Yeast Starter v. 2 packs

With a starter, the yeast will already be toiling away before pitching, resulting is a shorter lag time. You can also control the size of the pitch - build a starter that's bigger than 2 packs, for example. Also, you get some peace of mind knowing that it's healthy (not that that's frequently an issue).

That said, just flip a coin!

 

$6.50 vs $13
Proper pitch rate vs. not enough cells

 

I think a lot of us fall into a category of trying to repitch healthy yeast and save a few bucks along the way. A starter wins on cost but you have to put some time into it.

 

When I make strong beer I pitch 2 packs of yeast. There is nothing wrong with making a starter I am just too lazy.

 

http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php
http://www.brewersfriend.com/2012/11/07/yeast-pitch-rates-explained/

Note that a Wyeast smackpack's count of viable yeast decreases over time. So you're not really pitching 200 billion cells, which is already low for a big beer, from the packs that were manufactured last month. Making starters isn't really all that difficult or time consuming...actually kind of fun, it gets me pumped up for the brew day. Learning how to do them and learning about why to do them has taught me a lot about yeast, which at the end of the day is one of the most crucial components of the finished product. I made tasty beers before I started making starters, but my beers have definitely improved since.

For all the time we spend zeroing in on malt bills and tweaking hop schedules, I find it strange that some folks seem to treat the yeast as an afterthought. If I'm going to spend hours and hours prepping, brewing, and cleaning, then I'm totally fine with spending a little extra time a couple of days in advance to make sure that I have the right amount of healthy yeast so that the beer that I'm putting all that effort into has a clean, healthy fermentation (at proper temperatures).

 

The first thing you need to figure out is how many estimated cells you want to pitch in your wort of a given gravity and volume. After that, if the amount of estimated cells (affected by age of the yeast) in two packages is enough, then pitching two packs instead of making a starter is a viable option. I have done it a couple times.

The Mr. Malty and YeastCalc calculators can help with this.

 

The reason for that is likely that malt needs preparation (mash, etc) and the malt bill and hop schedule are perceived to have a far more profound impact on the finished beer than yeast. Contrast that with yeast which, it can be argued, comes ready to go (I'm not saying that's the best way to use it, only that, in a pinch, it will work without a starter and you'll likely get something drinkable).

 

Oh, I get that...like I said, I made plenty of good beers before I started making yeast starters, and I'm not suggesting that everybody has to make starters in order to make good beers (even better than drinkable beers). In my experience, my beers have gotten better, though, with a little extra effort. My post was more of an observation that it seems interesting to me that AG brewers, who seem by nature to be a very detail oriented crowd, are willing to go through all that effort only to pitch yeast that in all likelihood will not be ready for optimal fermentation conditions. You can get good without getting optimal, sure, but I'm trying to create optimal conditions for all aspects of my process. Otherwise, I'd just buy 100% of my beer from pros who do strive to create optimal conditions.

 

Yeast starters allow you to use less $ worth of yeast than two packs would, even at (local) dry verses liquid costs. Liquid yeast also comes in far more varieties. I always make a starter with liquid yeast, FWIW. Sometimes I just rehydrate with dry.

 

I *know* the wyeast smack packs come with yeast nutrient, but, I find for high gravity worts, throwing some yeast nutrient in in the last 15 minutes of your boil is helpful.

 

I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old with a 3rd showing up any day now. Even with that chaos, I still do starters. The easiest is to plan a series of beers that you can use the same yeast for and then just pitch onto the cake of the previous beer. That way you only make one starter and get 3 - 5 beers. You also get the benefit of knowing your yeast is alive and kicking and you save some coin.

 

I just toss in a little yeast nutrient to every boil to be sure. Yeast nutrient is cheep.

 

Get a stir plate and making starters becomes the lazyman's no-brainer way to go to kickstarting your yeast.

I use mine all the time and get short lag/crazy fermentation with one smack pack....

 

I use two wyeast packs for nearly every brew, and I also make starters for nearly every beer. I use yeastcalc for required cell counts and viability, and I still make starters. I do have a problem with never making session beers, everything starts above 1.060. two days and a litre of starter wort, I've been happier with my results since paying a lot of attention to my yeast that ever before.

 

While it clearly works for you (and why wouldn't it? ), two packs and a starter is redundant. Why would you choose to do this instead of just making a bigger starter with one pack? The end result should be virtually identical.

 

I wouldn't recommend it for every starter, but sometimes, by using two packs, you can do single step starter, instead of a stepped-up starter with a single pack. IOW, it can save some time if you are pressed for it. And there are limits to how big you can go with that single pack in a single step.

 

If you start doing lagers, you would need 4 packs for a 1.050 OG 5 gallon batch (well, 3.5 packs). Starters on a stir plate are a big savings for this case.

 

(no comment! )