# Yeast Starter.... Not Starting?



## Truman42 (29/4/12)

I pitched a 25ml sample tube of 1098, (which I had harvested from a previous brew a month ago) into 250mls of wort and put it on the stir plate. Its held temp at around 20-21 C and 24 hours later Im not sure if there is any activity. I have foaming and what looks like Krausen but when I turn off the stir plate I cant see any Co2 bubbles rising in the wort.

Do I be patient and let it go another 24 hours, or step it up to 1 litre and see how that goes?

Here it is on the stir plate


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/4/12)

Truman said:


> I pitched a 25ml sample tube of 1098, (which I had harvested from a previous brew a month ago) into 250mls of wort and put it on the stir plate. Its held temp at around 20-21 C and 24 hours later Im not sure if there is any activity. I have foaming and what looks like Krausen but when I turn off the stir plate I cant see any Co2 bubbles rising in the wort.
> 
> Do I be patient and let it go another 24 hours, or step it up to 1 litre and see how that goes?
> 
> ...


add another 250ml of wort


----------



## Wolfy (29/4/12)

Checking the gravity will answer your question, hopefully you have a refractometer?


----------



## seamad (29/4/12)

There wont be much to see with the amount of yeast. 
Did you wash the sample?
25 ml one month old probably doent have a big cell count, may have been better starting at @50 ml, then 250 and up imo.
Cheers
Sean


----------



## Truman42 (29/4/12)

seamad said:


> There wont be much to see with the amount of yeast.
> Did you wash the sample?
> 25 ml one month old probably doent have a big cell count, may have been better starting at @50 ml, then 250 and up imo.
> Cheers
> Sean


Yes I washed the sample a few times and split it into 25ml tubes. I'm confident I removed the trub etc. 

I was going to start with a smaller wort volume but when I put the numbers into yeast calc it had my inoculation rate at over 260. I've read on here before that you need to keep it at between 50-100 so I increased the wort volume until I got below 100. If someone could explain which is correct that would be appreciated. 

@ Wolfy . Unfortunately I don't have a refractometer.


----------



## felon (29/4/12)

Looks fine to me. Will take some time to generate C02 bubbles after spinning on a stir plate. Just add the second step as usual and then you will start to see all the yeasties floating around.


----------



## Batz (29/4/12)

Patience young grasshopper...


----------



## Wolfy (29/4/12)

Truman said:


> I was going to start with a smaller wort volume but when I put the numbers into yeast calc it had my inoculation rate at over 260. I've read on here before that you need to keep it at between 50-100 so I increased the wort volume until I got below 100. If someone could explain which is correct that would be appreciated.
> 
> @ Wolfy . Unfortunately I don't have a refractometer.


Don't stress about too much numbers or calculations, they're virtually all guesswork with a large amount of error, focus on growing healthy yeast as your highest priority, then if you are anywhere even close to the 'right' numbers/volumes/counts, it will take care of the rest.

An ebay refractometer will cost you less than 1 batch of beer, and IMHO is well worth the effort and - in this case - you'd know if yeast had fermented your starter with a 2 second test using 2-3 drops of liquid.

Unfortunately with starters sometimes they are finished so quickly and do not usually perform the same each time, so it can be difficult to know what they are doing.


----------



## Truman42 (29/4/12)

Wolfy said:


> Don't stress about too much numbers or calculations, they're virtually all guesswork with a large amount of error, focus on growing healthy yeast as your highest priority, then if you are anywhere even close to the 'right' numbers/volumes/counts, it will take care of the rest.
> 
> An ebay refractometer will cost you less than 1 batch of beer, and IMHO is well worth the effort and - in this case - you'd know if yeast had fermented your starter with a 2 second test using 2-3 drops of liquid.
> 
> Unfortunately with starters sometimes they are finished so quickly and do not usually perform the same each time, so it can be difficult to know what they are doing.



Ive been meaning to buy one but always had the Hydrometer. But now I see where it would have come in handy, so will be getting one asap.

Thanks for the advice gents.


----------



## dustinsullivan (30/4/12)

I'm curious Wolfy, why do you think yeast calculators like Mr. Malty are "virtually all guesswork with a large amount of error"

Do you have any kind of data to back up this claim?


----------



## Flewy (30/4/12)

sulli_42 said:


> I'm curious Wolfy, why do you think yeast calculators like Mr. Malty are "virtually all guesswork with a large amount of error"
> 
> Do you have any kind of data to back up this claim?



I'd listen to Wolfy on yeast if I were you, he definitely has the data...


----------



## dustinsullivan (30/4/12)

Flewy said:


> I'd listen to Wolfy on yeast if I were you, he definitely has the data...



Cool, then he won't mind providing it for us.


----------



## Phoney (30/4/12)

24 hours? Christ almighty, I see how you got to 1100 posts in 9 months  

Wait another 3 - 4 days, then pop it in the fridge for another couple of days. If you see a nice firm yeast cake on the bottom, it's a good sign. If you dont, then come back to us.


----------



## QldKev (30/4/12)

A refract will review all. Well worth the investment in one. At this stage I would leave it until tomorrow. 

250ml is too big for a first jump from those sleepy yeasties. I would suggest 100ml :lol: :lol: 
_(got to rev you up)_


QldKev


----------



## Truman42 (30/4/12)

phoneyhuh said:


> 24 hours? Christ almighty, I see how you got to 1100 posts in 9 months
> 
> Wait another 3 - 4 days, then pop it in the fridge for another couple of days. If you see a nice firm yeast cake on the bottom, it's a good sign. If you dont, then come back to us.


Ummm... nowhere have I read that you should wait 3-4 days for a starter to fire up.(My brews have never taken that long either)
In fact everything I have read and been told suggests it should be firing with 12-18 hours all things considered and should be ready to step up within 36 hours, which I've since done and has a nice healthy krausen.


----------



## Screwtop (30/4/12)

Wolfy said:


> Unfortunately with starters sometimes they are finished so quickly and do not usually perform the same each time, so it can be difficult to know what they are doing.




If it's finished it's not a starter. It's simply yeast slurry and some beer.

