| |
Main
Date: 22 Oct 2006 22:30:05
From: Tony M
Subject: starter or not to starter?
|
I'm making my first batch this weekend, a Sierra Navada clone with a White
Labs California Ale 001 pitchable tube. Should I make a starter with this
yeast or is it really 100% pitchable as advertised. BTW it's going to ba a 5
gal batch with these ingredients:6 lbs of light malt extract, 1 lb. of
Specialty grains, 2 oz Perle bittering hops, 2 oz Cascade aroma hops, Grain
bag, priming sugar, and the White Labs yeast mentioned earlier.
Thanks (and thanks again for everyone's help on my brew pot delima.)
Tony
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 08:14:04
From: Kasper Malmberg
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
There is a great yeast pitching calculator on mrmalty.com
You'll be suprised of how much yeast is needed, to get a really good
fermentation. And Mr. Malty (aka, Jamil Zainasheff) know what he is
talking about. :-)
Cheers
Kasper
Denmark
Tony M skrev:
> I'm making my first batch this weekend, a Sierra Navada clone with a White
> Labs California Ale 001 pitchable tube. Should I make a starter with this
> yeast or is it really 100% pitchable as advertised. BTW it's going to ba a 5
> gal batch with these ingredients:6 lbs of light malt extract, 1 lb. of
> Specialty grains, 2 oz Perle bittering hops, 2 oz Cascade aroma hops, Grain
> bag, priming sugar, and the White Labs yeast mentioned earlier.
> Thanks (and thanks again for everyone's help on my brew pot delima.)
> Tony
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 13:56:58
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
Tony M <fakeemail@null.com > wrote:
> I'm making my first batch this weekend, a Sierra Navada clone with a White
> Labs California Ale 001 pitchable tube. Should I make a starter with this
> yeast or is it really 100% pitchable as advertised. BTW it's going to ba a 5
> gal batch with these ingredients:6 lbs of light malt extract, 1 lb. of
> Specialty grains, 2 oz Perle bittering hops, 2 oz Cascade aroma hops, Grain
> bag, priming sugar, and the White Labs yeast mentioned earlier.
> Thanks (and thanks again for everyone's help on my brew pot delima.)
> Tony
Making a simple pint / 500 mL starter for small beers is simple. After
yo do it once you'l see how simple it is. Make one for *every* batch
of beer you brew. You'll need/want bigger starters for bigger beers
and lagers, but that's another story.
howtobrew.com has a decent section on making starters (sec. 6.5).
-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 06:31:17
From:
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
I guess they *are* technically pitchable, but most don't recommend
it... the rate is well below what's recommended.
Try making a pint starter (1/3 to 1/2 cup of DME boiled in 2 cups
water). Cool to room temp, aerate well, and pitch your yeast. Do this a
day or two before you brew.
Hope that helps.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 15:29:31
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On 23 2006 06:31:17 -0700, <tkcbb77@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> I guess they *are* technically pitchable, but most don't recommend
> it... the rate is well below what's recommended.
Just to expand on that thought with some random mumblings...
Conveniently, WhiteLabs/WYeast don't define what "pitchable" means when they
claim that the tubes/packs are pitchable. IMO, they are not.
Standard brewing industry recommendation says that you want around 180
billion cells for an average gravity 5 gallon batch. The WL tubes contain
around 50 billion cells. IE, about 1/4 of the amount. The new WYeast packs
contain around 100 billion cells after swelling. IE, about 1/2 of the amount.
If you do everything else right, don't skimp on your sanitation/aeration (more
difficult than it sounds), have good temperature control, and have a little
luck, it's possible to pitch a tube/pack directly and never have problems.
However, most homebrewers (especially beginners) are notoriously bad about
aeration, don't have the best sanitation practices, and lack temp control.
Making a starter first will improve the consistency of your results by making
the yeast more forgiving of problems in other areas of your brewing. By not
making a starter you are really putting the pressure on yourself to get
everything else perfect. Especially as a beginner, this is not something
you should be doing. At this stage you're just learning how the process
works, you don't want to put added pressure on yourself to get it all
exactly right.
I could not count the number of times I've seen people asking on here why
their beer is either stuck, infected, or under performing (poor attenuation)
that will lead back to not having healthy yeast (usually due to pitching
without a starter).
