# Pitch Rates - Stepped V's Vial only Pitch



## Yob (22/4/15)

http://brulosophy.com/2015/04/20/yeast-pitch-rate-single-vial-vs-yeast-starter-exbeeriment-results/

Was posted in Melbourne Brewers FB page, I thought it an interesting read... wont be changing my process as Im usually stepping up from frozen vials but interesting anecdotally anyway.


----------



## kaiserben (22/4/15)

This puts my mind at ease regarding my laziness. 

Although I am keen to start harvesting yeast. 

I suppose getting cell counts right and creating starters is more important when brewing large (commercial) volumes - and that when brewing 23L batches it's all pretty much near enough is good enough.


----------



## TheWiggman (22/4/15)

Interesting read. I'm betting an identical test using a lager yeast would yield substantially different results.


----------



## Midnight Brew (23/4/15)

That was an interesting read Yob. This week and last week I conducted a similar experiment (two different strains) but same principle.

I had 2x cubes of beer that I blended to create something different. The first cube got a starter and had activity within 12 hours (or when I checked it) and by day 3 the beer was 1.043 down to 1.012. One additional day at an increased temperature and she was done at 1.010.

The second cube got a vial pitched straight from the fridge that had been frozen and thawed out. the vial was large enough to have the required amount of yeast to be pitched, however no starter. 4 days into the ferment (the 84ish hour mark) it formed krausen.

Both beers are now finished and I expect very different results as I used different yeasts but my aim was to see what would happen when correct amount was pitched from a thawed vial vs when it has a starter.

Without tasting the samples I still think it's a no brainer. Starters are essential for an active and healthy fermentation. The whole idea is about reducing lag time, getting a healthy ferment and keeping those other micro-organisms from having a chance.


----------



## Yob (23/4/15)

besides.. what would we do with all that DME?


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL (23/4/15)

Midnight Brew said:


> The whole idea is about reducing lag time, getting a healthy ferment and keeping those other micro-organisms from having a chance.


Same could be said for re-hydrating dry yeast, right? h34r:


----------



## verysupple (23/4/15)

I'm glad to see in the discussion at the end that the author mentioned that the results may be different for a yeast driven beer, because that's what I was thinking right from the start when they described the beer. At 62 IBU and a moderate amount of late hops I don't think it's the best beer to be qualitatively assessing yeast influence. On the other hand, like the author said, hoppy American styles are home brewed a _lot_, so in that respect it's at least on point for the readership.

As mentioned in an earlier comment, a lager might give different results, particularly something a bit more delicate like a helles. I'd also like to see the results for something like a blonde ale where there's not much to hide behind but it's still an ale yeast strain.

Of course there are factors other than the flavour of the current batch that are affected by low pitch rates. For example, when a low pitch rate is used a larger fraction of the cells have higher numbers of budding scars at the end of fermentation. This makes them not only less able to bud again, but also less efficient at letting the right molecules in and out of the cell. So if you're planning on repitching the yeast there are going to be obvious implications. However I suspect that most people that want to direct pitch a vial or smack pack aren't likely to be harvesting yeast so it's not a problem.

It's a good read, like most of the brulosophy exbeeriments. I hope they keep it up.


----------



## dannymars (23/4/15)

This is great... 

I've had many brews with starters, and many without... as a lot of the time I only pick up my ingredients for the batch at the LHBS on the morning of the brewday. I've not really noticed much difference between them, apart from the start (as confirmed in this article)

I made a BIG starter for my IIPA at OG: 1.088 ... but without a comparison, I have no idea if it made a difference. Certainly a fast start, but apart from that... who knows?


----------



## TheWiggman (23/4/15)

Actually of relevance, ever since I've used liquid yeast I've used a starter every time (excluding slurry repitching). I came to this conclusion from forum trolling and because my brew book recommended it, though only discussed 1l starters.

A few months ago I helped a mate out with the maiden brew on his new system then skipped town. Later on he sent me a message saying "yeast is in!" and I asked him how he got to making a starter so quickly. He didn't, and the Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ale was _just_ before its use-by. He gave it the smack before and thought that was the starter.
3 days later he tells me there's nothing happening and stresses that he needs to buy more yeast. I told him to wait it out, and that evening there were signs of life. 6 weeks later it's on tap and he's stoked with the results.

Certainly if push came to shove you could pitch an ale yeast straight out of a vial or smack pack and make yourself a beer, but being a no-chiller I schedule my ferments around my yeast. I don't think I'll be changing my habits in light of this article.


----------