Screwy


----------



## Phoney (30/4/12)

Truman said:


> Ummm... nowhere have I read that you should wait 3-4 days for a starter to fire up.(My brews have never taken that long either)
> In fact everything I have read and been told suggests it should be firing with 12-18 hours all things considered and should be ready to step up within 36 hours, which I've since done and has a nice healthy krausen.



*should*, but not necessarily will. If the yeast is old or the temperature is on the cooler side, it can and often does take longer.

If you're not doing it already, drop 1/2 tsp of yeast nutrient in your boil, that usually kicks it off quick smart.


----------



## stux (30/4/12)

Truman said:


> I pitched a 25ml sample tube of 1098, (which I had harvested from a previous brew a month ago) into 250mls of wort and put it on the stir plate. Its held temp at around 20-21 C and 24 hours later Im not sure if there is any activity. I have foaming and what looks like Krausen but when I turn off the stir plate I cant see any Co2 bubbles rising in the wort.
> 
> Do I be patient and let it go another 24 hours, or step it up to 1 litre and see how that goes?
> 
> ...



I personally often let my first step go for 36-48 hrs. Mind you, the picture you posted looks fine, nice foam, and the cloudy appearance of lots of yeast in suspension.


----------



## Wolfy (30/4/12)

sulli_42 said:


> I'm curious Wolfy, why do you think yeast calculators like Mr. Malty are "virtually all guesswork with a large amount of error"
> 
> Do you have any kind of data to back up this claim?


What data would you like? That's actually a bit of the point that I am making - there is so little actual hard evidence and hard data that it's its impossible to either prove the calculators are correct, which ones are best or how far they are out they are. In addition each individual home-brewing yeast propagator will have different starting conditions, different growing conditions, and different results, but without counting yeast cells there is no way to know. 

We are dealing with billions of live living organisms, they live, grow, reproduce and die according to how we treat them, because of this, I'd argue that it does not really matter if we pitch 450billion cells or 350bilion cells, or if we know if we have 450billion cells or 550billion cells - those are huge factors of error, but likely all produce equally good beer. So one's focus should not be on pedantic maths, but growing good healthy yeast, then as long as you are anywhere close to the volumes of starter, yeast cells and slurry volumes required, then that is all that is required.

As home brewers we do not have the facilities, equipment or ability to count yeast cells, what we are trying to do is make good beer, and what makes good beer does not necessarily relate directly to a specific number of yeast cells that are pitched, becasue other factors such as yeast health are equally important to the number of cells (reference for that is on the podcasts featuring Chris White).

Even then if you compare the yeast-calculations in Ray Daniels' book, to those in JP's book, to those in Jamil's book, you will find that their suggestions as to how much yeast should be used to pitch differs by factors of around 10x - and that is just working on how much yeast to use, not even how much you have!

I know of only one home brewer (and he's on the UK forums and not these ones) who actually counts yest cells, for the rest of us we are all dealing with 'educated guesswork'.
Unless you count yeast cells - like Jamil did to formulate his Mr. Malty calculator - there is no way to know what is actually happening, it is just 'guesswork', educated guesswork yes, but due to the many variables involved there is a large amount of error.

I trust that the Mr Malty calculator is a great basis for providing an estimate of how much yeast is theoretically needed - and I use the exact same calculations as he does on my own spreadsheet.
I also trust that the growth-calculations that the Mr Malty calculator uses are valid for the situation that JZ developed them from, for his yeast supply, for his wort, for his nutrients, for his stir plate - and that they give an excellent basis for all home brewers to work from. But that does not mean that by using them other home brewers like you or me will get the same number of yeast cells as the calculator says - nor does it matter what the exact number is as long as it makes good beer, which is why the calculator is a great basis but being pedantic about exact numbers is irrelevant with the level of error involved.

As examples of this level of error, JZ lives in the USA and most likely had his yeast supplied directly to him from the yeast-vendors and it would be very fresh. Having yeast shipped to AU from the USA and having it sit in shops or our home fridge has a large impact on the number of viable cells, so when JZ starts with xxx number of cells, here in AU as home brewers we are starting with an unknown number of lesser cells than him. JZ also (presumably) uses USA based wort products, but does he use extract, AG or what nutrients does he use, we don't know. The only way to reproduce his results is to follow the exact procedures he used, which we cannot do.

I could continue but I've written an essay already.

Yeast calculators are great, they allow us home brewers to have an estimate of how much yeast we need and an estimate of how much yeast we can grow.
However, without actually counting the yest cells, we do not know, or really care, or really need to know, how much yeast we have - and as long we have enough good healthy yeast to make good beer, it does not really matter what any calculations say!
If MrMalty says you need a 2.5L starter, I'd use a 2.5L starter, but that does not mean that you will have the same amount of yeast as JZ calculated, you might have more or you might have less, but if it is viable and healthy it will grow and reproduce and ferment your beer well, and when it does who cares exactly how many billion cells were pitched into the wort?


----------



## dustinsullivan (1/5/12)

Youve never made a starter and counted the yeast cells to compare the actual numbers to your calculated numbers, or the calculations from any other source?


----------



## felten (1/5/12)

Not just that each situation you put the yeast in will differ like Wolfy said, but each strain will behave differently as well.


----------



## dustinsullivan (1/5/12)

felten said:


> Not just that each situation you put the yeast in will differ like Wolfy said, but each strain will behave differently as well.



As far as reproduction is concerned, all strains of yeast behave the same way, they reproduce via budding. This means that if the same number of viable cells from two different strains of yeast are placed in identical environments which are conducive to reproduction, they will both produce approximately the same number of daughter cells.


----------



## QldKev (1/5/12)

sulli_42 said:


> Youve never made a starter and counted the yeast cells to compare the actual numbers to your calculated numbers, or the calculations from any other source?



I got to 10 and stopped counting B)


----------



## glenwal (1/5/12)

sulli_42 said:


> As far as reproduction is concerned, all strains of yeast behave the same way, they reproduce via budding. This means that if the same number of viable cells from two different strains of yeast are placed in identical environments which are conducive to reproduction, they will both produce approximately the same number of daughter cells.



