[denny]

I'm going to start a fire here but I never saw a difference between my SNS starters and stirplate starters.  To my untrained (but experienced) eye, my stirplate starters looked more foamy and active.  The beers did not seem different, really.  The SNS starter did not produce a better beer although it did produce a good beer.  But same with my stirplate.  To me this always seemed like a solution looking for a problem.  I realize I am not a yeast lab scientist and I also know that a lot of study and effort went into those findings.  I was just always very satisfied with my stirplate starters.  My 2¢.

I think maybe my SNS beers turn out better, but I've never done a side by side. For me, one of the big plusses is that I find it faster and easier.

[Village Taphouse]

I'm going to start a fire here but I never saw a difference between my SNS starters and stirplate starters.  To my untrained (but experienced) eye, my stirplate starters looked more foamy and active.  The beers did not seem different, really.  The SNS starter did not produce a better beer although it did produce a good beer.  But same with my stirplate.  To me this always seemed like a solution looking for a problem.  I realize I am not a yeast lab scientist and I also know that a lot of study and effort went into those findings.  I was just always very satisfied with my stirplate starters.  My 2¢.

I think maybe my SNS beers turn out better, but I've never done a side by side. For me, one of the big plusses is that I find it faster and easier.

I have notes about some stirplate beers where I pitched the entire contents of the starter and those beers were spectacular.  I have made 4-5 SNS starters and again .. good beers.  No complaints.  But I didn't have any complaints about my stirplate starters or beers either.  It wasn't an area where I was doing homework and looking for improvement. 

[John M]

I'm going to start a fire here but I never saw a difference between my SNS starters and stirplate starters.  To my untrained (but experienced) eye, my stirplate starters looked more foamy and active.  The beers did not seem different, really.  The SNS starter did not produce a better beer although it did produce a good beer.  But same with my stirplate.  To me this always seemed like a solution looking for a problem.  I realize I am not a yeast lab scientist and I also know that a lot of study and effort went into those findings.  I was just always very satisfied with my stirplate starters.  My 2¢.

It's an interesting concept to me. It seems to me this is a way to replicate krausening, which is something I've always wanted to try. However, traditional krausening doesn't offer the same timing flexibility as using slurry, which is why I haven't adopted it. I almost always brew a low abv beer, and plan to brew a high gravity beer the same day I keg it (using a calculated amount of slurry after kegging said beer). With the almost limitless selection of dry yeast these days, I rarely use liquid yeast anymore, so I don't think I'll try this method anytime soon. But I do see the merit in it.

[John M]

This is a neat article that is a similar method.

https://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Drauflassen

[John M]

So are you guys saying that there's never a case that you need to pitch more than one packet/vial, so long as you pitch an active starter? Could you only use half the pack/vial with the same results as a whole pack?

I believe you still have to pay attention to qty as well as viability.

You can underpitch if you don't pitch at or near high krausen for the SNS starter (for example, a one quart SNS starter pitched too early or very late into a very high gravity batch (think Barley Wine) can result in an underpitch).   I usually make a small beer (ABV wise) and use that full slurry as the "starter" for extremely large ABV beers.  But the high krausen pitch of the SNS starter is putting a supercharged slurry into the batch of wort at that point, so it isn't underpitching it, even if the sheer cell count might then be a bit low by calculator standards.

Oh and for the brewer who is just jumping back into brewing.  Current conventional wisdom indicates that the use of dry yeast avoids the need to aerate wort these days...and no need to hydrate the dry yeast, either.

I hear people are using condoms these days, and getting their teeth cleaned every 6 months too! 

[redrocker652002]

So here is my plan of attack.  My current batch has reached FG and is sitting in my fermenter fridge at about 67 to 68.  My plan is to leave it there until about Wednesday and dry hop.  I have ordered the needed ingredients for a Single hop ale and should hopefully get them sometime during the week.  If the ingredients come early, I will dry hop early as to be done within 4 to 5 days and ready to get my next batch going.  Once I get the ingredients and dry hop is done, about 4 to 5 days I think, I will then start my next batch, bottle my current one and put my new batch on the yeast cake and see what happens.  I have ordered a pack of BRY97 just in case, but I am hopeful I won't need it.  Any input on this?  Thanks to all 

[denny]

So here is my plan of attack.  My current batch has reached FG and is sitting in my fermenter fridge at about 67 to 68.  My plan is to leave it there until about Wednesday and dry hop.  I have ordered the needed ingredients for a Single hop ale and should hopefully get them sometime during the week.  If the ingredients come early, I will dry hop early as to be done within 4 to 5 days and ready to get my next batch going.  Once I get the ingredients and dry hop is done, about 4 to 5 days I think, I will then start my next batch, bottle my current one and put my new batch on the yeast cake and see what happens.  I have ordered a pack of BRY97 just in case, but I am hopeful I won't need it.  Any input on this?  Thanks to all

Don't use the whole yeast slurry. 1/2 is more than enough and in my experience will give you better results.