Yes, some people will report good results with pitching the tubes/packs
directly, but they are walking on a very thin line between success and
failure. Thinner than many homebrewers will be able to get away with.
Using a starter makes it easier to brew good beer, and will probably improve
the consistency of your results over time.
OK, I'm done preaching. ;)
> Try making a pint starter (1/3 to 1/2 cup of DME boiled in 2 cups
> water). Cool to room temp, aerate well, and pitch your yeast. Do this a
> day or two before you brew.
I prefer a liter (basically a queart) starter. I think a pint starter is
a little small.
Although, I would definitely recommend that beginners stick to dry yeast.
There is nothing wrong with using it, it will make beer of just as high
quality as liquid yeast, and is much easier to use. The only disadvantage
is that there is a limited number of "specialty" strains available in
dry form. That's usually not a big deal for a beginner though. Not many
brewers start out trying to win a competition with their authentic
Belgian Wit.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 15:39:56
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On 23 2006 15:29:31 GMT, <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> I prefer a liter (basically a queart) starter. I think a pint starter is
> a little small.
That should be "quart" above.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 09:56:52
From: Jim
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
tkcbb77@hotmail.com wrote on 10/23/2006 9:31 AM:
> I guess they *are* technically pitchable, but most don't recommend
> it... the rate is well below what's recommended.
>
> Try making a pint starter (1/3 to 1/2 cup of DME boiled in 2 cups
> water). Cool to room temp, aerate well, and pitch your yeast. Do this a
> day or two before you brew.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
I dont see the problems or confusion people are talking about with
liquid yeast. I have never had a problem pitching liquid yeast directly.
As long as your temps are in line, I see no problem. I do the same with
dry yeast.
Jim
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 14:40:25
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
Jim <Jim@no.com > wrote:
> tkcbb77@hotmail.com wrote on 10/23/2006 9:31 AM:
>> I guess they *are* technically pitchable, but most don't recommend
>> it... the rate is well below what's recommended.
>>
>> Try making a pint starter (1/3 to 1/2 cup of DME boiled in 2 cups
>> water). Cool to room temp, aerate well, and pitch your yeast. Do this a
>> day or two before you brew.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
> I dont see the problems or confusion people are talking about with
> liquid yeast. I have never had a problem pitching liquid yeast directly.
> As long as your temps are in line, I see no problem. I do the same with
> dry yeast.
>
> Jim
Ive done side-by-side 1.060 beers with a starter and one without
twice, and both times the non-starter batch finished around 1.020 and
the starter-pitched beer finished around 1.010, where it's supposed to
be.
That's a good enough indicator for me (per my processes) that a
starter is *required* for me to get my beers down to the FG range I'm
shooting for, esp. for larger beers. Plus, it's so easy to do, I can't
see a reason not to.
-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 15:44:32
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On Mon, 23 2006 14:40:25 GMT, <syborg@earthlink.net > wrote:
> Ive done side-by-side 1.060 beers with a starter and one without
> twice, and both times the non-starter batch finished around 1.020 and
> the starter-pitched beer finished around 1.010, where it's supposed to
> be.
It's also useful to note that in addition to performance problems (stuck
fermentation, poor attenuation), underpitching can also lead to more
by-products produced during fermentation (which effect flavor), even if they
don't exhibit either of the other symptoms.
John.
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 05:41:38
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On Sun, 22 2006 22:30:05 -0700, <fakeemail@null.com > wrote:
> I'm making my first batch this weekend, a Sierra Navada clone with a White
> Labs California Ale 001 pitchable tube. Should I make a starter with this
> yeast or is it really 100% pitchable as advertised. BTW it's going to ba a 5
> gal batch with these ingredients:6 lbs of light malt extract, 1 lb. of
> Specialty grains, 2 oz Perle bittering hops, 2 oz Cascade aroma hops, Grain
> bag, priming sugar, and the White Labs yeast mentioned earlier.
> Thanks (and thanks again for everyone's help on my brew pot delima.)
First off, I would highly recommend using dry yeast for beginners. It is
a lot easier to use. Extra complication is the last thing you need right now.
If you really want to use liquid yeast, then you should be making starters.