Why would the fact that they reproduce via the same method imply that they reproduce at the same rate? (Geninue question - not saying you're wrong).


----------



## MHB (1/5/12)

sulli_42 said:


> I'm curious Wolfy, why do you think yeast calculators like Mr. Malty are "virtually all guesswork with a large amount of error"
> 
> Do you have any kind of data to back up this claim?






sulli_42 said:


> Cool, then he won't mind providing it for us.






sulli_42 said:


> Youve never made a starter and counted the yeast cells to compare the actual numbers to your calculated numbers, or the calculations from any other source?






sulli_42 said:


> As far as reproduction is concerned, all strains of yeast behave the same way, they reproduce via budding. This means that if the same number of viable cells from two different strains of yeast are placed in identical environments which are conducive to reproduction, they will both produce approximately the same number of daughter cells.



sulli_42
Curious and curiouser, Wolfy has done a lot of work with yeast propagation, shared that work with everyone and established a solid reputation for knowing what he is talking about.
Who are you? You have been here for about six months all your posts bar 1 appear to be on yeast propagation.

Now personally I am a little dubious about some of the conclusions Mr Malty reaches, even more cautious about some of the assumptions people make when they try to apply the processes, but at least people are starting to recognise the importance of a big healthy pitch and take steps applying that to their brewing.

Do you have a background in the field, you are demanding that people prove assertions based on and linked to well documented research on the subject, had you gone back and read over the material you would have seen where those opinions were formed.

Under ideal conditions the reproductive pathway for yeast is well understood and researched and there are more than a few very good books on the subject. When it comes to applying that to home brewing there I would agree that there is a lot of guesswork and room for error, or to quote Wolfy
Don't stress about too much numbers or calculations, they're virtually all guesswork with a large amount of error, focus on growing healthy yeast as your highest priority, then if you are anywhere even close to the 'right' numbers/volumes/counts, it will take care of the rest.

So back at you, you have a different opinion, what is it based on, or in your own words Do you have any kind of data to back up this claim?
Mark


----------



## QldKev (1/5/12)

Free plug for Sulli_42 
Visit http://www.yeastcalc.com



To me the biggest issue is there is more than 1 calculation out there. 
Person A does some lab testing and proves a given rate,
Person B does some testing and proves a different rate. 
Person B may do another test a few years later and prove the prior test inconclusive, and comes up with a new rate...

It's science, it's not an exacting process. At least all rates are fairly common. 

QldKev


----------



## MHB (1/5/12)

Yes I have seen that, I believe his first post.
Still begs the question, what are his qualifications, what are the calculation based on and why should we believe him.
Wolfy (and I dont always agree with all his conclusions) has been here for a long time the development of his ideas has been open and has involved a lot of hands on brewing as well as discussion with other brewers simply put it works.
Both Mr Malty and YeastCalc looks pretty flash, but bases on my own experience and research look a lot like lab results where everything is perfectly controlled and works according to a plan. The real world is often a hugely different place.
Mark


----------



## QldKev (1/5/12)

It would be good to be able to talk with a qualified pro in the area, 

I've always had the question, when stepping up starters, would each step technically be deemed a new generation of the yeast? 
Allowing if :
A - Stepped at high krausen, and 
B - stepped after the yeast has dropped.

QldKev


----------



## dustinsullivan (1/5/12)

MHB said:


> sulli_42
> Curious and curiouser, Wolfy has done a lot of work with yeast propagation, shared that work with everyone and established a solid reputation for knowing what he is talking about.
> Who are you? You have been here for about six months all your posts bar 1 appear to be on yeast propagation.
> 
> ...



Whoa...simmer down mate. I'm not trying to disrespect anyone, and I never said I had a differing opinion. In fact I agree with almost all of what Wolfy has to say. I just disagree with the rhetoric in some of his statements; namely that yeast growth calculations are "virtually all guesswork with large margins of error." White and Zainesheff et al. have done a significant amount of real science, i.e actual counting of yeast cells in various sized starters, in order to develop the algorithms that are used in their "calculations", and I could post up half a dozen mathematical formulas from various text books on yeast all based on hard science.
I myself perform cell counts on all my yeast starters every time I make a beer, and the numbers are consistently within 50 billion cells of what the calculations are. I would never claim that a mathematical formula can produce exact predictions of cell counts, they are most definitely ball park estimates, but for someone to say in one breath that yeast calculators are all based on guesswork with huge margins of error and then offer up advice on what size starter to make or offer up a stepping regime based on his "calculations" seems rather contradictory. That's all. 

Fire away.


----------



## Screwtop (1/5/12)

As many will know I rarely post re beer related stuff anymore, due to the chest beating and pissing contests on these forums, mostly by google brewers with little experience! So I am not about to enter this debate, but would like to point out one important factor for all brewers weather you are making a starter of propagating yeast (there does seem to be a lot of confusion here). Stepping up yeast colony cell counts, decanting and pitching the slurry is pitching yeast slurry, not making a starter. Leaving starter wort and yeast on a stirplate for days until the yeast has dropped out and pitching this - is pitching yeast slurry and beer which could well be oxidised.

Inoculation Rate is important, the amount of yeast budding/propagation/growth depends upon how many cells are pitched, and the volume, and the gravity of the wort it is added to. 

This is advanced stuff, a bit hit and miss for most novice brewers.

As Wolfy says:


> I know of only one home brewer (and he's on the UK forums and not these ones) who actually counts yest cells, for the rest of us we are all dealing with 'educated guesswork'.




From Chris White and Jamil Zainasheff's Book - Yeast The practical guide to Beer Fermentation.



> The most important thing to know about starter size is that the inoculation rate affects the rate of growth. In other words, the pitching rate'' of your starter has a big effect on the amount of new yeast cells you will see from any propagation. It is not the volume of the starter that is important, but how many cells you add in relation to that volume. Too high an inoculation rate, and you get very little growth. If you use too low an inoculation rate, then you are not really making a starter, you are fermenting beer.
> 
> Ideally, you want to grow your yeast in a large enough volume of wort to ensure optimal, yeast health and to get a decent amount of growth for your trouble.



