Yeast Starter

Don't bother next time, the point of starters is to reproduce healthy active yeast - that's the only purpose. The liquor in a starter usually tastes and smells pretty bad. It does not add a beneficial flavor. As a matter of fact, we typically try to decant the liquid above the settled yeast if possible particularly on larger starter volumes.

 

I've been reading up on starters a lot lately as my next batch will be my first one with a starter and I've noticed that mrmalty is considerably more conservative than almost every source I've read. They recommend such larger starters than other sites. But if you ask the question in a web forum it's universally excepted as the one source to use. I've no experience so i can't say who's right or not, but just an observation.

 

He knows his shit. He is spouting out a lot of the stuff that we homebrewers read in the White/Zainasheff book "Yeast". I think the book really is required reading for homebrewers.

 

“But if you ask the question in a web forum it's universally accepted as the one source to use.” Well, it is not “universally accepted” by me.

Look, if you want to go the conservative route than Mr. Malty is the way to go. It is very difficult to argue that a BIG starter is a good idea. I can tell you that I have been making starters a loooooog time (since 1995) and by following the yeast vendor’s recommendations I have consistently made very good beer. Would my beers be ‘more better’ if I followed the recommendations of Mr. Malty? I very highly doubt it.

Each homebrewer needs to make up their own mind on how big of a starter to make. It cannot be stated that Mr. Malty is ‘wrong’. I will simply state that Mr. Malty is extremely conservative and that you can consistently make good beers making starters as per the yeast vendor’s suggestions.

Cheers!

 

Just to be clear I'm not arguing with you because, like I've said, I've never even made a starter. I just found it interesting that what seems to be the most extreme position is also the most recommended position.

 

I am just going to assume that we agree that there are many compounds that yeasts can produce that we don't want them to produce. Ale yeast loves to ferment at 90F. But if we brew the beer at that temperature it produces many of those off flavors. If we lower the temperature, the yeasts don't "like" it as much but they produce fewer off flavors. In order to ensure the yeasts complete their job in the less-than-ideal environment we use lots of them and make sure they have enough oxygen at the start of the fermentation process (I say fermentation "process" because we know that they are actually respirating while they have O2). If we don't do these things we may get a slowed or incomplete fermentation, and that is associated with other off flavors.

If you are getting vigorous fermentations that complete quickly at the correct temperature then I would say that there is no reason for you to pitch using a larger starter. However, if you are fermenting at 72F a beer with yeast that produces the best flavors at 65F or your fermentations are taking two extra weeks to complete, then my guess is that, while you think you produce very good beers, there are others that will not find them so good. I'm not implying the second. It's just that there are people who, for instance, cannot detect phenolic flavors in beer. They are biologically not able to perceive them. There are also individual differences in our sensory thresholds on compounds like diacetyl and acetyl-aldehyde Etc. Why waste time and money reducing compounds that you can't detect? But based on the research, we know what causes them to be present in larger amounts. We also know, based on their research that using an adequate starter will help reduce the presence of these compounds.

 

I think WHICH yeast you choose is probably the biggest factor along with the manufacture/best by date. I wouldn't think of using a couple of English yeasts without making a massive starter...just from experience.

 

“Just to be clear I'm not arguing with you …” And to be clear back at you, it was not my intent to argue with you either. I was just trying to accomplish two things:

· Make it perfectly clear that Mr. Malty is not “universally accepted”. I have never accepted Mr. Malty since I have had consistently good results just by making starters per the yeast vendor’s recommendations.

· Strongly suggest that the yeast vendor’s know what they are talking about and that if you make yeast starters per their recommendations good beer will result.

Permit me to discuss this topic a bit longer. I have no idea when the Mr. Malty website became available but I had been homebrewing for a looooong time before I found out about it. I had already made lots and lots of yeast starters (per the yeast vendor’s directions) and made lots and lots of very good beer. Consequently I personally have never really used the yeast calculator in making my homebrews. I have gone to the site many, many times for curiosity reasons. Again, I cannot argue that BIG starters are not a good thing but I can argue that if you make yeast starters as per Wyeast and White Labs directions that very good beer will result.

Cheers!

 

Just in case you ‘care’ I am fully capable of tasting diacetyl, phenolics and slew of other off flavors that can result from poor yeast management.

You state: “an adequate starter will help reduce the presence of these compounds.”

To prove that I can be a ‘broken record’: an “adequate starter” can be made by simply following the directions that Wyeast and White Labs provide on making starters.

Cheers!

 

Probably not what you want to hear, but you may not get much yeast growth from this second 'step'. That's because your first step was probably mostly done. So when you combined into the second step (instead of decanting and pitching into a bigger step), you were effectively pitching into a very low gravity starter (1/2 strength). Yeast take a look around to see what kind of environment they are in before they propagate. If the environment has some sugars, but not enough to support growth, they'll just eat, but not make more cells. There's some good reading at the YeastCalc site on inoculation rates, wort gravities, step sizes, etc....

http://www.yeastcalc.com/careandfeeding.html

 

It's not meant as an insult to suggest that different people have different taste threshholds for various compounds.

If you read "Yeast" you'll see many tables showing different levels of these compounds based on pitching rates and other factors. Since Chris White wrote this book (along with Jamil Zainesheff) I'd suggest it is the long version of White Labs' recommendations.

 

The yeast you have hasn't necessarily been damaged, and I don't really think you need to start over. You just probably didn't get much growth. What I would probably do is cold crash, decant most of the liquid, and pitch the remaining slurry into a proper sized starter (sized per Mr. Malty or whatever reference you like).

 

Yep.

 

I try to plan for at least 24 hours to cold crash a starter. It will vary from strain to strain, temp of fridge, and probably other factors though.

Edit: It's not stil active is it, i.e. yeast rising to the surface or making significant amounts of little bubbles at the surface?