[ynotbrusum]

I would even say that a third of the slurry is more than enough for an ale, unless it is a really high ABV ale.

Cheers!

[denny]

I would even say that a third of the slurry is more than enough for an ale, unless it is a really high ABV ale.

Cheers!

That's what I'd do, but I thought 1/2 might be easier to eyeball. Not that exact amount matters much with that much yeast.

[redrocker652002]

So here is my plan of attack.  My current batch has reached FG and is sitting in my fermenter fridge at about 67 to 68.  My plan is to leave it there until about Wednesday and dry hop.  I have ordered the needed ingredients for a Single hop ale and should hopefully get them sometime during the week.  If the ingredients come early, I will dry hop early as to be done within 4 to 5 days and ready to get my next batch going.  Once I get the ingredients and dry hop is done, about 4 to 5 days I think, I will then start my next batch, bottle my current one and put my new batch on the yeast cake and see what happens.  I have ordered a pack of BRY97 just in case, but I am hopeful I won't need it.  Any input on this?  Thanks to all

Don't use the whole yeast slurry. 1/2 is more than enough and in my experience will give you better results.

So would I be smart to save the other half in a mason jar in the fridge for the next batch then? 

[denny]

So here is my plan of attack.  My current batch has reached FG and is sitting in my fermenter fridge at about 67 to 68.  My plan is to leave it there until about Wednesday and dry hop.  I have ordered the needed ingredients for a Single hop ale and should hopefully get them sometime during the week.  If the ingredients come early, I will dry hop early as to be done within 4 to 5 days and ready to get my next batch going.  Once I get the ingredients and dry hop is done, about 4 to 5 days I think, I will then start my next batch, bottle my current one and put my new batch on the yeast cake and see what happens.  I have ordered a pack of BRY97 just in case, but I am hopeful I won't need it.  Any input on this?  Thanks to all

Don't use the whole yeast slurry. 1/2 is more than enough and in my experience will give you better results.

So would I be smart to save the other half in a mason jar in the fridge for the next batch then?

Yeah

[HighVoltageMan!]

I'm going to start a fire here but I never saw a difference between my SNS starters and stirplate starters.  To my untrained (but experienced) eye, my stirplate starters looked more foamy and active.  The beers did not seem different, really.  The SNS starter did not produce a better beer although it did produce a good beer.  But same with my stirplate.  To me this always seemed like a solution looking for a problem.  I realize I am not a yeast lab scientist and I also know that a lot of study and effort went into those findings.  I was just always very satisfied with my stirplate starters.  My 2¢.

I think maybe my SNS beers turn out better, but I've never done a side by side. For me, one of the big plusses is that I find it faster and easier.

I have notes about some stirplate beers where I pitched the entire contents of the starter and those beers were spectacular.  I have made 4-5 SNS starters and again .. good beers.  No complaints.  But I didn't have any complaints about my stirplate starters or beers either.  It wasn't an area where I was doing homework and looking for improvement.

I'm of the same opinion that you should pitch starters at high krausen. The stir plate work just as well a SNS method, the key is to pitch very active yeast. I don't see how SNS could be easier or faster, in fact I think the stir plate would be easier since you can "set it and forget it".

I brew a lot of lagers with 4 liter starters and I don't want to pitch the entire starter. I crash cool the starter at high krausen and never let the starter hit final gravity. The starters will actually show some krausen at 33-34F (Wyeast 2124), I decant prior to pitching. Since adopting this method, my lag times on my lagers are @12 hours at 48F, down from 18-24 hours

I also make starters with dry yeast. It works really well to build up the yeast count. The viability is very high, but keep in mind the yeast should be treated as a liquid and requires aeration at pitch. The idea you can't make a starter with dry yeast is an old myth.