There are formulae contained in the book for determining the Yield Factor, and charts outlining Inoculation Rate Yield Factors. I suggest anyone serious about yeast propagation and stepped starters should get themselves a copy and rely less on opinions found on forums such as this.

Screwy

Fire Away! ............. don't bother, I don't give a shit!


----------



## Dazza88 (1/5/12)

Yep, great book is Yeast. So truman, did you get any success with your yeasties? Lol.


----------



## dustinsullivan (1/5/12)

Screwtop said:


> Fire Away! ............. don't bother, I don't give a shit!



Nice...glad to see your not into the chest beating and pissing contests.


----------



## Wolfy (1/5/12)

sulli_42 said:


> Whoa...simmer down mate. I'm not trying to disrespect anyone, and I never said I had a differing opinion. In fact I agree with almost all of what Wolfy has to say. I just disagree with the rhetoric in some of his statements; namely that yeast growth calculations are "virtually all guesswork with large margins of error." White and Zainesheff et al. have done a significant amount of real science, i.e actual counting of yeast cells in various sized starters, in order to develop the algorithms that are used in their "calculations", and I could post up half a dozen mathematical formulas from various text books on yeast all based on hard science.
> I myself perform cell counts on all my yeast starters every time I make a beer, and the numbers are consistently within 50 billion cells of what the calculations are. I would never claim that a mathematical formula can produce exact predictions of cell counts, they are most definitely ball park estimates


That makes you the 2nd home brewer (that I know of) who actually counts yeast cells, and that adds a deal of credibility to the calculations that you've provided. I'd suggest you post the yeast cell-count information on your website, including what methods you use and what the results were compared to the calculations for each starter you make, it adds both credibility and allows others to see - and hopefully understand - the margins of error involved. However from what I understand by reading the 'Yeast' book even cell count techniques have limitations and large error margins. 

The point I was trying to make in this, and several other threads/discussions that I also know you've participated in, is exactly what you said above: *a mathematical formula can not produce exact predictions of cell counts, they are ball park estimates* that have decent margins of error. I may have used more colorful language and I may have said it in a way that offended you (and your calculations) but that was not my intent.

What I was trying to suggest to Truman when he said this:


> I was going to start with a smaller wort volume but when I put the numbers into yeast calc it had my inoculation rate at over 260. I've read on here before that you need to keep it at between 50-100 so I increased the wort volume until I got below 100. If someone could explain which is correct that would be appreciated.


Was the following (or would have been if he'd not already started with his starter):

Chill mate, you're within the right ball-park everything will be fine.
The calculation you used is based an an assumption you made about how many cells you have, and can never be more accurate than the guess you made at the start.
You don't actually know what your inoculation is because the calculation has given you a very rough estimate based on your guess at how many cells you have.
You've got a small sample there and it's likely not so fresh, so its quite probable that you have fewer cells than you guess, and it's always best to be conservative and assume that things are on the low side and not the high side of things.
Even if your inoculation rate is high, it does not really matter because we're home brewers not scientists or commercial brewers trying to extract the maximum theoretical growth at minimum cost/volume, the yeast will grow the same for you anyhow.
If you give the yeast the nutrients and conditions they need, the yeast will grow to essentially the same number of cells in that volume as long as your inoculation rate is anywhere close to what it 'should' be.
By being concerned about what some calculation said (that the inoculation rate was 'too high') you overlooked the simple fact that if you are unsure about your yeast health, viability and cell count, it is much better to start with a small volume starter than a big one. (He was going to do 50ml, but went to 250ml because a 'calculation' told him that was the 'right' answer.)
Having a high inoculation rate - especially for the fist step of a starter process - is not a a bad thing, it will not hurt the yeast, and it will likely do more good than bad since it will help your potentially unhealthy and half dead yeast out-compete any bugs that may have gotten into your starter.
Go with what you think it sensible and logical, don't be pedantic about what some formula says, grow good yeast and be close to the right estimates and you'll be totally fine.
I was trying to add some perspective for those who get more caught up with the idea that some magic formula will give them the 'right answer' - because of the wide range of factors involved - all they need to do is to get within the right 'ball park estimate' (of starter size, inoculation rate, slurry volume etc) and if their yeast is viable and healthy it does not matter what exact cell count is predicted by the formula, or what results a cell count gives - because being in the right 'ball park estimate' is good enough to produce good results. Use the calculations as an estimate and a basis from which to work - but realize they are an estimate. Working with the equipment you have, rounding volumes/counts up/down to make them easy to deal with, and most of all concentrate on yeast health makes things easier, less stressful and the yeast will take care of everything else.


sulli_42 said:


> but for someone to say in one breath that yeast calculators are all based on guesswork with huge margins of error and then offer up advice on what size starter to make or offer up a stepping regime based on his "calculations" seems rather contradictory. That's all.


I don't think I said anything even close to that _in this thread_, and totally stand by my initial advice _in this thread_: get a refractomer and check the gravity and you will know - without any guesswork - if the yeast has fermented out your starter.

Had I made any suggestions in regard to starter or step sizes, my logic would have gone something like this:
Throw numbers at Mr Malty and see what he says for the starter size required, keeping in mind that for a standard gravity batch of ale, you want a starter in the range of about 1.5-2.5L.
Have a 2L flask, that's more than adequate for the task, even if Mr Malty wants slightly more or less, so lets call it a 2L starter.
To get to 2L from your very small and potentially not very healthy yeast sample, using a couple of steps is probably the best way to go, so that we keep the inoculation rate within resonable bounds, but don't have too many steps or push things too far either way.
Anything between about 100ml and 300ml is more than adequate to setup up to our last step of 2L.
Do I want to pitch what could be a billion or two not so healthy yeast cells into 250ml? I could, but it would probably be better for the yeast and my sanitation to do another step first, so lets start with something smaller, say 50ml.

