Yeast starter cold crash

I don't know the exact number, but it was several times many years ago. Although it wasn't just 1L starters. Some were bigger, some smaller. I'd say slightly weak character malt/specialty malt flavor compared to what I expected for the styles was the main issue. Also, some subtle oxidized flavors in at least some of them - almost an extract twang-y quality. I'm not saying these were bad beers. But they got better to my palate when I started decanting. For me, decanting was one of those small step function increases in quality. Along with things like making starters, fermentation temperature control, and oxygenating with pure O2. Maybe not as significant as any of those things though.

Next round is on you. I will even drink a pint of one of your starter laden beers.

 

More than the sum of this forum? No. But he did win a lot of ribbons many years ago. It would be fascinating if there were statistics available regarding overall percentage of competition entries that use decanted vs full starters and on percentage of ribbon winners that use decanted vs full starters.

 

The true test of a home brewer's skill is to make amazing beer with a completely pitched 1L starter. You toyed with the concept when you were just a grasshopper. Unfortunately, you did not properly prepare the recipe for a starter dilution. You made false conclusions and developed a seemingly perpetual bias. Then you introduced more variables that can actually improve results which reinforced bias in a false manner.

Therefore, you are guilty of brewing by dubious concept and preconceived notions!

 

Stunning conclusion, reached via impeccable logic. You still owe me a beer.

 

Seeing how most people chill and decant because that is what they think they should do, the results wouldn't be interesting at all. Follow the herd!

 

I have substantially more important things to do with my beer than to send it to a person who wants to hate it.

 

No, they would be telling. Example: If 20% of overall entries used full pitched starters, but greater than 20% of winners used fully pitched starters, that would indicate it's better to pitch full starters. But if less than 20% of winners pitched full starters, that would indicate that decanting is better.

 

No it wouldn't. It could also indicate 80% of the herd can't brew for shit.

 

Are you suggesting some correlation (either positive or negative) between starter strategy selection and overall brewing skill (excluding starter strategy selection)? I would be surprised if that were the case, but in the absence of data, I guess its probability is non-zero.

 

I tend to pitch full starters, around 1l as well as I can pitch the yeast at full krausen. Also 1l is a good size in a 5l demijohn, makes for easy aeration by shaking. That's if I can't pitch top cropped yeast, which is the best way assuming the yeast is top cropping of course . Sadly I am not a man of leisure so being able to pitch fresh top cropped yeast is rare .

It's pretty easy to accommodate a 1l 1.040 starter into most recipes I've found. If it tastes off/oxidised/foul etc as some people seem to think then I'd suggest they are abusing their starter somehow and shouldn't use that yeast at all. I'd never reuse yeast from a beer that tasted wonky, same goes for a starter surely...it's just a little beer after all.


That said today I just hoyed two packs of non hydrated notty into a brown ale

 

I'm guessing you are the only person who cares either way.

 

It was your idea.

 

One thing is for sure. It has been proven many, many times a ribbon can be won with a beer made from a fully pitched starter. Winning ribbons is apparently your most important metric for what makes a great homebrew, yet you continue to dismiss the practice as sub-optimal.

 

No disagreement here.

I do think competition results, given large numbers of them, are the most unbiased indicator of beer quality, superior to a brewer's opinions about his own beers. The question is would those beers have been better or worse if their starters had been decanted? There are many other factors contributing to beer quality.

 

LOL. We're really discussing one factor among many. Given the impassioned rhetoric, sometimes it seems like what we're talking about is the most important thing in the world. But it's only the most important thing in the thread.

 

Well, at least you haven't let this thread damage your sense of humor.

Great beer can be brewed by pitching the entire starter. Great beer can be brewed by decanting the starter before pitching.

You should follow the practice/method that best suits your personal brewing goals.

Cheers!

 

That's your opinion. My opinion is I don't care what the BJCP says about beer. I don't make beer to please the BJCP. You do.

Consumers who vote with their wallets consider macro swill to be the best beer. I don't make beer to please them either.

Since we both (finally) appear to agree great beer can be made with either starter method, there is no point in arguing about which method is "better" further. However, it does seem obvious that making a great beer with a full starter requires a special talent that very few people can master.

Now, if you will pardon me, I'm late for my back waxing appointment.

 

Common sense...is not so common...If you're making a light pilsner using lager yeast...you should probably decant...If you're making an Ale with a good starter wort...decant or not is probably not going to make much of a difference