The yeast company claims that a tube is pitchable, but it is not true
(especially for beginners who tend to have trouble with things that the
yeast relies on to be healthy). Liquid yeast tubes only contain around 1/4
the amount of yeast that you really should be pitching into a 5 gallon batch.
John.
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 15:19:54
From: Mike
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
I would like to chime in on the side of making a starter. We
consistently get better results when we use starters. Also, a
professional brewer at a small craft brewery in San Diego said that by
overpitching, that is having more yeast cells than absolutely needed
guaranteed a very successful fermentation and no yeast off-flavors from
stressed yeast.
Mike K
Tony M wrote:
> I'm making my first batch this weekend, a Sierra Navada clone with a White
> Labs California Ale 001 pitchable tube. Should I make a starter with this
> yeast or is it really 100% pitchable as advertised. BTW it's going to ba a 5
> gal batch with these ingredients:6 lbs of light malt extract, 1 lb. of
> Specialty grains, 2 oz Perle bittering hops, 2 oz Cascade aroma hops, Grain
> bag, priming sugar, and the White Labs yeast mentioned earlier.
> Thanks (and thanks again for everyone's help on my brew pot delima.)
> Tony
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 14:20:28
From: alebrewer
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
tkcbb77@hotmail.com wrote:
> I guess they *are* technically pitchable, but most don't recommend
> it... the rate is well below what's recommended.
>
> Try making a pint starter (1/3 to 1/2 cup of DME boiled in 2 cups
> water). Cool to room temp, aerate well, and pitch your yeast. Do this a
> day or two before you brew.
>
> Hope that helps.
I really wonder what good this does... I mean, is this practice really
any better just pitching the tube directly (other than the obvious fact
that you know the yeast is viable)?
With such a small volume starter, and short time, you really aren't
doing much good. The yeast count isn't much higher than you would get
just pitching the tube. With so much yeast and so little food, they
don't have much of a chance to start increasing the cell count. With a
1 liter starter in 3 or 4 days, you have some improvement. But, ime,
if you are going to make a starter, you really should go with at least
1.5 liters, aerate well and often, and let it go 5 to 10 days.
If you are going to make a starter, why such a small one? If the tube
is suitable for a 5 gallon batch, it obviously is going to work in a
1.5 liter starter.
ab
|
| | |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 21:55:25
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On 23 2006 14:20:28 -0700, <alebrewer@wt.net > wrote:
>
> tkcbb77@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I guess they *are* technically pitchable, but most don't recommend
>> it... the rate is well below what's recommended.
>>
>> Try making a pint starter (1/3 to 1/2 cup of DME boiled in 2 cups
>> water). Cool to room temp, aerate well, and pitch your yeast. Do this a
>> day or two before you brew.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>
> I really wonder what good this does... I mean, is this practice really
> any better just pitching the tube directly (other than the obvious fact
> that you know the yeast is viable)?
>
> With such a small volume starter, and short time, you really aren't
> doing much good. The yeast count isn't much higher than you would get
> just pitching the tube. With so much yeast and so little food, they
> don't have much of a chance to start increasing the cell count. With a
> 1 liter starter in 3 or 4 days, you have some improvement. But, ime,
> if you are going to make a starter, you really should go with at least
> 1.5 liters, aerate well and often, and let it go 5 to 10 days.
I agree with you about the size, I would prefer to do a 1 liter starter.
However, his timeline is pretty much right. The population growth that
you are looking for in a starter will occur within a few days. In fact,
I find that it usually ferments out completely and has started settling
within 2-3 days. There's probably no additional activity going on if you
wait any longer than that. Starters will finish much faster than, say,
a primary fermentation of a 5 gallon batch.
John.
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2006 14:03:40
From: jj
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
Hi Tony,
I have probably used hundreds of vials of White Labs yeast. And I have
read and re-read the label a number of times. Yes it says "Pitchable".
I even complained to Chris White. If they are pitchable then why should
we use a starter??? I can only tell you that I have had SUBSTANTIALLY
better results when I do use a starter. In fact, I can use ONE tube for
TWO 6.5 gallon fermenters, if I use a starter. My last batch started at
1.068 and finished (wait for it...) 1.007.