I'd suggest that for many home brewers and those new to growing their own yeast, using logic like this is significantly easier than working with a moderately complex set of numbers like those on YeastCalc. I was also going to presume that YeastCalc would come up with more-or-less the same setups/answer/cells anyway, but while MrMalty suggests 1L starter is adequate, my own assumptions (maximum cell density in a starter = 100million cells per ml) suggest 2L, YeastCalc wants a 2.6L starter. So I'll go back to saying, that yeast calculations are educated guesswork with large margins of error and from experience I know that a 2L starter works great and hence it does not really matter what any forumla has told me is right or wrong.


----------



## kevo (1/5/12)

Soooo.... back to the OP....

Would people say based on whats been discussed above that the volume of the starter was excessive for the quantity of yeast being used to inoculate?

 

Kev


----------



## felten (1/5/12)

sulli_42 said:


> As far as reproduction is concerned, all strains of yeast behave the same way, they reproduce via budding. This means that if the same number of viable cells from two different strains of yeast are placed in identical environments which are conducive to reproduction, they will both produce approximately the same number of daughter cells.



Sorry I should have been more specific, I was more referring to using the calc to estimate viability. Jamil has said himself that strains will differ in that regard, with some losing more viability over time than others.


----------



## Wolfy (1/5/12)

kevo said:


> Would people say based on whats been discussed above that the volume of the starter was excessive for the quantity of yeast being used to inoculate?


The most important thing 'we' need to know to answer that is how many viable yeast cells 'we' are starting with, so I'd be interested to know what *Truman * used for his estimate. 
'We' don't now how much yeast slurry was there in the 25ml vial, how was it stored, how was it washed etc. so any cell number estimate 'we' make is a wild guess.
It also depends on how good sanitation/sterilization of the wort and equipment was.

Since there is nowhere else to go, 'we' must resort to calculations, estimation and guesswork:
MrMalty suggests 46% viability for yeast slurry stored for 1 month, assuming 5mls of compact, clean, washed yeast slurry in the 25ml vial, I would guess 'we' would be starting with somewhere between between 2 and 5 billion cells.
(Use the sliders on MrMalty's repitch tab to see how the numbers change for different slurry conditions and the viability dates at the top to help make own guess).

Now you need to look at what is the appropriate starter volume for the number of cells, and the best reference for this is the 'Yeast' book page 126-146 (which includes the quote from *Screwtop *above), the YeastCalc page will also give you lots of numbers to work with. Essentially most will conclude what 'we' are doing is well within what is considered acceptable.

However, now 'we' come to two important but impossible to measure or calculate intangible things to consider:
1) How accurate was the starting cell estimate, given that *Truman *has posted here, it leads me to suspect that he could be a little bit unsure about his sample, maybe the washing process was not ideal, or it was not stored in the fridge every day, any other unexplained factors which could indicate that the number of yeast cells in the original sample might be significantly lower than estimated above.

2) How good was the sanitation (most home brewers do not work in a sterile environment) of the wort and equipment. 

Both of these factors could suggest that a smaller volume starter may have been 'better'. A small amount of not-very-healthy-yeast in a larger starter has more trouble out-competing infections, and if we have significantly less (or more) yeast cells then the health of the starter can suffer. However, using a smaller starter (50ml was suggested) means that there would be an extra step in the starter-making process, inviting extra risk of contamination from the wort or equipment used in that step. So it's a balance between which one poses the less risk and is more likely to produce a good starter at the end of the process.


----------



## Truman42 (1/5/12)

@ Wolfy. Thanks very for taking the time to post some very informative replies with lots of helpful advice. It's very appreciated. 

In answer to your question on how I arrived at my cell count I put the date of my slurry into Mr Malty, left the sliders at default and entered my OG and batch size. 
This told me I needed a yeast slurry of 167 mls containing 163 billion cells. (figures are approx)
So I simplified it and made it 1ml per 1 billion cells. 
I then entered 25 billion cells into Yeast calc at 95% just to cover a bit more loss, and then entered my first starter size and increased it until my inoculation rate was above 50. Which was 250 ml. 
My slurry was rinsed well and I had it stored in the fridge for a month and was full to the top with only a few mls of wort on top. 
But as you said in your post my 25ml slurry was probably well under 25 billion cells, which is something I will consider in the future. 
Thanks again.


----------



## Dazza88 (1/5/12)

So did you persist with it or chuck it?


----------



## robbo5253 (1/5/12)

So what happened with the starter?


----------



## Yob (1/5/12)

Truman said:


> I then entered 25 billion cells into Yeast calc at 95% .... and I had it stored in the fridge for a month



sorry? did you use the "calculate viability from date" thingamy? No u'king way it's at 95% viability at 1 month...

er.. unless I misunderstood something coz Ive 'ad a few..

'king pool night ya know... 'tuedy's te nu friday ya know... mumble mumble..


----------



## Truman42 (1/5/12)

robbo5253 said:


> So what happened with the starter?


Well following on from some advice via pm I let it finish out as is and put it into the fridge. 
I then used the other three 25ml vials and pitched into a 1.8 litre starter. Put it on the stir plate for 12 hours and it's now got a nice big krausen on top.


----------



## Truman42 (7/5/12)

iamozziyob said:


> sorry? did you use the "calculate viability from date" thingamy? No u'king way it's at 95% viability at 1 month...
> 
> er.. unless I misunderstood something coz Ive 'ad a few..
> 
> 'king pool night ya know... 'tuedy's te nu friday ya know... mumble mumble..



Just saw this question of yours Yob and thought I should explain should anyone read this post for future reference.

I had already used the "calculate viability by date" option in Mr Malty when working out that I required a 163ml starter which would give me 167 billion cells. So to make it easier I just made this a 1:1 ratio of 1 billion cells per ml. So in yeast calc I entered 25 billion cells for my 25ml vial size and set the viability to 95% just to give me a few extra billion cells for good luck.

I didnt end up brewing last week at all when I wanted to and have had this starter sitting in the fridge since last Thursday in a foil covered flask. It has a layer of yeast on the bottom (about 10mm) but still a lot of yeast in the wort in suspension, probably about a 3 inch layer with a small 1/2 inch layer of clearer wort at the top.

I thought that after almost a week in the fridge it would have all dropped right out by now. 

