First brew....no bubbles, no krausen layer....help

What recommended pitch rate (cells per volume per gravity) do you believe in for 'non re-pitched' yeast?

 

I pitch per the recommendations that are provided by the yeast vendors. There are lots of great technical information on the yeast vendors websites.

I also learned a lot at the recent NHC via long conversations with Al Buck (East Coast Yeast), Greg Doss (Wyeast), Jess Caudill (Wyeast), and Dr. Chris White (White Labs). They are all class acts; they did not 'dodge' any of my numerous questions. I genuinely appreciated the patience they exhibited during my numerous conversations with them!

Cheers to Al, Greg, Jess and Chris!

 

BTW for a 1.055 beer of 5 gallons, beersmith is recommending 191 billion cells. For the APA IPA, 211 billion cells recommended. That's where I got the figure of "around 200 billion" for a typical 5 gallon batch of average ABV beer.

 

“BTW for a 1.055 beer of 5 gallons, beersmith is recommending 191 billion cells.”

Beersmith apparently uses the George Fix assumption for re-pitched yeast just like the yeast calculator on the Mr. Malty website.

5 gallons = 18.9 liters = 18900 ml

1.055 = 13.6°P

0.75 million cells/ml/°P x 18900 ml x 13.6P = 192780 million cells (193 billion cells).

Cheers!

 

​

Hey guys, your detailed discussion on pitch rates is fascinating. But is this really helpful/appropriate for the OP? Put yourself in the shoes of a first time brewer who is sweating bullets wondering if his wort is going to ferment . . . would you want to be wading through this?

I personally enjoy these details and have learned a lot, but is there any chance it could be shifted to a new, more correctly titled post? JackH, you have done lots of research, would enjoy more of your insight in a "Pitch Rate" post.

For Slashyertires, hang in there . . . lots of us are pulling for you.

 

“But is this really helpful/appropriate for the OP?: I hear what you are saying here. It is not unusual for threads to ‘evolve’ based upon posts that various people make.

I think the OP can distinguish what is applicable for him at this moment in time (for his first batch of beer). He may also learn something from this discussion for future batches of beer.

If somebody want to start a ‘new’ thread on pitch rates (or whatever) please feel free to do so.

Cheers!

 

We have had this discussion many times, and here's what I don't get... You say that Mr. Malty is conservative because (among other things) it uses a pitch rate that is really more appropriate for re-pitched yeast. Fair enough so far. So there must be some better pitch rate to use for non-repitched yeast. But then you use manufacturers' pitch recommendations (very binary) that are not a rate at all. You won't say what pitch rate is appropriate, but you keep saying that a particular pitch rate is too high (or 'conservative').

So, I will ask you this one question very directly. I have asked it before, and you haven't answered it, but hope springs eternal...

Do you believe there is some ideal pitch rate, expressed in cells per volume per gravity for non-repitched yeast?

 

“ …but you keep saying that a particular pitch rate is too high (or 'conservative').” The George Fix assumption of 0.75 million cells/ml/°P is indeed a conservative assumption since it is based upon re-pitching (not on ‘new’ yeast).

“Do you believe there is some ideal pitch rate, expressed in cells per volume per gravity for non-repitched yeast?” I have no comment on this question. As I have posted in past threads: I follow the pitching recommendations provided by the various yeast vendors.

Maybe this is the ‘missing’ piece? I personally do not use a yeast estimator of any kind in my homebrewing practice. I think that yeast estimators, whether it be the one on Mr. Malty or some other website (or piece of software) are not accurate.

Cheers!


Edit: The topic of yeast estimators somewhat reminds me of something I learned a long time ago: GIGO which means Garbage In = Garbage Out.

 

Sigh.... Okay, I give up. Have a great weekend.

 

Again Al, with the absolutes! There have been many tense and tedious discussions on these two topics, and no consensus has been reached--very good arguments, both supported by data, on both sides of these issues.
Rehydration is not necessarily 'better', and skipping a secondary is not always 'best practice' and may actually be necessary in some circumstances. For the record, I rarely use dry yeast but when I do I always rehydrate, but then again I always use a secondary no matter the style or gravity or anything else.
I'm sensing that you are quickly swayed by things that you read, and very apt to repeat them as gospel.

 

The thread's 2nd response by HB42 answered OP's question.

What followed was eye candy.

