# Yeast pitching.....FFS there is enough in pack



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

Yes there is.

I will be blunt.

The standard dry yeast pack and liquid ready packs have enough yeast for a successfully brew. 

All this talk of having to use Mr Malty and other such crap is just that. Crap

Sure..if you are brewing more than a std batch of 22lt then.you MAY need more yeast. 

It is a different story if you are using agar to provide your starter.

It is reasonably hard to underpitch due to the rate that yeast reproduces in wort.


----------



## NewtownClown (24/5/13)

why is 22 litres a "standard batch"?


----------



## Adr_0 (24/5/13)

Both Saf/Fermentis and Wyeast have pitching guidelines on their website. Strangely... Yes, a standard pack of either is basically bang on for 90% of brews, that is, 20-25L of beer up to 1055-1060. Mind... Not blown actually.


----------



## Yob (24/5/13)

What is a standard brew? I generally brew ~24 lt and I usually have gravities over 1050. For apa and over 1060 for aipa…

Starters for me are generally a good idea

Ed: if it's sat on the shelf and been treated badly? If it's old?


----------



## mxd (24/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yes there is.
> 
> I will be blunt.
> 
> ...


 each to there own, I found with liquid yeast for Iagers I need to make a starter, like yob 1.050+ ales I need/want a starter, for dry I find I don't need a starter upto 1.045 for lagers an 1.055 for ales


----------



## NewtownClown (24/5/13)

Of, course a yeast culture will eventually grow enough during the "Log Phase" to have enough yeast cells to do the job no matter how much you underpitch (yes, it exists).
The problem with doing so is that it is during this growth phase that the "nasties" are produced - diacetyl, fusel alcohols, esters amongst others. Wort is vulnerable to infections during this phase, also. I would prefer to pitch the _*correct *_amount of yeast so no bugs can take hold and to avoid the afore mentioned nasties on a consistent basis.


----------



## verysupple (24/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> It is reasonably hard to underpitch due to the rate that yeast reproduces in wort.


The amount the yeast reproduce is one of the main determinants of yeast derived flavours in the beer. Yes, if you underpitch the yeast will multiply. But they will not be in the best health after many reproductive cycles and that will affect the beer in all sorts or ways - under-attenuation, high levels of fusels, high levels of esters etc. 

Also, while it may have been packaged with ~100 billion viable cells, there is no way you pour 100 billion viable cells with high vitality into your wort.

You may think it's all crap, but new brewers don't need to learn poor practices just because you're lazy.


----------



## anthonyUK (24/5/13)

> The standard dry yeast pack and liquid ready packs have enough yeast for a successfully brew.


Yep. It is exactly that. Enough to get the job done for anyone despite thier level of skill or experience.
If however you don't want acceptable but exceptional then you will need to look further.

This is the same for water 


I agree that for dried yeasts I wouldn't bother with MrMalty etc as with packet yeasts you really only have a rough estimate of how many cells you'll get.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

verysupple said:


> You may think it's all crap, but new brewers don't need to learn poor practices just because you're lazy.[/quote
> 
> Dear Flame suite
> 
> ...


----------



## NewtownClown (24/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> ...unless you have some sort of commercial interest


Ahhhh, _got_ it. Pitching rate is a _conspiracy h34r:_


----------



## spryzie (24/5/13)

Ah, I'm beginning to understand some of these threads. I love a good shit stir myself.

So I'll add my two cents.

My LHBS sells repacked US-05 in 7g sachets and writes on them "sufficient to ferment up to 25 litres".

I've only ever made 12L batches with them.

I used 2 sachets for the 1.090 barleywine I've got in the fermenter right not which has attenuated all the way in 6 days.


----------



## treefiddy (24/5/13)

To be fair, a fresh wyeast pack is enough to get the job done with "professional results" as stated on their website.
http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_productdetail.cfm?ProductID=16 (note ale wort)



> The Activator™ package contains a minimum of 100 billion cells in a yeast slurry.. The Activator™ is designed to directly inoculate 5 gallons of standard strength ale wort (1.034-1.060 SG) with professional pitching rates.


According to yeastcalc 5 gallons on 1.060 wort requires 209 b cells.
To pitch at the wyeast rate at 22 L you would need a maximum SG of 1.051 (208 b cells).

This is a massive simplification but it sounds fair to me.

I don't think anyone has been given advice to pitch more than 1 standard pack (11.5 g) for a standard 22 L batch.

Surely you wouldn't agree that your advice applies to lagers?


----------



## TidalPete (24/5/13)

Although I don't always agree with Stu on some things I must agree here. :beer:
I've been brewing for a long time & have NEVER done the Mr Malty thingo.
With a normal fermentation of 22 litres single\42 litres double batch & me being a tight arse I usually build up a starter in multiples of 10 after splitting a Wyeast smack pack into 4 or 5 tubes. 1500 ml for Ales & 3000ml for Lagers is usually the go with the same volume of yeast in the tube (More or less) applying to farming of the yeast & stopping at 5 generations.