Is it still okay to use this starter after a week sitting in the fridge just covered in foil?


----------



## beermeupscotty (14/3/14)

I made my first yeast starter last night and can't see much action this morning, so I think I may have a problem - figured I'd avoid starting a new thread and just add to this one.

You can see the 'progress' after 8 hours in the attachments below.

Details of starter:

2L water (boiled to 1.5L)
200g DME
~1/16tsp Wyeast nutrient
1 pack of Wyeast liquid yeast (2124)

*SG*: I didn't expect to lose so much water in the boil, so now the *SG is 1.048* (instead of target 1.040).
*Pitch temp*: Slightly high.. may have been *26°C*
*Working temp*:* 21°C* temp controlled in fridge.
Flask being constantly *stirred @ 800RPM*
*Yeast manufacture date*: *3/12/13 (viability ~26%)*

I was expecting some bubbles/frothy stuff - is this reasonable to expect with a stirred starter? If so..
Could the elevated SG and nutrient be too much for the low amount of yeast?
Is the volume too large for that population of yeast?
Is it just moving slowly? Not at all?
Should I buy another pack of yeast to pitch?

Thanks to anyone who can help.


----------



## hoppinmad (14/3/14)

Don't buy another pack yet. I would let it go for at least 24 hours before I started getting worried. Turn the stir bar off for a couple of minutes then tilt the conical flask. If there is activity you should see bubbles rising to surface. 

Ideally you should have probably made a smaller starter with lower gravity, but I think it should be fine if you give it a bit of time. Test the S.G. in a couple of days and that will tell you for certain whether the starter has been successful.


----------



## beermeupscotty (14/3/14)

Ok, thanks mate. I smacked the pack and could definitely hear activity in the bag, so I know there's something there but I'll check the flask too, as you suggest. And I'll wait until tomorrow before I think about buying another yeast pack. Cheers.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (14/3/14)

Mate always do a start and finish gravity. 
I use gladrap and a rubber band instead of foil. The glad rap expands, with foil you can't see that. 
Decant the beer off the yeast bf pitching if you can (takes another day)once your happy with the gravity.





IMO, it's better to do a starter from scratch as you get a very clean yeast cake at the end. Like this.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (14/3/14)

Just read intire thread. 
This is a good one. 
Any thread about yeast that Wolfy posts in is worth reading.


----------



## beermeupscotty (14/3/14)

Thanks Scooby. I was worried about glad wrap + rubber band constricting the gas flow and figured al foil would be sanitary enough so I went with that. I was definitely going to decant the beer off before pitching; I'm stepping up to a 4L starter after this too, so ill decant prior to that pitch also.

What do you mean by doing a starter from scratch?


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (14/3/14)

I think your already doing it if I read correctly. Basically I used to use wort to start my "starters". But as I found I wanted to get into farming the yeast as well I now use lite malt extract,I a touch more expensive but the clean yeast cake is what I was after. 

As for the Gladrap there is no stopping the gas be shore not to make it super tight. Like.many things everyone has there own way,I use foil on the stove then gladrap on the stirplate. 

Horse's fir courses mate.


----------



## beermeupscotty (14/3/14)

Looked a bit cloudier this arvo.. I guess that's something.

Do stir plates typically eliminate all of the bubbles though? Or is that a sign that yeast activity is low?


----------



## Camo6 (14/3/14)

Most of my starters, especially the first steps, only show a feint krausen ring if one at all. I look for colour change, cloudiness and very fine bubbles.
Only when revitalising a decanted starter do I get an active krausen.
If in doubt take a refractometer reading. If you don't have one, decant a bit and taste it. If it's not sweet, somethings happening.


----------



## Black n Tan (14/3/14)

beermeupscotty said:


> Looked a bit cloudier this arvo.. I guess that's something.
> 
> Do stir plates typically eliminate all of the bubbles though? Or is that a sign that yeast activity is low?


Cloudier is good and is suggestive of growth. Let it go a bit longer and I am sure it will be fine. Good to see you bought a stir plate. My experience is a little different to some in relationship to bubbles being more visible when the stir plate is turned off. I find the opposite i.e. I can see the bubbles better when the stir plate is going because the bubbles are forced to the outside against the glass by the stirring. When I turn off the stir plate I can't see the bubbles.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (14/3/14)

Just thought I would put this up. 
Showing the use of rubber bands.


----------



## Black n Tan (14/3/14)

Scooby Tha Newbie said:


> DSC_0079.JPG
> 
> Just thought I would put this up.
> Showing the use of rubber bands.


A starter is all about yeast growth and oxygen promotes growth, so I prefer to keep it simple and just place foil loosely on top (and this is what is recommended in most books). Loose foil keeps the bad bugs out, so an airtight seal is really unnecessary and will likely inhibit yeast growth. It also allows CO2 to escape and CO2 is inhibitory to growth.

EDIT: add comment about CO2


----------



## TidalPete (14/3/14)

If I read this correctly you have added a (Smacked & swollen) pack of 2124 to 2000ml of wort at 1.048 + have added a little more nutrient?

As mentioned above, I wouldn't stress too much just yet but wait a little longer & if all goes well you should see condensation forming on the inside of the Erlenmeyer. This is a sure sign of activity & is good news. 

Perhaps next time consider either adding extra water to allow for boil-off & remember that 1.040 is the maximum (Ideal) starter gravity & you can well make a good starter with wort down to 1.030.
There's no worries upping the temp to 24 deg c to get your starter rolling on either.

Have you ever considered splitting your yeast packs into e.g.. 4 x? This is a good way to save dollars if you're keen?

Must admit that I agree with Black n Tan's post above re no rubber bands.
Just saying.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (14/3/14)

Scooby Tha Newbie said:


> Correct; thing is its not air tight.
> co2 can and does get out. The reason I posted that was to show healthy yeast growth and therefore the expelling of Co2.
> I've used this with packets from June 2012 with success.
> P





Black n Tan said:


> A starter is all about yeast growth and oxygen promotes growth, so I prefer to keep it simple and just place foil loosely on top (and this is what is recommended in most books). Loose foil keeps the bad bugs out, so an airtight seal is really unnecessary and will likely inhibit yeast growth. It also allows CO2 to escape and CO2 is inhibitory to growth.
> 
> EDIT: add comment about CO2


Correct; thing is its not air tight. 
co2 can and does get out. The reason I posted that was to show healthy yeast growth and therefore the expelling of Co2.
I've used this with packets from June 2012 with success.
P




Three "starters" from two packets. The rest are for later use.


