Yeast Starter question.

It's your choice here.

Some folks would encourage you to place the yeast starter in the refrigerator to get the yeast to settle out, decant most of the liquid and then pitch the yeast. A concept here is to not 'dilute' your wort (beer) with the liquid content of the yeast starter.

My preference is to add the entire yeast starter at the condition of high krausen to 'better' kickoff the fermentation process.

You didn't ask but a 1 liter yeast starter is on the small size. There will be some yeast growth there but it would be 'better' from a yeast count perspective to produce a larger starter.

Good luck with your yeast starter!

Cheers!

 

Yes. Don't overthink it.

 

Here's a pretty good discussion on the topic:
https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/a-couple-yeast-starter-questions.679449/

 

There is also a philosophical question of how much yeast should be added as the absolute yeast cells. The generally accepted average seeding rates for yeast are about five million cells per milliliter of wort. Its just average, for different styles and receipts, this amount may vary significantly. And the use of starter is formally intended to activate yeast and not increase cell quantity. In fact, no one controls the absolute number of yeast cells, we in the RF traditionally add with a margin (and a multiple), I assume that the situation is similar all over the world. I don't know if it's good or bad.

 

How much wort is going into your fermentor? I'm guessing most folks here would presume 5 gallons, but without knowing it would be difficult to give a quantity for a starter.

 

The size starter you need depends on how many (estimated) cells you're starting with and how many you need. One liter may be exactly what you need. Or it may be bigger or smaller.

 

That's incorrect. The primary purpose of yeast starters is to increase the number of cells.

It is true that pitching an active starter can result in a faster start to the main batch's fermentation (i.e. reduce lag time), but there's no scholarly evidence that it results in better beer vs. the same number of dormant (but viable/vital) cells.

 

This is also not entirely correct. Do you know any style of beer that requires a mandatory "starter\ leaven"? Apart from classic sake, I can't think of anything right away. Typically, the discussion about starters arises when there is a lack of yeast or when the quality and activity of the yeast are questionable. Alternatively, it may be a desire to speed up the brewing process. However, by "handmade" increasing the number of cells by dozens or even hundreds of times, you lose control over the yeast generations, and it becomes unclear which strain you will end up with.

 

How do you think the packages of yeast homebrewers (and many commercial brewers) buy are produced? Even if the brewer doesn't propagate a yeast starter from that package, the yeast manufacturer did to produce that package (and many others at the same time). When you need more yeast cells, you propagate them. And that's what a starter does.

Yes, when there is a lack of viable/vital yeast. i.e. not enough cells.

Yes, an adequate number of yeast cells are required to ferment beer in a reasonable amount of time. And if the count is too low, it might not finish at all. So it's not "alternatively," it's really the same thing. Starters make an inadequate/non-ideal number of yeast cells and turn them into an adequate/ideal number.

Starters don't increase cells by dozens or hundreds of (WTF!) times. 2x or 3x is typical. Anyway, carefully handled yeast can by used through many, many generations before genetic drift becomes apparent. There are breweries that have been repitching the same strains for many years. JW Lees (Manchester England) is beyond something like 5,000 generations with their house strain at this point.

But maybe there's a language barrier here. Your reference to Sake make me think there might be. When we say starters, we mean something like this: A particular batch of beer might need, for example, about 320 Billion yeast cells. A brand new pack of Wyeast yeast might contain about 100B cells. To get from 100 Billion cells to 230 Billion cells, the yeast is pitched into a starter wort of about 1 Liter, and placed on a stir plate, resulting in growth to about 230 Billion cells. And I swear to you, scout's honor, the yeast will still be the same strain.

 

Formally, large "breweries" should use ready-made yeast obtained from the plant's laboratory, which means that the composition and properties of the yeast are known and standardized. Unfortunately, in the RF (I don't know about the rest of the world), it has become expensive and impractical to maintain a microbiological laboratory at the plant, and most of the time, they purchase yeast from multinational companies (in RF Fermentis). At the same time, manufacturers of modern yeast declare for their products that there is no need for 1.rehydration\ activation\ aeration, not to mention 2.starters (I note in their terms that these (1,2) are different procedures).
In terms of home brewing, logic dictates that yeast activation/rehydration should always be done (in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions). But starters (multiplication in non-regulated conditions, with an increase in yeast mass by dozens of times) make sense only for high-density wort 15+ or for low-temperature lager, for example. In the latter case, the side effect is inevitable, at least because you make the starter at room temperature, and the lager at 10-12. Well, if you make a multi-stage starter from a couple of grams of yeast, on water, on glucose, with poor stirring , etc., then the result is unpredictable at all. BUT! I understand correctly that in your terminology, this would not be a starter, but what would you call it?
PS Sake, in my terminology, is an example of a mandatory starter. The Japanese call this starter (steamed rice infused with fungus) Koji (糀).

 

Typical Yeast Starter: Adding a small amount of liquid yeast (not dry, not Fermentis) to a small batch of wort (not "glucose") in order to propagate a larger amount of yeast, which is then available to ferment a batch or beer, or to increase further with another starter step. Home brewers do this. Commercial brewers do this, whether they have a "microbiological laboratory" or not. Yeast manufacturers also do this.

There's quite a large infrastructure/industry supporting the making of these "unregulated" yeast starters. The vast majority of brewing competition medal winning and "best in show" beers use them.

Genetic drift/mutation is not a concern. Bacterial/Wild Yeast contamination is not a concern, as long as sanitary practices are followed.

As for the known and standardized "composition and properties" of large commercial breweries' yeast, they are looking for contamination and/or large amounts of non-viable cells. That's it. They are not gene sequencing anything (unless part of an academic study), because they know yeast strains don't evolve that quickly.

At this point, I don't know how to convince you that, in most of the world, yeast starters for beer are routine, and considered by most to be a best practice. So I won't any longer.

 

OK. As a result of a "fruitful" discussion, I state the following:
1. A starter is not necessary for beer. "Activation" (latent propagation period) is desirable, especially for questionable products. Of couse, rehydration is necessary for dry yeast.
2. "Standardization" refers to the use of validated methods to establish the quality and quantity of the yeast used. I am unaware of how you can control the multiplication of yeast cells in a home environment with the accuracy you mention (e.g., 2-3 times).
In general, I'm not a debater. If you think you need a starter, that's your right and your paradigm. But as they say, "the best is the enemy of the good".

 

Neither am I. But I'm curious about your background in biochemistry and zymology . . . is it academic, or operational, or both? Do you actively brew? Have you ever made a starter or have experience with dry yeast?

 

Let's just leave it at "English isn't his first language, he may not have access to all the literature that we do, and homebrewers probably do things different in Russia." Seems like liquid yeast isn't a thing there.

I am glad to see a thread in Homebrewing getting some activity, though.

 

It's not the language that's different, but the decision-making logic that marketers are currently promoting. Of cause in each country has its own marketers. As for the starters, they're just starters.
P.S. Forum questions about the competence and workplace of the interlocutor are usually perceived as trolling. I already finished brewing about ten years ago, my current main activity is the development of devices for monitoring brewing processes.

 

That's cool.

 

I knew it!

 

Don't.
OP's questions were answered. No need to engage anymore.
Give us another perfectly average. Something that would need a lot of votes. Imperial Amber or Brown? Red IPA?