Early in the piece I used to worry & fret why I got stopped fermentations once in a while but came to realise that the under-attenuation of the wort was caused by my lack of attention to aerating properly. This is now fixed (TTBOMA) & I am a happy camper ATM.
Sometimes (Rarely) I get a tube that is reluctant to cooperate & may be infected. Ditching the starter & starting again with another tube usually works.
Dry yeast is usually spread on the surface of the wort, let soak, then aerated as per the manufacturer's instructions except for Notto which is rehydrated before pitching as per the instructions.

Just my 2 cents.

Thank you Stu! I know I'm not alone now.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

some say it is possible to overpitch


----------



## TidalPete (24/5/13)

I do not know. At 1500ml for Ale & 3000ml for largers Lagers I'm happy with what I do.
And now back to the Broncos! :beerbang:
May their farts always smell like nectar! :lol:


----------



## iralosavic (24/5/13)

I get where you're going with this, Stu, because it can definitely be overwhelming and offputting for noobs to have to do more than just use the yeast as it comes, but have you ever pitched a 2-3 month old single LAGER smack pack into a 1.050 pale lager wort (say a Pilsener)? You can really taste it. You'd be better off sticking with two packs of dehydrated lager yeast.


----------



## manticle (24/5/13)

For what it's worth my simple rules of thumb:

1. If it's ale wort under 1050 and the pack is a month or two old and swells on the same day - pitch directly or into 2 L of identical wort saved from an NC brew. Pitch when active.
2. If using dry (rarely do), sprinkle straight in
3 If over 1050 or if it's a lager, I definitely make an active starter - strong beers and lagers will get up to 6-8 L from a single, whole smack pack. I no longer split.

Not theoretically best practice by any means and I recommend anyone interested in cell counts and the effect on beer gets reading (plenty of references) and possibly invest in a microscope and start cell counting.

For me, the above approach works well. All my batches are 18-22 L.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

QED TidalPete

Um.......Is my border pass still valid


----------



## Adr_0 (24/5/13)

manticle said:


> For what it's worth my simple rules of thumb:
> 
> 1. If it's ale wort under 1050 and the pack is a month or two old and swells on the same day - pitch directly or into 2 L of identical wort saved from an NC brew. Pitch when active.
> 2. If using dry (rarely do), sprinkle straight in
> ...


Do you hop your starters? DME or mash?


----------



## TidalPete (24/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> QED TidalPete
> 
> Um.......Is my border pass still valid


Duca,

Shotgun is out of ammo ATM so you could possibly slip past the tick gates before 8-in-a-row becomes a statement of fact. 

PS ---- Getting older & mellowing, mellowing, mellowing.


----------



## manticle (24/5/13)

Adr_0 said:


> Do you hop your starters? DME or mash?


Mash and they are hopped by default.

I no chill so I run the last bit out, with break into an erlenmeyer. Next day decant off the break, re-boil, cool and add my yeast. Shake and ferment at intended ferment temps, when active I pitch the lot into aerated wort.


----------



## TidalPete (24/5/13)

manticle said:


> Mash and they are hopped by default.
> 
> I no chill so I run the last bit out, with break into an erlenmeyer. Next day decant off the break, re-boil, cool and add my yeast. Shake and ferment at intended ferment temps, when active I pitch the lot into aerated wort.


+1 more or less. Same whether chill or no-chill.
Have 4 x frozen ready for new starters when needed.


----------



## slash22000 (24/5/13)

_"In my experience I've never had a problem underpitching yeast."_

... does not mean ...

_"It is a fact that underpitching yeast is not a problem."_

...

Underpitching and overpitching are absolutely potential problems. Appreciate your advice you've obviously been doing this way longer than I have, but let's not pretend that ideal yeast pitching rates are some kind of scam/myth.


----------



## Bada Bing Brewery (24/5/13)

I do a starter for everything (might only be for 4-6 hrs, longer for lagers of course kids)
Why?
Coz I bought a stirplate for 80 bucks - that's why.
Mr Malty - bite me .......
Cheers
BBB


----------



## iralosavic (24/5/13)

I think Stu's main point is that starters are a process that complicates home brewing to the degree where a lot of noobs are becoming overwhelmed and that simply pitching what comes in the smack pack is not that bad of a compromise to simply switching to liquid yeasts. I have a tendency to agree when it comes to mid gravity ales, but a inclination to disagree when it comes to mid+ gravity lagers. Two packs of dried yeast will cost less and assuming all other factors are equal, will produce a superior result (assuming the chosen strain is reasonable). 34/70, for example, is available in both wyeast and white labs and is massively widely used and produces good beers if cold conditioned long enough to clear the sulphur. However, if you under-pitch it, it starts to introduce flavours you'd expect more in a Belgian and without the backbone to hide them, the beer becomes obviously flawed.