----------



## Black n Tan (14/3/14)

Thanks for the clarification but I just want to make sure that people that see that picture understand it is unnecessary and would restrict gas exchange, so is not best practice.


----------



## Camo6 (14/3/14)

I'm a big fan of the tin foil for starters. From what I've read a loose fit lets the CO2 out yet can still allow O2 in. Like B&T states, this is advantageous to the yeast. Sounds like this bloke had it sussed.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (14/3/14)

The last thing you want is a "exchange" of gases. 
CO2 needs to be able to expell. I chill my "starters" so I can harvest the yeast as this happens there is a intake of gases. 
At this stage it's important not to allow any intake of unsanitary air. 
Each to his own,but this is best practice in my setup. 
Plus I get to see gas being produced so don't.need to worry about if it's working or not


----------



## TidalPete (14/3/14)

> Sounds like this bloke had it sussed.


Never heard of him :lol: and I'm not getting into a firefight over something so basic so let's cool it before it happens. :beer:


----------



## carniebrew (14/3/14)

I'm a bit lost, why all the conjecture, when he took a gravity reading post boil? Shouldn't he just take a gravity reading now to see if his yeast starter is working/complete?

Personally I don't need to, I use a 3l juice bottle with anything up to a 2l starter, with the lid only half screwed on. Give it a swirl every time I go past the bottle, and a large foamy head forms while the yeast are still actively fermenting. After about 24 hours that head stops forming and I know things are pretty much done, in the fridge she goes for a day or two, decant the wort and pitch the slurry.

But if I wasn't seeing that foam, after a day I'd take a gravity reading....just let your yeast settle out first so you're reading mostly wort, which you'll be decanting anyway.


----------



## Black n Tan (14/3/14)

Scooby Tha Newbie said:


> The last thing you want is a "exchange" of gases.


Guess John Palmer, Chris White, Jamil etc etc got it wrong! :blink: I want my money back, that bloody Yeast book is already out of date regarding best practice. BTW I haven't had an infection in more than 50 batches using loose foil and allowing free exchange of CO2 and O2.


----------



## Black n Tan (14/3/14)

beermeupscotty said:


> I made my first yeast starter last night and can't see much action this morning, so I think I may have a problem - figured I'd avoid starting a new thread and just add to this one.
> 
> You can see the 'progress' after 8 hours in the attachments below.
> 
> ...


Just curious Beer me up whether you added the DME to the water before you boiled?? This has no bearing on the activity or lack there of that you may be experiencing, but I would add 200g DME to Erlenmeyer then add water up to 2L, then boil very gently for 15 minutes. You need to keep an eye on it to make sure it won't boil over, but your 500mL boil off sounds to me like you boiled the water vigorously before adding the DME. I would also add a bit more yeast nutrient because you are making a lager and want good healthy growth. Cant remember what the wyeast instructions recommend but 1/2 tsp seems like a reasonable amount to me.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (14/3/14)

Black n Tan said:


> Guess John Palmer, Chris White, Jamil etc etc got it wrong! :blink: I want my money back, that bloody Yeast book is already out of date regarding best practice. BTW I haven't had an infection in more than 50 batches using loose foil and allowing free exchange of CO2 and O2.


Lol like to see you put foil on your fermenter as well. Same idea smaller vessel. 
Just for the record I put glad rap on my fermenter.


----------



## Black n Tan (14/3/14)

I make yeast with my starter and beer with my fermenter, so there not the same thing. I am sure you make good beer in your starter just may be not as many healthy yeast as you could. I understand you don't want to be convinced but with any luck others won't follow your lead.


----------



## beermeupscotty (15/3/14)

Black n Tan said:


> Cloudier is good and is suggestive of growth. Let it go a bit longer and I am sure it will be fine. Good to see you bought a stir plate. My experience is a little different to some in relationship to bubbles being more visible when the stir plate is turned off. I find the opposite i.e. I can see the bubbles better when the stir plate is going because the bubbles are forced to the outside against the glass by the stirring. When I turn off the stir plate I can't see the bubbles.


Yeah, I reckon I'll just let it go for a full 36-48 hours, chill it to settle the yeast out and take a reading. I could indeed see bubbles when it was stirring - assuming they weren't bubbles formed from air sucked in and dispersed at the (slight) vortex.



Black n Tan said:


> A starter is all about yeast growth and oxygen promotes growth, so I prefer to keep it simple and just place foil loosely on top (and this is what is recommended in most books). Loose foil keeps the bad bugs out, so an airtight seal is really unnecessary and will likely inhibit yeast growth. It also allows CO2 to escape and CO2 is inhibitory to growth.
> 
> EDIT: add comment about CO2


Makes sense to me.



TidalPete said:


> If I read this correctly you have added a (Smacked & swollen) pack of 2124 to 2000ml of wort at 1.048 + have added a little more nutrient?
> 
> As mentioned above, I wouldn't stress too much just yet but wait a little longer & if all goes well *you should see condensation forming on the inside of the Erlenmeyer*. This is a sure sign of activity & is good news.
> 
> ...


Thanks, they're good points. Yes, I've got condensation forming (see attached pic/s) 

Yes I was planning to add more water to the boil next time, and also do less boiling overall. I basically went for the 10:1 ratio, rather than properly calculating the estimated SG, which would have given me about 1.036.

Haven't seriously considering splitting the packs yet but I definitely want to do something like that (possibly farm) in future to save $$.



