No more making starters

Shazam! Jack, are you saying you believe 5.3 million cells per ml is about right for a 12P wort? If so, that's ~0.442M per ml per degree P. I think that's generally low for best results with most styles, but if that's your baseline, at least we'll have a reference point for future discussions.

 

It seems that there are some BAs who have reading comprehension problems?

In an above post I quoted information that was written by Jamil Zainasheff. I would encourage folks who have questions concerning what Jamil Zainasheff has written to send an e-mail (or make a phone call) and discuss matters with him directly.

Cheers!

P.S. Some folks may be interested in knowing that the same information I quoted from an article also appears in the FAQ on the Mr. Malty website:

“According to both White Labs and Wyeast, a White Labs Pitchable Yeast vial and a Wyeast ACTIVATORTM 125 XL Smack Pack both contain an average of 100 billion cells and are enough to pitch directly into 5 US gallons (18.9 liters) of an ale wort at 1.048 SG (12°P). This is a pitching rate of 5.3 million cells per milliliter, which is close to the pitching rate many professional breweries begin with when starting a new pitch of ale yeast. This rate works well because the health and vitality of fresh laboratory cultured yeast are superior to yeast harvested from normal fermentation. Both companies also concur that higher gravity worts, especially once they exceed a specific gravity of 1.060 (15°P), larger wort volumes, and lager fermentations all require higher pitching rates (or a starter) for optimum results.”

 

Usually, when someone quotes an authority, they do so because they believe something to be true. Otherwise, why quote it, unless you also state that you don't believe it, and why you don't? I thought you had finally decided to stop avoiding the question. My reading comprehension if fine. But I appreciate your concern.

 

@mclaughlindw4 posted: "What I found most interesting about the response was his differentiating lab grown yeast from re-pitching. And saying the calulators are for re-pitching. I hadnt't read that anywhere before, but I haven't read the yeast book either."

I responded to mclaughlindw4 with information on how he can download an article entitled Making a Starter and I provided an extract which discussed the aspect of: "...differentiating lab grown yeast from re-pitching."

In that extract there was discussion of: "This rate works well because the health and vitality of fresh laboratory cultured yeast are superior to yeast harvested from normal fermentation."

Cheers!

 

While I agree its a little low, its pretty close to the .5M/mL/*P that I like for most ales. Increasing it to .75M/mL/*P like you say you prefer will lower ester profiles, which is fine but I like more clearly pronounced esters. Then, for lagers most people say double your ale pitch which for me puts it at 1M/mL/*P which is right around industry standard as far as I know.

Re: the OP's question. The way I understand this new product is that it is like a mini starter in the pack. So, while the cell count would be comparable to the old style, the viability and vitality would be increased, which would reduce (but probably not eliminate) the need for a starter. If thats true, then it makes sense that they would advertise it that way, though starters will still probably be best practice.

 

According to his calculator, he recommends pitching 168 billion cells for this wort. You need to get your 5g wort down to 1.028 for "no starter required." This seems like a pretty egregious discrepancy. Does anyone have an explanation? Simple typo in the article?

 

The part of the article quoted is where Jamil says "According to Wyest and White Labs..." He goes on to make a different recommendation, which is what's in his calculator. His calculator actually uses a pitch rate. The manufacturer recommendations do not use a pitch rate at all, unless (I suppose) you construct a variable 'rate' curve, where the rate itself (cells per vol per gravity) changes with gravity (counting gravity twice) and has a goofy step function in it where you jump from the binary nonsense of 'starter' to 'no starter' (regardless of yeast age) at 1.060. Actually, you'd need a separate rube goldberg curve for each possible age, since a 4 month old yeast pack is apparently perfect for the exact same wort as a pack made yesterday (even though they won't both contain the same number of viable cells).

Laid bare this way, it's easy to see why the dumbed down advice from the manufacturers perhaps makes things simpler for the user, but is not actually a pitch rate at all and therefore (if pitch rate is important) doesn't actually serve the customer well.

 

Indeed. But if Wyeast and White labs gave out more logical and precise advice, then forums like this one would serve no purpose. Two thumbs up to the yeast manufacturers!

 

I see. This really is central to the dialogue that you and Jack always explore when the topic of starters comes up. There is an inherent logic to the pitching rate approach, but if many people use the manufacturers rule of thumb and are happy with the results, who am I to say they're wrong. I continue to use the mrmalty approach despite numerous homebrewers' claims that it is conservative (i.e, bigger pitches than needed). I do it only because I am happy with the results.

 

“I continue to use the mrmalty approach despite numerous homebrewers' claims that it is conservative (i.e, bigger pitches than needed). I do it only because I am happy with the results.”

Peter, that should indeed be the number one consideration for you.

Just two general comments which may or may not apply to you:

· By pitching per the amounts suggested by the Mr. Malty yeast calculator there may very well be flavor impacts. See the quote from Dave Logsdon below.

· The Mr. Malty yeast calculator does indeed result in a yeast amount larger than is necessary to conduct a healthy fermentation when using smack-packs or vials.