----------



## bum (24/5/13)

iralosavic said:


> I think Stu's main point is that starters are a process that complicates home brewing


No. He literally means that the amount of yeast supplied in a sachet is always enough.

Said that in a thread about Coopers kit yeasts very recently (yesterday?).

He's completely wrong, of course.

[EDIT: strikethrough]


----------



## Rowy (24/5/13)

bum said:


> No. He literally means that the amount of yeast supplied in a sachet is always enough.
> 
> Said that in a thread about Coopers kit yeasts very recently (yesterday?).
> 
> ...


Quote your source. (About him being wrong)


----------



## Econwatson (24/5/13)

Well there's not always enough for a 22 litre batch in a sachet.

I think a Windsor Sachet is only good for 11 litres or so, learnt that to my cost with a stout I brewed.


----------



## slash22000 (24/5/13)

http://seanterrill.com/2010/05/09/yeast-pitching-rate-results/

http://sciencebrewer.com/2012/03/02/pitching-rate-experiment-part-deux-results/

Etc etc. Too tired to Google more of them. The point is that overpitching/underpitching has been demonstrated roughly five billion times to have an obvious effect on beer. Not in _every_ case, of course, but to say that underpitching/overpitching is a non-concern is patently false.

I get what OP is trying to say, that in most cases a pack of dry yeast is enough, which is probably true, but there is a difference between saying that and saying ideal pitching rates are a myth.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

manticle said:


> For what it's worth my simple rules of thumb:
> i
> 1. If it's ale wort under 1050 and the pack is a month or two old and swells on the same day - pitch directly or into 2 L of identical wort saved from an NC brew. Pitch when active.
> 2. If using dry (rarely do), sprinkle straight in
> ...


FFS ....Just throw the whole pack in...


----------



## bum (24/5/13)

Rowy said:


> Quote your source. (About him being wrong)


Are you shitting me? You're saying 7gms of dried yeast is ALWAYS enough?

What a piggish attitude!


----------



## jc64 (24/5/13)

bum said:


> Are you shitting me? You're saying 7gms of dried yeast is ALWAYS enough?
> 
> What a piggish attitude!


Who uses 7g packets of dry yeast? I thought they were all over 11g?


----------



## bum (24/5/13)

jc64 said:


> Who uses 7g packets of dry yeast? I thought they were all over 11g?


Are you for real?


----------



## jyo (24/5/13)

I always make a starter now, unless pitching into a low gravity wort and only if the smack pack is fresh. Talking ales here.

When I first started using liquid yeast I had way too many beers with massive lag times and stalled ferments.


----------



## manticle (24/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> FFS ....Just throw the whole pack in...


FFS.....just let other brewers do whatever they do.

My process suits me. My process sometimes includes throwing the whole pack in.

Sometimes it doesn't.

It's not about whether or not it works. Bread yeast would work too (if getting yeast to eat sugar and fart co2 and ethanol is considered 'working'). It's about getting the results you're happy with, using processes that suit. I make many compromises between ideal and real and will continue to choose when and how I make them.



As you were chief.


----------



## jc64 (24/5/13)

bum said:


> Are you for real?


No, I'm a bot.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

bum said:


> Said that in a thread about Coopers kit yeasts very recently
> 
> [EDIT: strikethrough]


No. I did not.


----------



## bum (24/5/13)

Coopers (the standard range, at least, maybe the others too) definitely use 7gm packs of yeast. Generally stored in shitty conditions at POS, too.

The generally-given advice to _always_ throw away the lid yeast isn't something I agree with but saying that it is enough for the general case is worse, IMO.


----------



## rbtmc (24/5/13)

There is enough in a packet to successfully turn wort into beer, but it's clearly not ideal in plenty of circumstances.
I find there is a HUGE difference in the end product when it comes to pitching rates. If you want to brew higher gravity brews, forget about it.


----------



## bum (24/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> No. I did not.


Yes, you did. Click the thing that shows you your most recent posts.

That may not be what you meant but it is what you actually said. Also what you said here.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

Ok...just on the off chance...

Who has had an issue pitching a packet/smack pack into a wort that it was designed for...


----------



## rbtmc (24/5/13)

I direct-pitched a wyeast into a damn mild (1.040) recently and got fusels and (possible) under-attenuation.
From now on in my brewery if it's liquid, it needs a starter.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

bum said:


> Yes, you did. Click the thing that shows you your most recent posts.
> 
> That may not be what you meant but it is what you actually said. Also what you said here.


show me the links...


----------



## bum (24/5/13)

I already told you how to find it.

I'm not making this shit up.