 

Ouch. There's no doubt a secondary introduces oxidation, unless you're transfer is done in a CO2 environment - which most homebrewers don't do. There's not one pro-brewer alive that would ever recommend transferring an IPA (for instance) without a complete CO2 blanket. This has nothing do with reading - it's straight science.

 

What i am getting from Jack's theory is that the yeast mfgers (for whatever reason) do not provide a straight conversion of cells/ml/gravity. As an example:

Wyeast recommends pitching a smack pack into <1.060 wort, 5 gallons. The quick math on that shows the rate = to 0.35 million cells/mL/degree Plato. This would also work for a wort of say 1.020, or a rate of 1.05 million cells/mL/degree Plato.

Then, for some reason, they state a higher rate from 1.061-1.076, or 0.63-0.8. Why the jump in requirements from 1.059 to 1.061? No idea.

It might produce good beer, and maybe flavor differences are few. But it doesn't really make any sense as a general theory.

 

“It might produce good beer, and maybe flavor differences are few.” I can attest after making hundreds of batches that it does indeed produce good (I would use the word excellent) beer.

“But it doesn't really make any sense as a general theory.” I can’t disagree with that statement. I had a conversation with Dr. Chris White at the recent NHC on the topic of a pitch rate values. He confirmed my understanding that the George Fix assumption of 0.75 million cells/ml/°P was a conservative value for pitching ‘new’ yeast (he did state that it thought it was an appropriate value if you are re-pitching yeast).

One aspect that I do know is that the yeast calculator on the Mr. Malty website is not an accurate tool since it utilizes conservative assumptions (e.g., the George Fix pitch rate for re-pitching yeast) and also incorrect values (it uses a value of 97 billion yeast cells for a brand new package vs. the Wyeast value of 120 – 130 billion yeast cells).

Cheers!

 

I'm not quickly swayed, and I'm not religious so any gospel would just be a collection of words to me. However, I am pretty swayed towards the "don't do a secondary unless you have a specific reason that requires one" argument. It's not absolute, and it's true that some people do use secondaries in situations where I would not, and they also make good beer. But to me, the non-secondary argument makes the most sense for many commonly brewed beers. It also makes the most sense for advice to give noob, at least if you ask me. Noobs have to make a decision about what to do with their early/first batches of beer, and the complexities of the secondary debate will likely be a bit much for them to digest at this early and tender stage of their brewing career.

If there are any compelling reasons why I should recommend not rehydrating dry yeast, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I personally have been swayed towards the idea that rehydrating dry yeast is "better," with "better" indicating a more good choice than the alternative (non-rehydration). Of course this is noted within the context of this thread, so in other circumstances, a re-evaluation of the rehydration conundrum could well be in order.

As always, you are free to disagree all you like with anything I say. It's best if you give an outline of why you disagree, that way the wrongness of my sub-optimum advice will be self-evident, and no further debate or discussion would even be necessary, the new gospel having been so clearly established from that point onward.

 

I'm curious - if he answers "yes, there is an ideal pitching rate for new yeast," what does that prove? I don't think anybody knows with 100% certainty what the precise ideal pitching rate is for any strain or generation of yeast. His point is simply that assumptions that homebrewers typically operate under when making beer aren't necessarily accurate, and aren't really applicable in every situation. You can say that about a lot of parts of the homebrewing process.

Some people swear that you must use all-grain, a starter, and have precise temperature controls at every step of the process to make great beer. Other people medal at competitions brewing with extract, pitching straight from smack packs, and tossing their bucket in the basement for a couple of weeks. There are a lot of ways to go about making beer. Whatever works to satisfy one homebrewer's conscience that they are taking all the necessary steps to make great beer may not be necessary to another homebrewer. That doesn't make the second guy any less capable of making great beer.

 

It would 'prove' (for the sake of the current discussion) that any binary starter/no starter scheme is dumbed down.

Since you bring this up, I believe this does not happen often. See this poll...
http://beeradvocate.com/community/threads/no-starter-competition-results-poll.39568/#post-494993
If you read the comments, you'll see that there was only one true 'yes' answer in the poll.
Look, I actually don't care if someone chooses to make a starter or not. I don't have to drink their beer. But it does bother me if they make a choice after being (IMO) misinformed.

 

Im agree with Vikeman,of course there is neither a perfect procedure to brew beer nor a unique one, that´s why brewing is called to be an art at some point, but the less things you leave to chance the more likely your beer will be a good one.I think the art part comes to play an important role after a brewer has developed good skills in regards brewing process and care.IMO