FWIW... SAFALE is the best of the dry yeasts.
-John
Tony M wrote:
> I'm making my first batch this weekend, a Sierra Navada clone with a White
> Labs California Ale 001 pitchable tube. Should I make a starter with this
> yeast or is it really 100% pitchable as advertised. BTW it's going to ba a 5
> gal batch with these ingredients:6 lbs of light malt extract, 1 lb. of
> Specialty grains, 2 oz Perle bittering hops, 2 oz Cascade aroma hops, Grain
> bag, priming sugar, and the White Labs yeast mentioned earlier.
> Thanks (and thanks again for everyone's help on my brew pot delima.)
> Tony
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2006 14:07:36
From: Adam Preble
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
Tony M wrote:
> I'm making my first batch this weekend, a Sierra Navada clone with a White
> Labs California Ale 001 pitchable tube. Should I make a starter with this
> yeast or is it really 100% pitchable as advertised. BTW it's going to ba a 5
> gal batch with these ingredients:6 lbs of light malt extract, 1 lb. of
> Specialty grains, 2 oz Perle bittering hops, 2 oz Cascade aroma hops, Grain
> bag, priming sugar, and the White Labs yeast mentioned earlier.
> Thanks (and thanks again for everyone's help on my brew pot delima.)
> Tony
Everybody's telling you to do it but don't freak out if you are put off
by it and want to go without it. According to Austin Homebrew Supply,
White Labs increased their cell count to 100 billion. That's not
completely enough, but it's much better than before.
A lot of people talk about the poor sanitation of beginners, and how a
starter can overcome that. It won't do any good if the starter isn't
sanitized as well; perhaps even sterilized (any chance of baddies are
completely eradicated).
Some would say use a starter for everything, but there are cases were a
starter are really necessary IMO--lagers and large beers. Your clone is
neither. A good reason to use a starter for the first batch is so it
starts fermenting sooner. Otherwise the beginners come right back on
here and ask why nothing's happening after 12 hours. A batch without a
starter will take longer to get going.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 15:16:25
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On Tue, 24 2006 14:07:36 GMT, <rockobonaparte@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Everybody's telling you to do it but don't freak out if you are put off
> by it and want to go without it. According to Austin Homebrew Supply,
> White Labs increased their cell count to 100 billion. That's not
> completely enough, but it's much better than before.
I think Austin Homebrew is confused. WYeast has come out with a 100
billion cell smack pack, but as far as I know White Labs still has 50
billion cell tubes.
100 billion is still about 1/2 what you should really be pitching.
> A lot of people talk about the poor sanitation of beginners, and how a
> starter can overcome that. It won't do any good if the starter isn't
> sanitized as well; perhaps even sterilized (any chance of baddies are
> completely eradicated).
It's going to be nearly impossible to make a sterile starter. Starters
can definitely overcome sanitation issues, since the higher population
of yeast will be more likely to out compete the bacteria. Almost all
homebrew is infected with some bacteria. It's just a matter of making
sure that the yeast greatly out number it.
> A batch without a starter will take longer to get going.
Plus a whole list of other potential problems.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:02:25
From: Adam Preble
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> I think Austin Homebrew is confused. WYeast has come out with a 100
> billion cell smack pack, but as far as I know White Labs still has 50
> billion cell tubes.
It looks like they're not the only ones then:
http://www.leeners.com/whitelabs.html
http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php (it advocates a starter nonetheless)
> 100 billion is still about 1/2 what you should really be pitching.
>
http://www.scottishcraftbrewers.org/2005.htm
"Chris [White] reckons that a single tube is sufficient to ferment 20
litres of ale wort, without a starter. The brewers present generally
preferred a starter, and he conceded that there was nothing wrong with
that, but stated that during the short periods mentioned (12-24h) the
main effect was to wake the yeast up – little cell multiplication would
occur. The White Labs tubes contain around 100 billion cells, equivalent
to a ‘pint starter’. (This is about a quarter of the amount in an 11-g
pack of Nottingham Ale yeast. (The White Labs tube gives a pitching rate
of 5 million cells/ml into 20 litres. Recommended commercial pitching
rates for ale are 1 million per degree Plato (ie 4 brewers degrees).
