Wyeast 3789...Will I end up pitching whole starter?

I have read where folks have opined that this could happen. I have brewed with 3789 twice in the past and in both instances I have made starters. My personal practice is to pitch my starters at high krausen (about 18 hours after making the starter) so I pitch the entire contents. Both of those beer came out very funky (i.e., lots of barnyard flavors).

I will be brewing with 3789 in a week or so and I will not be making a starter this time; sort of an 'experiment' to see if these yeast behaves differently if a starter is not made.

I don't know the details here but as I related above heretofore I have always pitched the entire starter since that is what I do as a matter of practice.

Good luck with your 3789 beer!

Cheers!

 

There are some folks who have the opinion that the wort (beer) of the yeast starter will negatively impact the flavor profile of the finished beer. Needless to say but I personally do not buy into that. As a homebrewer you get to decide what 'works' in your homebrewery (just like I do in mine).

As is mine for my homebrewing. Perhaps you have 'answered' your own question here.

Well, take the following input with a grain of salt. When I personally homebrew with honey (which is infrequently) I add the honey at the end of boil. I do this out of concern that the honey may contain wild yeast which could impact the beer. What is the chance of getting a wild yeast 'infection' from honey? I would suppose it would depend on the particular batch of honey? I would not exactly discourage you from making additions of honey during fermentation but I will most definitely not encourage it either. You are likely to hear/read opinions on both sides of this matter. I suppose I would pseudo quote Dirty Harry here: "Do you feel lucky...?"

Cheers!

P.S. I am also not specifically discouraging you from making a starter for your beer. I have made starters for both of my previous batches of 3789 beers (sort of clones of Orval). I am just trying something different for my upcoming 3789 beer.

 

Adding honey to the fermenter carries a very low risk of infection. Practically zero, as proven not only by many home brewers, but also by mead makers, who have made countless batches of mead without pasteurizing.

That said, IMO it doesn't eliminate the need for a starter. If anything it might increase the need for a starter, because you're throwing them a curveball with the late sugar addition.

 

@Scumbag81 posted in a past thread:

“One of two accidentally infected beers I've brewed had honey added to the fermenter. I've switched to adding honey at flameout.”

https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/honey-in-beer-sanitation.404893/#post-4675200

Cheers!

 

I don't doubt that @Scumbag81's batch was infected. It could even have been due to something that came along with the honey. But even if so, one (or a few) in many thousands (hundreds of thousands?) is very low risk. Practically zero.

 

But non-zero.

I will repeat what I posted above: "Do you feel lucky...?"

Cheers!

 

Maybe overemphasizing this risk?

 

Peter, I think my message to @redgorillabreath was pretty clear:

"Well, take the following input with a grain of salt. When I personally homebrew with honey (which is infrequently) I add the honey at the end of boil. I do this out of concern that the honey may contain wild yeast which could impact the beer. What is the chance of getting a wild yeast 'infection' from honey? I would suppose it would depend on the particular batch of honey? I would not exactly discourage you from making additions of honey during fermentation but I will most definitely not encourage it either. You are likely to hear/read opinions on both sides of this matter. I suppose I would pseudo quote Dirty Harry here: "Do you feel lucky...?"

And as I stated above he did indeed read other opinions on this matter.

Feel free to offer your opinion here if you are so inclined.

Cheers!


P.S. In risk management they consider two aspects:

· What is the likelihood of the risk occurring?

· What are the consequences if the risk occurred?

I can’t speak for you but the consequences of an infected batch do not warrant me adding honey during fermentation. You can do what you want here.

 

Jack, I did offer you my opinion already, but to put it in your terms, it is my opinion that your concerns for the consequences are out of balance with the low likelihood of infection. If you are now satisfied that I am right and your are wrong, feel free to stop reading and wave the white flag

You could flip this around. What are the consequences of heat pasteurizing (or boiling your honey). What is the likelihood of risk? In this case, the risk is that you will not make the best mead or beer possible, and the likelihood is 100%. (This statement is a bit tricky as it assumes the you agree that the best mead possible is the one that has more aromatic qualities (apparently not everyone does, but bear with me).

If you combine the ideas, it boils down to (ha ha) whether you care about the aromatics more than you care about the infection risk. Probably some triangle testing would help you here. But it's a personal decision and my guess is only those folks who frequently brew with honey or make mead and have done it both ways have enough data points to develop an informed opinion. With only about a dozen personal experiences and none that have come through triangle testing, I confess that my opinion is not informed by my own sensory perceptions but by those of others (and not those folks in Washington that I hyperlinked above).

This idea of developing an opinion that is informed by experience probably doesn't happen with some of the bigger risks in life. Like should we develop a plan for avoiding asteroid collisions? Let's wait and see what it feels like. Good thing an infected batch is not the end of the world. I say live a little! You never know when that asteroid will hit.

 

Peter, I will continue to add my honey at the end of boil.

Enjoy your aromatics!!

 

Anybody whirlpool honey?...seems like the best of both worlds. 10 min @ 160-170*F should leave some aromatics and essentially pasteurize...at least it works for apple beverages

Apologies to OP for going off on a tangent

 

I have see some info to suggest honey can be treated at 145F for 10 minutes as a good compromise to sanitation and volatilizations concerns.

 

For anyone interested in this info on the "compromise:" http://www.bjcp.org/mead/analysis.html

Scroll down to the section on sanitation (yes, it is a mead article, but it would be easy to accomplish this in a beer).

“Dr. White (presumably JW White, not Chris White) has noted that honey heated at 145 F for thirty minutes will be free of yeast contamination. The actual time required to kill yeast is 22 minutes at 140 F, and drops well below 5 minutes at 150 F and above. Using temps in the 145 F range will preserve many of the aroma compounds, and cuts down on time, fuel usage and the hazards of dealing with large volumes of boiling-hot concentrated sugar water.”​

After seeing that link I posted earlier (Washington triangle tasting), it does make me wonder if I would notice the difference. Those folks noticed the aromatic difference but preferred to drink the mead that had been heat sanitized. So plus one point for team dogma, in that heating matters to aroma, and minus one point for the same team, in that the strongest aroma may not lead to the more preferable beverage. A lot of this stuff boils down to personal perceptions.

 

Something to consider... Mead contains a whole lot more honey than a typical beer with honey, so there are more honey aromatics. With beer, the honey aromatics are elusive. As an occasional mead maker and drinker, I can see how some could prefer something less than maximum aromatics, especially with high ABV meads . But I don't think I've ever had a beer made with honey where I found the honey aromatics to be too strong. And I don't think I've ever heard of any home brewers complain about too much honey aroma. Often the trick with honey beers is getting noticeable honey aroma/flavor while not making a thin mead-like beer.

 

I agree. And the type of honey could matter. Something pungent like a Buckwheat honey might afford to be tamed by heating in a mead but maybe stands out better (i.e. In a good way) a braggot without heating. I'm venturing into speculative territory because I'm going to make a braggot with Buckwheat honey soon and do not plan to heat pasteurize