.  Amateur brewers should adopt a more open mindset when it comes to pitching rates.  There is no one proper pitching rate.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 09:48:58 PM by S. cerevisiae »

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #338 on: October 13, 2015, 08:46:01 PM »
I was mostly talking about avoiding ester production.  This could be wrong but I seem to remember that yeast growth uses up "X" compound that is later not available to produce esters.  As you can see I've really studied this  ;D

I believe that the compound to which you are referring is called Acetyl-CoA (Acetyl coenzyme A).  While Acetyl-CoA consumption does increase with an increase in growth, it is only half of the story.  Higher alcohol production increases with cell growth. 

Esters are formed by condensation reactions between alcohols and carboxylic acids. The condensation reaction produces an ester plus a water molecule.  A carboxylic acid is an acid with a carboxyl group (i.e., an acid with COOH in its formula).  Acetic acid is a carboxylic acid with the formula CH3COOH.  Hexanoic acid is a carboxylic acid with the formula C5H11COOH.  Finally, Heptanoic acid is also a carboxylic acid with the formula C6H13COOH.  There are more carboxylic acids, but we will stick with these three for this discussion.

The ester amyl acetate (banana) is the condensation reaction between amyl alcohol (actually 1-pentanol) and acetic acid. 

C5H11OH + CH3COOH  → C7H12O2 + H2O

The ester ehtyl hexanoate (red apple, star anise, or strawberry) is the condensation reaction between ethanol and hexanoic acid.

CH3CH2OH + C5H11COOH  → C8H16O2 + H2O

The ester ethyl heptanoate (grape) is the condensation reaction between ethanol and heptanoic acid.   

CH3CH2OH + C6H13COOH  → C9H18O2 + H2O

What's weird about esters is that the curve is u-shaped with respect to pitch rate.  Ester production is increased when pitching low and high.  The mid-point pitching rate that produces the lowest ester profile.  As much good as Jamil has done for the amateur brewers (i.e., those who brew solely for the love of brewing), pimping the 1 million cells per degree Plato rule has hurt as much as it has helped the community.  We now have an entire generation of home brewers who believe that the only proper pitch rate is 1 million cells per degree Plato.  Things are not that simple.  Professional brewers pitch for desired performance.  They pitch low if they want esters and pitch closer to 1 million cells per degree Plato if they want to produce a low ester beer (while temperature does play a role, it only does so as a metabolic rate modifier).  Professional brewers can push the performance in either direction because they know their yeast strains very well.  Amateur should adopt a more open mindset when it comes to pitching rates.  There is no one proper pitching rate.

in general I'm going for minimal ester production.  higher alcohol creation doesn't sound great either.  I want smooth beer!  no burning please.

in the past I've done a decent job of accomplishing this.  so where is the bottom of that U?

eta:  if 1M is the wrong rate, what is the right one?  and how wide and flat is the bottom of the U?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 08:52:55 PM by evil_morty »

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #339 on: October 13, 2015, 08:52:03 PM »
so thats 100ml surry in 1.040 wort- 1L?

Yes, 1L of 1.040 wort contains 100 grams of dissolved DME, which makes it a 100 grams / 1000 milliliters * 100 =  a 10% weight by volume (w/v) solution.  Weight by volume and weight by weight are the same when the solvent is water because 1 milliliter of water weighs one gram.   A 10% w/v solution is a 10 Plato solution, and a 10 Plato solution has a specific gravity of 1.040 at the temperature at which the hydrometer was calibrated. 

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #340 on: October 13, 2015, 09:19:21 PM »
in general I'm going for minimal ester production.  higher alcohol creation doesn't sound great either.  I want smooth beer!  no burning please.

in the past I've done a decent job of accomplishing this.  so where is the bottom of that U?

eta:  if 1M is the wrong rate, what is the right one?  and how wide and flat is the bottom of the U?