It’s up to the brewer whether to increase the amount of yeast in a
starter or in the fermenter – clearly many US brewers produce
prizewinning ales just pitcing straight – Ed). Chris suggests aereating
the wort for 30 minutes."
There's that 100 billion again. Actually I think I'm going to go read
that last page a little bit--it looks like a real hoot.
> It's going to be nearly impossible to make a sterile starter. Starters
> can definitely overcome sanitation issues, since the higher population
> of yeast will be more likely to out compete the bacteria. Almost all
> homebrew is infected with some bacteria. It's just a matter of making
> sure that the yeast greatly out number it.
I'm not going to put words in your mouth then, as I've heard of some
very crazy ways of sanitizing the starter vessel. In particular, using
a pressure cook as if you're running the vessel through an autoclave.
It doesn't stop air contamination as soon as it's opened, but I imagine
it must do a darn good job. Seemed like overkill to me though--probably
to you too FWIW.
>> A batch without a starter will take longer to get going.
>
> Plus a whole list of other potential problems.
My main reason to point that one out was because we get so many new
posters worried that their airlocks aren't popping away after 12 hours.
I think I did it too when I started participating in the group. That
would be the best reason for a newbie to pitch; not to reduce those
posts, but to reduce those worries.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:38:42
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On Wed, 25 2006 20:02:25 GMT, <rockobonaparte@hotmail.com > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>> I think Austin Homebrew is confused. WYeast has come out with a 100
>> billion cell smack pack, but as far as I know White Labs still has 50
>> billion cell tubes.
>
> It looks like they're not the only ones then:
> http://www.leeners.com/whitelabs.html
> http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php (it advocates a starter nonetheless)
You're definitely not the first person I've heard say this. I don't know
if it's true or not. The only "reliable" source I have to go on is that
WhiteLab's website still says 50 billion. You would think that if they
doubled the size of their tubes it would at least get some sort of
public mention or news release on their website.
They've got public email adddresses listed on there, I may just send them
an email and ask.
From the mrmalty.com link above:
"The information on the White Labs web site stating 30 to 50 billion cells is
out of date. We can just assume there are around 100 billion very healthy
yeast."
It'd be interesting to know what this assumption is based on. I'd definitely
like to know if it's confirmed that they contain 100 billion, since I
often quote the numbers on here.
In either case, whether it's 50 or 100 doesn't really change my standard
advice to make a starter, so in the end it's just a technicality.
> > 100 billion is still about 1/2 what you should really be pitching.
> >
>
> http://www.scottishcraftbrewers.org/2005.htm
> "Chris [White] reckons that a single tube is sufficient to ferment 20
> litres of ale wort, without a starter.
WhiteLabs says lots of things when marketing their product that I strongly
disagree with. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they're trying to make
their product appear as easy to use as possible, especially when they're
trying to compete with a much cheaper product that is already easier to
use than liquid yeast. Whenever Chris White makes statements like that,
don't forget that he's acting as a salesman for their company, not as
a consultant trying to improve your beer quality.
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:05:17
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On 25 2006 20:38:42 GMT, <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
>> http://www.scottishcraftbrewers.org/2005.htm
>> "Chris [White] reckons that a single tube is sufficient to ferment 20
>> litres of ale wort, without a starter.
>
> WhiteLabs says lots of things when marketing their product that I strongly
> disagree with. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they're trying to make
> their product appear as easy to use as possible, especially when they're
> trying to compete with a much cheaper product that is already easier to
> use than liquid yeast. Whenever Chris White makes statements like that,
> don't forget that he's acting as a salesman for their company, not as
> a consultant trying to improve your beer quality.
FYI, just as an example of silly stuff that some companies say:
"What Makes White Labs Liquid Brewers Yeast Different?
Liquid yeast has many advantages over dried yeast. The variety of liquid
strains is much greater, but most important is the flavor profile. Most
brewers would agree that beer made with liquid yeast is superior in flavor,
and consistently wins medals over dried yeast in national competitions."
Obviously, you need to take what they say with a healthy dose of skepticism.
It's not just WhiteLabs though (I don't mean to pick on them, I use their
yeast for 90% of my beer), WYeast and some of the dry yeast companies do
the same kind of thing. It's all part of the competition/advertising game.
