Slap pack question

If that question is to me, my answer is yes and no. It encourages the use of yeast nutrient by putting them right in the pack, but it also is dishonest about healthy pitching rates. A 75 day old pack will struggle in 5 gallons of 1.060 wort. It will definitely make beer and potentially even good beer, but you're putting yourself at unnecessary risk of infection from a slow start and unwanted yeast byproducts due from stressed and overworked yeast.

 

yeah, I don't think anyone disagrees with you here.
but the smack pack is not worthless, it isn't a package of sugar, it does improve the health of the yeast prior to pitching and it is not just marketing bs. and I am a cynic.

I think Wyeast recommends a starter for 5 gallons if the gravity is over 1045 or something, don't quote me on that. but they don't claim that the smack pack has some magical ability to make super yeast or that it works the same as a proper starter.

I also think the risk from pitching one ordinary package of wyeast into a 1060 wort is overstated. a starter is nice but homebrewers have been making award winning beers for decades without the benefit of a starter. that's just me.

Cheers.

 

If anyone has evidence that dumping zinc, or any other undisclosed nutrients, into a pack of yeast a few hours before pitching (as opposed to adding it to the beer wort) confers an advantage (makes better beer), I'd like to see it.

Yeast are always keenly aware of their environment. You can talk about "vital nutrients" all you want, but what will the yeast do with those nutrients while still in the smack pack? They can't propagate in their current environment (the smack pack). And they have no way of knowing that they are about to be dumped into a large volume, food-rich environment, so I submit they are not gearing up for propagation. So what's the mechanism that confers an advantage?

 

Please list the ingredients contained in the inner pouch, and tell us the benefit of adding each one to the smack pack environment, as opposed to the starter or beer wort environment. Thanks.

 

So, Wyeast is adding zinc and other nutrients to their nutrient pack simply for Marketing Hype?

That is a ludicrous idea.

Cheers!

 

"I don't know" would have sufficed.

 

but that's not your argument. your claim that I am refuting is that a smack pack is marketing hype. if adding the nutrient to yeast that is in the smack pack is no different then adding the nutrient to the wort, haven't you acknowledged that the smack pack is useful and therefore not just hype?

wyeast themselves state that the activator is not even needed but is helpful. they couldn't be more open about this.

the smack pack is primarily intended to verify that the yeast are viable and minimize lag time. both good things to know.
Cheers.

 

If there's zinc in the pouch, then fine, yeast certainly need it. But it could be added directly to the wort. My problem with the claims is that it "jump starts" the yeast in some way that wouldn't happen in the wort. I am assuming proper nutrients in the wort, which is a best practice IMO.

I agree that if the nutrient pack contains zinc, and if the brewer is not adding zinc to the wort, then there's a benefit. But I still think the "jump start" claim is nonsense. aka Marketing Hype.

I think they could be more open, by disclosing what's in the pouch. And if zinc is the magic ingredient, they could be more open by deleting the "jump start" claim. Props to them for saying it's not needed. But they say/imply that you'll get better results if you use it. Where's the data? This is what I call Marketing Hype.

Regarding yeast viability, yes it's good to know. I've never bought a pack or vial of yeast that didn't have some viable yeast (i.e. wouldn't have passed a smack pack test), but it's possible. I acknowledged that benefit in my first post IIRC. But without some information and data, I'm not buying the lag time claim and/or the tangible benefit of the "slight" lag time improvement if there is one.

FWIW, I probably use more Wyeast yeast than any other brand. I have no problem with the yeast itself.