You are looking at the problem too simplistically.  The higher alcohol bogeyman is yet another home brewing myth.   Beer is bland and boring without higher alcohols.   All beers contain esters, even lager.  If you doubt me, taste wort and then taste the resulting beer.  They are not the same.  The difference is the result of alcohols, esters, an other metabolic byproducts.

Much of what is taught to the amateur brewing community about fermentation is dumbed-down to the point where so much information is lost as to render it useless.  For example, here's how a yeast propagator whose target market is primarily professional brewers describes a yeast strain.

"This yeast is a very popular and very flocculent lager strain from Northern Europe. It produces a beer with a good balance of flavors, particularly between the esters and higher alcohols, which makes a very drinkable beer. This yeast produces less sulfur compounds than most other flocculent strains."

« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 09:24:53 PM by S. cerevisiae »

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #341 on: October 13, 2015, 10:30:00 PM »
I'll bet that the U is not always symmetrical or the same for each yeast in every circumstance. So far I've not experienced the over pitch upright of the U. Not saying it doesn't exist. But with the yeasts I have over pitched, they were grossly over pitched and still rather bland. I used to try for super clean fermentation by way of low ester, till I realized that what i really wanted was eliminating off flavors and TRYING FOR appropriate levels of esters.

editted to add TRYING FOR... the original way made it sound like I dont want appropriate levels of esters
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 11:53:56 PM by klickitat jim »

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #342 on: October 13, 2015, 11:12:30 PM »
in general I'm going for minimal ester production.  higher alcohol creation doesn't sound great either.  I want smooth beer!  no burning please.

in the past I've done a decent job of accomplishing this.  so where is the bottom of that U?

eta:  if 1M is the wrong rate, what is the right one?  and how wide and flat is the bottom of the U?

You are looking at the problem too simplistically.  The higher alcohol bogeyman is yet another home brewing myth.   Beer is bland and boring without higher alcohols.   All beers contain esters, even lager.  If you doubt me, taste wort and then taste the resulting beer.  They are not the same.  The difference is the result of alcohols, esters, an other metabolic byproducts.

Much of what is taught to the amateur brewing community about fermentation is dumbed-down to the point where so much information is lost as to render it useless.  For example, here's how a yeast propagator whose target market is primarily professional brewers describes a yeast strain.

"This yeast is a very popular and very flocculent lager strain from Northern Europe. It produces a beer with a good balance of flavors, particularly between the esters and higher alcohols, which makes a very drinkable beer. This yeast produces less sulfur compounds than most other flocculent strains."

if there are no general guidelines I guess there is no point in talking about it then.  I don't have a chem degree or the time to iterate over this stuff and figure out where the limits are.  That would be a full time job.

evil_morty

  • Guest
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #343 on: October 13, 2015, 11:18:42 PM »
I'll bet that the U is not always symmetrical or the same for each yeast in every circumstance. So far I've not experienced the over pitch upright of the U. Not saying it doesn't exist. But with the yeasts I have over pitched, they were grossly over pitched and still rather bland. I used to try for super clean fermentation by way of low ester, till I realized that what i really wanted was eliminating off flavors and appropriate levels of esters.

considering how many things end up not being detectable via triangle test I have to wonder if a general guideline could work out in most cases but really I have no way to tell.  just a suspicion.

Offline brewinhard

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3272
Re: New starter procedure trial
« Reply #344 on: October 13, 2015, 11:24:50 PM »
As interested as I am in this shaken method, I still have trouble seeing how it can be that much better than my stir plate.  For example, I pitched 1 smack pack of Born on date 8/16/15 of Wyeast California Lager into a 2.5 qt starter (per Mr. malty) for a 1.055 OG.  (5.5 gallons).  Approximately 5 hrs after pitching at 60F there was definite fermentation activity in the wort itself (circulating yeast) and moderate airlock movement. 

I am curious how the shaken method could improve this....I would feel that it would not be an improvement if the time it took for noticeable fermentation was longer.