[MattyAHA]

it seems that 1 qt is the standard size starter for the SNS method, (assuming its for 5 gallon batch), what im curious is should we take the yeast pack age/viability into account? i mean its only obvious that a yeast pack that is 3 days old is gonna perform better then a month old pack regardless of starter method, for 10 gallon batches should we use a 2 qt sns starter? You know old habits die hard and i wanna convert over to SNS but i wanna understand it more, so far i gather the sns method makes the yeast very healthy but when did yeast quantity become unimportant? i get it yeast health is more important then amount but its hard for me to wrap my head around it, cause different beers require different quantities of yeast, i cannot imagine a 1.110 barleywine would perform with a 1 qt starter no matter how healthy the yeast is,  im just gonna ask a simple question to the sns starter users, Do you use 1 qt starter for every single style beer regardless of OG (5 gallon batches)?

[denny]

it seems that 1 qt is the standard size starter for the SNS method, (assuming its for 5 gallon batch), what im curious is should we take the yeast pack age/viability into account? i mean its only obvious that a yeast pack that is 3 days old is gonna perform better then a month old pack regardless of starter method, for 10 gallon batches should we use a 2 qt sns starter? You know old habits die hard and i wanna convert over to SNS but i wanna understand it more, so far i gather the sns method makes the yeast very healthy but when did yeast quantity become unimportant? i get it yeast health is more important then amount but its hard for me to wrap my head around it, cause different beers require different quantities of yeast, i cannot imagine a 1.110 barleywine would perform with a 1 qt starter no matter how healthy the yeast is,  im just gonna ask a simple question to the sns starter users, Do you use 1 qt starter for every single style beer regardless of OG (5 gallon batches)?

I've used packs 9 months and more old and still keep to 1 qt.  You've got to get past thinking in terms of cell count.  If you read the explanation Mark posted here, it's because the yeast is "nuclear" and grows so quickly once it's pitched.  And no, a 1.100 beer is not a good candidate for this.  In that case I use SNS to build a starter for a lower gravity batch and use the slurry from that for a high gravity batch.  But I use SNS starters up to 1.075-80 without problems.

[MattyAHA]

it seems that 1 qt is the standard size starter for the SNS method, (assuming its for 5 gallon batch), what im curious is should we take the yeast pack age/viability into account? i mean its only obvious that a yeast pack that is 3 days old is gonna perform better then a month old pack regardless of starter method, for 10 gallon batches should we use a 2 qt sns starter? You know old habits die hard and i wanna convert over to SNS but i wanna understand it more, so far i gather the sns method makes the yeast very healthy but when did yeast quantity become unimportant? i get it yeast health is more important then amount but its hard for me to wrap my head around it, cause different beers require different quantities of yeast, i cannot imagine a 1.110 barleywine would perform with a 1 qt starter no matter how healthy the yeast is,  im just gonna ask a simple question to the sns starter users, Do you use 1 qt starter for every single style beer regardless of OG (5 gallon batches)?

I've used packs 9 months and more old and still keep to 1 qt.  You've got to get past thinking in terms of cell count.  If you read the explanation Mark posted here, it's because the yeast is "nuclear" and grows so quickly once it's pitched.  And no, a 1.100 beer is not a good candidate for this.  In that case I use SNS to build a starter for a lower gravity batch and use the slurry from that for a high gravity batch.  But I use SNS starters up to 1.075-80 without problems.

makes perfect sense, so what container do you use to shake it? Just to go over this method you need to use a container that is 4:1 minimum, shake the wort til its foam and pitch yeast. do you wanna continually shake it into foam? i wish someone made a video demo on this method cause i wanna know what makes this method different then what we used to do with the "intermittent shaking method" what differentiates this method from ISM?

[denny]

it seems that 1 qt is the standard size starter for the SNS method, (assuming its for 5 gallon batch), what im curious is should we take the yeast pack age/viability into account? i mean its only obvious that a yeast pack that is 3 days old is gonna perform better then a month old pack regardless of starter method, for 10 gallon batches should we use a 2 qt sns starter? You know old habits die hard and i wanna convert over to SNS but i wanna understand it more, so far i gather the sns method makes the yeast very healthy but when did yeast quantity become unimportant? i get it yeast health is more important then amount but its hard for me to wrap my head around it, cause different beers require different quantities of yeast, i cannot imagine a 1.110 barleywine would perform with a 1 qt starter no matter how healthy the yeast is,  im just gonna ask a simple question to the sns starter users, Do you use 1 qt starter for every single style beer regardless of OG (5 gallon batches)?