“There is also an upper limit to how much yeast you should add. Logsdon says, “I try to stay within 20 percent of my ideal pitch rate and I prefer to slightly under pitch rather than over pitch. This causes more cell growth, more esters and better yeast health. Over pitching causes other problems with beer flavor, such as a lack of esters.

Changes in the flavor profile are noticeable when the pitch rates are as little as 20 percent over the recommended amount.”


Cheers!


Jack

 

There are. Pitching per the Mr. Malty calculator is widely known to cause medals and ribbons.

 

HaHa!

I all depends on what you like. If you are looking for esters, try pitching less yeast. If you want more, try pitching more. I feel like the rate-based calculators like the mrmalty calculator have helped a lot of brewers, and that is commendable, but perhaps over-reliance has also prevented some of us from exploring the "beerspace" and finding our truest groove.

mmm... cosmic metaphors make me thirsty

 

“I all depends on what you like.” Peter, I agree.

In my post I specifically stated: “By pitching per the amounts suggested by the Mr. Malty yeast calculator there may very well be flavor impacts.”

I chose to use the word “may” vs. the correct term of “will” to reflect the aspect of “depends on what you like”.

I accept the possibility that producing a ‘cleaner’ beer may be more suitable to you.

Cheers!

Jack

 

I like to use the Yeast Calc one. The slidey thing on the bottom of Mr. Malty pisses me off for some reason. and I can look at the two different stir plate calculations and shoot for the middle which I enjoy.

 

So, here's a question. People keep talking about increased shelf-life...but this is taken directly from the WL site:

Will the new packaging impact the shelf life of the yeast?
Because the PurePitch packaging is breathable, CO2 pressure is reduced, improving the viability of the yeast over time. We hope to be able to extend the recommended best before date on our products, but are still conducting tests to validate any extended shelf life benefits due to our new packaging. We hope to have more information soon.

So, if I read that correctly, they have no idea whether it will actually lead to extended shelf-life. Right?

Call me a skeptic but WL will benefit most from extended shelf-life, and are coincidentally the very people making this determination. I mean, you could basically choose a best-buy date of pretty much anything, because the actual numbers would be difficult to ascertain outside of a lab setting.

Or am I missing something?

 

The trustworthiness of the brand comes into play. I don't expect them to give us a bold faced lie to sell more. And if thats their goal, then a shorter 'best by' date would be more profitable because LHBS would need to continue to restock fresher yeast. People will buy the yeast regardless, I think.

 

After I wrote that I realized the subject has been touched upon a bit already.

WL already claims that you don't "need" to make a starter under 1.060 or unless the vial is past it's "Best By" date. This is already counter to accepted methodology, and I don't think it's entirely implausible that WL would continue to put forth similar recommendations.

I trust WL to include a clean strain of the yeast on the label...but that's as far as I think I can go based on their recommendations.

 

There seems to be continuing discussion about White Labs yeast.

@michaeltrego previously posted: “In Chris White's interview on BeerSmith, he said their target is still 100B cells, but they try to squeeze in a little more if they can. So I think your starter strategies should remain the same. An interesting benefit they have seen with the new packaging and process is that shelf life has increased. He mentioned that the vials would drop to about 50% viability after about 4 months, whereas the new flexpack would drop to 50% after about 6-8 months. The starter calculators will need to take that into account going forward.”

Below is a link to the Beersmith podcast discussion with Dr. Chris White.

Michael did a good job summarizing the discussion of shelf life of the present day vial package and the new FlexCell package.

What Dr. Chris White stated concerning the vial is that at 4 months the yeast viability is greater than 50%. So, a vial which starts out at a nominal value of 100 billion cells will have > 50 billion viable yeast cells at the 4 month mark. The Mr. Malty Yeast Calculator assumes that 21 billion yeast cells per 30 day time-period die for the first 4 months. So, if you assume a nominal value of 100 billion cells to begin with then after 120 days (roughly 4 months) the number of viable yeast cells would be 16 billion yeast cells. Needless to say but the values provided by the Mr. Malty Yeast Calculator is significantly less than what actually exists within the vial; there is a BIG difference between 16 billion cells and > 50 billion cells. The percentage change between 16 billion and 50 billion is 212.5%.

Dr. Chris White indicates that testing to date indicates that the FlexCell packs will have > 50% viability with timeframes of 6-8 months. It seems that Dr. Chris White would prefer continued testing before they put on the FlexCell packages a best by timeframe like 6 or 8 months.

There is lots of other good discussion on the podcast which is about 30 minutes long. I would encourage other BAs to watch/listen to this podcast.

Cheers!

http://beersmith.com/blog/2014/08/11/yeast-with-dr-chris-white-from-white-labs-beersmith-podcast-86/

 

From what I've read about the new WL PurePitch packs (they sent us some ads at work), they are meant to be a more sanitary method of packaging than the old vials, since they are propagated in the pack rather than being transferred from another vessel into the vials. They may give you better viability, but I don't think that's gonna change the actual amount of cells in a fresh pack much. I'd still make a starter unless your beer is pretty low alcohol.

 

“They may give you better viability,…” In the Beersmith podcast, Dr. Chris White made mention that the ability of the FlexCell to permit CO2 to escape results in the improved viability of this package format vs. the vial.

Cheers!