Black n Tan said:


> Just curious Beer me up whether you added the DME to the water before you boiled?? This has no bearing on the activity or lack there of that you may be experiencing, but I would add 200g DME to Erlenmeyer then add water up to 2L, then boil very gently for 15 minutes. You need to keep an eye on it to make sure it won't boil over, but your 500mL boil off sounds to me like you boiled the water vigorously before adding the DME. I would also add a bit more yeast nutrient because you are making a lager and want good healthy growth. Cant remember what the wyeast instructions recommend but 1/2 tsp seems like a reasonable amount to me.


I listened to a Brewstrong podcast on starters and, from the notes I took, I think they suggested boiling the water, then adding the dry ingredients, then reboiling - which is what I did - and yes there was a vigorous boil prior to adding the dry ingredients. This is the main reason I lost so much water. I don't really see the point of this so next time I'll reduce boiling time and overall separation of steps.

I boiled in a 7.6L stock pot btw, not in the Erlenmeyer. I know the flasks are made to manage high heat and fast change in temperature but I still want to play it safe and preserve them as much as I can (the only/main risk involved being infection with using two vessels). The flasks appear to be 'no-name' brands from Keg King, so I don't want to push them too hard.

Finally, yes I intend to add the full 1/2tsp by the time I pitch into the final wort. The reason I only added 1/16tsp at this point is because I didn't want to add a toxic dose to such a small population of yeast (probably around 30-50B). Based on the ratio of 1/2tsp:400B yeast cells, I went for 1/16tsp for ~50B yeast cells for this first starter. For my next step of starter (4L) I was planning to add 1/4tsp, with a final 1/4tsp added to the fermenter itself. Not sure if it's necessary to break up the addition of nutrient like that but figured I'd be conservative.


----------



## carniebrew (15/3/14)

And just to add to the apparent controversy, I only boil my starter wort for 60 seconds or so. There was a good article linked off the old yeastcalc.com that talked about pathogens being mostly boiled off as the temp reaches 80, 90 etc, and by the time it reaches boiling point it's pretty much as sterile as it can be.

No harm done boiling longer, and but I don't bother, and that way I only need to add as much water to my pot as I need in my starter.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (15/3/14)

Black n Tan said:


> I make yeast with my starter and beer with my fermenter, so there not the same thing. I am sure you make good beer in your starter just may be not as many healthy yeast as you could. I understand you don't want to be convinced but with any luck others won't follow your lead.


Not so much a matter of "not wanting to be convinced",just that what I'm doing works well. 
Primarily we are talking about two different processes. 
1. making a healthy starter. 
2. Farming yeast to a point of having enough to split in many starters. 
I only had two points 
Gladrap works for starters and fermenter. Yes they are different ,but they can be treated the same.
A starter is a mini beer just on a stirplate. 
What I've written so far has just been regurgitated from past threads here. 
I do how ever think it's funny when someone feels they have a monopoly on being correct. 
I'm happy with what I'm doing and happy to show others a easy way to make strong starters and save a few bucks making extra yeast for future use. 
One great thing about this hobby is the varied ways to make beer. 
I hope the op looks up some of the info on this site provided by "Wolfy"&"Tony".


----------



## beermeupscotty (15/3/14)

Okay, so I was about to start chilling/settling the starter but finally after 41 hours, I'm seeing (what look to me like) some serious activity! (see attached images)

Some time between 32-41h this krausen has formed.

Am I right in thinking this is suggestive of the primary/attenuative phase?
Is it time to start chilling/settling once the krausen actually begins to subside (secondary/conditioning phase)?
Or, does evidence of the primary/attenuative phase (the krausen) mean that the adaptation (high growth) phase is complete, and I should start chilling/settling now?

Thanks guys.


----------



## Black n Tan (15/3/14)

I would let it go until tomorrow morning to make sure it has built up some glycogen reserves before you chill. Usually by 48 hours I find it is ready to chill, but your seems a like it was a little slow to get started, so another 1/2 day won't hurt.


----------



## beermeupscotty (15/3/14)

Ok sounds good. I'm guessing the yeast were somewhat 'overwhelmed' by the volume and concentration of the wort and took a little extra time to build strength (numbers) before they could really starting having a good go at the sugar. What do you reckon?


----------



## Black n Tan (15/3/14)

Yes that may be right. Where are located beer me up?


----------



## beermeupscotty (15/3/14)

I'm in Kensington, VIC


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (15/3/14)

Ferment your starter out then use it or step up. 

Very simple.


----------



## Black n Tan (15/3/14)

beermeupscotty said:


> I'm in Kensington, VIC


I am brewing tomorrow if your interested. I am in Ascot Vale. PM if interested.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (15/3/14)

Brewing won't help you fermenting the starter is the topic.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (15/3/14)

Plus if your using foil then chilling.your as good as fu([email protected] the gases Will reabsorb then introduce microbial ingress. 
PS. My wife is Pathologist by trade. 
And I'm a baker with 20 years experience. 
You could say yeast is my lively hood. 

Have fun with the brew up. 
Any problems pm me. 
JODY.


----------



## MaltyHops (15/3/14)

Scooby Tha Newbie said:


> > I would let it go until tomorrow morning to make sure it has built up some glycogen reserves before you chill. Usually by 48 hours I find it is ready to chill, but your seems a like it was a little slow to get started, so another 1/2 day won't hurt.
> 
> 
> Mate last thing you want to do is listen to this clown. Reading from a book is fine but experience talks"glycogen" is book talk. Ferment your starter out then use it or step up.


Yeah, them scientists and book writers don't know anything.


----------



## manticle (15/3/14)

Scooby - disagreement on practices is fine but Black n Tan has offered advice and backed it up. Plenty of people use foil on erlenmeyers. Done it myself. Bacteria can't crawl, fly or walk.

Anyway please rein in your personal criticisms - words like clown in this context are unnecessary. Discuss the finer points by all means but with some respect.

This thread doesn't need to get out of hand and I'd rather not hide, delete or otherwise moderate - I prefer leaving it up to members to behave responsibly towards each other.


----------



## Scooby Tha Newbie (16/3/14)

Point taken. 
Black and tan,I was being a D!ck. Long brew day and to much beer. No excuses sorry mate.


----------



## Black n Tan (16/3/14)

Apology accepted


----------