You need to think in terms of sorting out what's "real" and what's "hype"
when you read/hear stuff directly from any company about their own product.
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:52:15
From: Adam Preble
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Obviously, you need to take what they say with a healthy dose of skepticism.
> It's not just WhiteLabs though (I don't mean to pick on them, I use their
> yeast for 90% of my beer), WYeast and some of the dry yeast companies do
> the same kind of thing. It's all part of the competition/advertising game.
There's some merit to bragging about the varieties though. With the
lack of varieties in dry yeast, one might have to use a strain that
isn't completely appropriate for the type. I have seen the same packet
of dry yeast being marketed to do Hefeweizens as it does to do Belgian
beers, just because of all the wacky flavors it produces.
What I did find interesting in the Chris White talk page is the claim
dry yeast has many more cells. I wonder if that is a count of truly
viable cells; I'd expect there'd be less ultimately in a dry pack.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:51:44
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
On 25 2006 20:38:42 GMT, <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 25 2006 20:02:25 GMT, <rockobonaparte@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>>> I think Austin Homebrew is confused. WYeast has come out with a 100
>>> billion cell smack pack, but as far as I know White Labs still has 50
>>> billion cell tubes.
>>
>> It looks like they're not the only ones then:
>> http://www.leeners.com/whitelabs.html
>> http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php (it advocates a starter nonetheless)
>
> You're definitely not the first person I've heard say this. I don't know
> if it's true or not. The only "reliable" source I have to go on is that
> WhiteLab's website still says 50 billion. You would think that if they
> doubled the size of their tubes it would at least get some sort of
> public mention or news release on their website.
>
> They've got public email adddresses listed on there, I may just send them
> an email and ask.
>
> From the mrmalty.com link above:
> "The information on the White Labs web site stating 30 to 50 billion cells is
> out of date. We can just assume there are around 100 billion very healthy
> yeast."
>
> It'd be interesting to know what this assumption is based on. I'd definitely
> like to know if it's confirmed that they contain 100 billion, since I
> often quote the numbers on here.
>
> In either case, whether it's 50 or 100 doesn't really change my standard
> advice to make a starter, so in the end it's just a technicality.
Well, son of a gun! They've updated their website. ;)
A couple pages still state 30-50 billion. However, there's at least one
page on their site that says the vials are 75 - 150 billion cells, which
puts them about on par with a WYeast Activator pack. Still about 1/2 what I'd
like to see, but it's better than 1/4.
Good info to know, thanks.
John.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 15:46:58
From: alebrewer
Subject: Re: starter or not to starter?
|
Adam Preble wrote:
> What I did find interesting in the Chris White talk page is the claim
> dry yeast has many more cells. I wonder if that is a count of truly
> viable cells; I'd expect there'd be less ultimately in a dry pack.
If I understand what you are saying, you'd expect the 11 gram package
of dry yeast to have fewer viable cells than a WL tube (either
countwise or as a percentage)? I wonder why you would expect this?
The dry yeast has been grown in a specific growth media that is
designed to produce cells that are both hearty and healthy as well as
ready to begin reproduction in the absence of oxygen. Being dry
doesn't kill the yeast, but merely places it in "suspended animation".
With proper rehydration techniques, 90% (or better) viability should be
achievable.
Even if the liquid yeast has received the same growth regimen, since it
is "alive" during storage, the cells are using up their stored
reserves. It wouldn't suprise me that if in most liquid yeast
packages, half of the cells are dead well before the "best by" date.
This is why, with liquid yeasts, areation is so important. WIth the
liquid yeasts, they have to build metabolic reserves before signifigant
reproduction can start. Not so much with the dired yeast because, once
reconstituted, they already have enough sterols and other reserves
needed to begin reproduction.
I'm just guessing, but I suspect this is the basis Chris White uses to
claim that his tubes are pitchable (with a well aerated wort). The
performance with that practice, I suspect, is comparable to dumping the
tube in an aerated 500-1000 ml starter for 24 hours. In either case,
yeast reproduction isn't going to start until the cells have built up
adequate reserves, which can either happen in a small starter or in
your 5 gallon fermenter; it really doesn't make much difference.
ab
|
|