If you want to preserve yeast longer you can add a buffering solution to the yeast slurry. KH2PO4 at 2-3% solution will extend the viability yeast. Here's a white paper from the late 40's on it:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1955.tb06256.x

Here's a Master Brewer's podcast on the same subject:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1955.tb06256.x

[John M]

I'm going to start a fire here but I never saw a difference between my SNS starters and stirplate starters.  To my untrained (but experienced) eye, my stirplate starters looked more foamy and active.  The beers did not seem different, really.  The SNS starter did not produce a better beer although it did produce a good beer.  But same with my stirplate.  To me this always seemed like a solution looking for a problem.  I realize I am not a yeast lab scientist and I also know that a lot of study and effort went into those findings.  I was just always very satisfied with my stirplate starters.  My 2¢.

I think maybe my SNS beers turn out better, but I've never done a side by side. For me, one of the big plusses is that I find it faster and easier.

I have notes about some stirplate beers where I pitched the entire contents of the starter and those beers were spectacular.  I have made 4-5 SNS starters and again .. good beers.  No complaints.  But I didn't have any complaints about my stirplate starters or beers either.  It wasn't an area where I was doing homework and looking for improvement.

I'm of the same opinion that you should pitch starters at high krausen. The stir plate work just as well a SNS method, the key is to pitch very active yeast. I don't see how SNS could be easier or faster, in fact I think the stir plate would be easier since you can "set it and forget it".

I brew a lot of lagers with 4 liter starters and I don't want to pitch the entire starter. I crash cool the starter at high krausen and never let the starter hit final gravity. The starters will actually show some krausen at 33-34F (Wyeast 2124), I decant prior to pitching. Since adopting this method, my lag times on my lagers are @12 hours at 48F, down from 18-24 hours

I also make starters with dry yeast. It works really well to build up the yeast count. The viability is very high, but keep in mind the yeast should be treated as a liquid and requires aeration at pitch. The idea you can't make a starter with dry yeast is an old myth.

If you want to preserve yeast longer you can add a buffering solution to the yeast slurry. KH2PO4 at 2-3% solution will extend the viability yeast. Here's a white paper from the late 40's on it:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1955.tb06256.x

Here's a Master Brewer's podcast on the same subject:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1955.tb06256.x

I don't think anyone doubted the ability to make a yeast starter from dry yeast, It's just a matter of practicality.

[John M]

So here is my plan of attack.  My current batch has reached FG and is sitting in my fermenter fridge at about 67 to 68.  My plan is to leave it there until about Wednesday and dry hop.  I have ordered the needed ingredients for a Single hop ale and should hopefully get them sometime during the week.  If the ingredients come early, I will dry hop early as to be done within 4 to 5 days and ready to get my next batch going.  Once I get the ingredients and dry hop is done, about 4 to 5 days I think, I will then start my next batch, bottle my current one and put my new batch on the yeast cake and see what happens.  I have ordered a pack of BRY97 just in case, but I am hopeful I won't need it.  Any input on this?  Thanks to all

Mr. Malty will tell you the appropriate amount of slurry to use. Reusing yeast, post-dry hop isn't usually advised, but if you're brewing another IPA style beer it should be okay. Regardless, you won't need that BRY97. That yeast slurry is thirsty. What I normally do is "swish" the fermenter around to get the yeast/trub mixed up, and pour into a sanitized measuring cup, then pour into fresh wort/fresh fermenter.

[redrocker652002]

So here is my plan of attack.  My current batch has reached FG and is sitting in my fermenter fridge at about 67 to 68.  My plan is to leave it there until about Wednesday and dry hop.  I have ordered the needed ingredients for a Single hop ale and should hopefully get them sometime during the week.  If the ingredients come early, I will dry hop early as to be done within 4 to 5 days and ready to get my next batch going.  Once I get the ingredients and dry hop is done, about 4 to 5 days I think, I will then start my next batch, bottle my current one and put my new batch on the yeast cake and see what happens.  I have ordered a pack of BRY97 just in case, but I am hopeful I won't need it.  Any input on this?  Thanks to all

Mr. Malty will tell you the appropriate amount of slurry to use. Reusing yeast, post-dry hop isn't usually advised, but if you're brewing another IPA style beer it should be okay. Regardless, you won't need that BRY97. That yeast slurry is thirsty. What I normally do is "swish" the fermenter around to get the yeast/trub mixed up, and pour into a sanitized measuring cup, then pour into fresh wort/fresh fermenter.

So, with that said, should I put the beer into a secondary and dry hop there?  The current batch is a pretty highly hopped pale ale, and my new batch is going to be a single hop ale.  If it is best to move the current batch to another bucket, I can do that.  Might be a bit tough to keep the oxygen out.  This is going to be bottled so putting it in a keg isn't a possibility.