I've used packs 9 months and more old and still keep to 1 qt.  You've got to get past thinking in terms of cell count.  If you read the explanation Mark posted here, it's because the yeast is "nuclear" and grows so quickly once it's pitched.  And no, a 1.100 beer is not a good candidate for this.  In that case I use SNS to build a starter for a lower gravity batch and use the slurry from that for a high gravity batch.  But I use SNS starters up to 1.075-80 without problems.

makes perfect sense, so what container do you use to shake it? Just to go over this method you need to use a container that is 4:1 minimum, shake the wort til its foam and pitch yeast. do you wanna continually shake it into foam? i wish someone made a video demo on this method cause i wanna know what makes this method different then what we used to do with the "intermittent shaking method" what differentiates this method from ISM?

I use a gal. glass apple juice jug.  Don't freak out...there's really nothing to it.  You can certainly shake the container additionally...I often do.

[MattyAHA]

ok so it is pretty much ISM with a new name

[denny]

ok so it is pretty much ISM with a new name

Kinda....but you start by filling the jug with foam.  At that point, additional shaking isn't really required.

[MattyAHA]

ok so it is pretty much ISM with a new name

Kinda....but you start by filling the jug with foam.  At that point, additional shaking isn't really required.

gotcha, its that initial foam you pitch the yeast vs just pitching into wort that differentiates SNS vs IS, correct? sorry denny form turning a simple thing into a mind bender

[denny]

ok so it is pretty much ISM with a new name

Kinda....but you start by filling the jug with foam.  At that point, additional shaking isn't really required.

gotcha, its that initial foam you pitch the yeast vs just pitching into wort that differentiates SNS vs IS, correct? sorry denny form turning a simple thing into a mind bender

You are correct

[Sasquatchpedalian]

How long is this foam supposed to last? I've shaken the crap out a SNS in a gallon jar and the foam had subsided within an hour. The yeast by that time had dropped to a layer at the bottom of the jar. I also feel less comfortable sanitizing a jar vs. an erlenmeyer that I can bring to a boil over flame. My experience at guessing at high krausen seemed at best inexact and if this were really to matter one would be expected to time a brew day and subsequent yeast pitch to coincide with a starter's schedule. Seems like putting the cart before the horse. I didn't feel the results were necessarily any better than a stir plate, an appropriate slurry, or pitching more lab propped yeast.

[MattyAHA]

ok so i used a gallon jug added 1 qt of 1.035 wort shook the hell out of it until foam, i pitched onto the foam the foam dissipate in less then a minute, now i'm wondering how less then one minute of foam makes this method any different then IMS i am really trying to find one logical reason why this is different then old school intermittent shaking, i guess i will have to see how the finished beer turns out, im praying this works cause it was such a easy way to make a starter no sir bar, no stir plate just like IMS and took less DME,less water, fingers crossed

[MattyAHA]

How long is this foam supposed to last? I've shaken the crap out a SNS in a gallon jar and the foam had subsided within an hour. The yeast by that time had dropped to a layer at the bottom of the jar. I also feel less comfortable sanitizing a jar vs. an erlenmeyer that I can bring to a boil over flame. My experience at guessing at high krausen seemed at best inexact and if this were really to matter one would be expected to time a brew day and subsequent yeast pitch to coincide with a starter's schedule. Seems like putting the cart before the horse. I didn't feel the results were necessarily any better than a stir plate, an appropriate slurry, or pitching more lab propped yeast.

foam subsided in less then 1 min for me with just a normal cap of foam you would have with IMS

[jeffy]

The point of shaking the vessel until it is foam-filled is simply for aeration.  You could do the same thing with an O2 stone, but this method uses less equipment.  The foam will subside quickly no matter what.  The point is to cheaply and quickly aerate the wort, then pitch the whole thing when it is vigorously fermenting.

[Kevin]

Here is what I do step by step....

1. make a 1 quart starter medium
2. cool and add it to a 1 gallon container
3. cap tightly and shake for 1+ minutes
4. let that sit capped for 15 to 30 minutes
5. add the yeast
6. pitch this starter 12 to 18 hours later at high krausen.

Complete details can be found in this article written by Mark under the pseudonym, YeastWhisperer; https://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70926

[BrewBama]

Reading the link at Jim’s and the instructions Mark posted here on AHA, I never understood why folks shake then add yeast when he describes adding yeast then shaking.

Maybe just semantics. I guess it works either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[denny]

Reading the link at Jim’s and the instructions Mark posted here on AHA, I never understood why folks shake then add yeast when he describes adding yeast then shaking.

Maybe just semantics. I guess it works either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't imagine that the order matters.