----------



## jc64 (24/5/13)

In relation to the topic, there is always enough yeast in the pack. Provided you pitch the correct about of viable yeast by using starters or multiple packs where required. 

I AM making this shit up


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (24/5/13)

bum said:


> I already told you how to find it.
> 
> I'm not making this shit up.


show the links


----------



## jc64 (24/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> show the links


Here is the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnrb8HnQvfU


----------



## bum (25/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> show the links


I really don't know why you're being such a dickhead about this. I told you where to find it. I'm not making this up.

In a thread seeking general advice about how to make better beer you said:



Ducatiboy stu said:


> There is enough yeast in a kit packet


I hope this clarifies the issue for you and anyone else.


----------



## rbtmc (25/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> show the links


http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/72349-the-secret-to-better-beer/?p=1035323


----------



## stakka82 (25/5/13)

Really it's all about manufacture date. If I'm lucky enough to get a liquid lager yeast within 2 weeks of manufacture, in my experience that is sufficient for a clean taste at under 1050 with 20 odd litres. I have also been stupid enough to try 10 litres of 1055 marzen with a 3 month old smackpack and no starter. Horrid.

Dry yeast is almost always good enough for a pack's worth on the above parameters, regardless of age (within reason).

34/70 is a workhorse, it's such an unappreciated yeast on this forum imo, I think it is a better all rounder on the lager side of things than 05 is on the ale side.


----------



## GuyQLD (25/5/13)

Posting in a troll thread.


----------



## GalBrew (25/5/13)

Another serving of AHB GOLD!!!!! :icon_vomit:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/5/13)

I Don't care. There is enough yeast in a kit for a normal kit brew And enough in a s mack pack for 22-23 ltrs 
If there wasn't then why are brewers out there making great beers without making starters .


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/5/13)

jc64...... Shame in you. Tom "I am gay" cruise has no place on this site. Or anywhere for that matter


----------



## Dars183 (25/5/13)

Note to self, avoid this thread. . . .

As a nooby brewer I think this thread has the potential to scare more people off brewing than any thread talking about making starters or Mr.Malty or under pitching. This has devolved into a troll thread with little or no practical use to someone wanting to make better beer than megaswill.

Back to learning


----------



## mikec (25/5/13)

Dars183 said:


> Note to self, avoid this thread. . . .
> 
> As a nooby brewer I think this thread has the potential to scare more people off brewing than any thread talking about making starters or Mr.Malty or under pitching. This has devolved into a troll thread with little or no practical use to someone wanting to make better beer than megaswill.
> 
> Back to learning


Some good advice there at least.

Stu, what you are saying is utter nonsense.
A smack pack that starts out with 100 billion cells (adequate, arguably, for a standard batch) deteriorates pretty quickly.
A 3-month old pack, handled well and kept cool, will have about 34 billion cells - nowhere near enough. It goes downhill from there pretty quickly with a bit more age, or in less ideal conditions.
Yes they will multiply in 22 litres or wort, and EVENTUALLY get through most of the sugars. But it will taste like shit.
This is fact. It is well documented, tested and proven.
I have done it when I was a noob. The beer was undrinkable and it all went down the sink.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/5/13)

Should have put A flame suite disclaimer. 

I bet there are plenty of brewers put there making unnecessary starters


----------



## jc64 (25/5/13)

Dars183 said:


> Note to self, avoid this thread. . . .
> 
> As a nooby brewer I think this thread has the potential to scare more people off brewing than any thread talking about making starters or Mr.Malty or under pitching. This has devolved into a troll thread with little or no practical use to someone wanting to make better beer than megaswill.
> 
> Back to learning


If people are scared off brewing by a internet thread than they need to have a look at themselves.



jc64 said:


> In relation to the topic, there is always enough yeast in the pack. Provided you pitch the correct about of viable yeast by using starters or multiple packs where required.
> 
> I AM making this shit up


This could be good advice for a 'nooby brewer'. When a thread is started with the outcome so obvious I fail to see the harm in having a laugh. However beer is so ******* serious we should all talk like professors I guess.


----------



## Rowy (25/5/13)

bum said:


> Are you shitting me? You're saying 7gms of dried yeast is ALWAYS enough?
> 
> What a piggish attitude!


No. I am not offering an opinion on what is an appropriate amount or otherwise. I simply asked you to quote the source you based your opinion on. As for attitude 'hello pot this is kettle'.

PIG of course stands for Pride Integrity and Guts..............


----------



## verysupple (25/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Should have put A flame suite disclaimer.


So you knew that all the experienced/senisble/not lazy brewers would disagree with you? Doesn't that give you an indication of the validity of your statments?

Flame suits (yes, it's spelled "suit") are sometimes necessary when it is a matter of opinion. This is *not* a matter of opinion; there is a multitude of published research regarding this.


----------



## bradsbrew (25/5/13)

rbtmc said:


> I direct-pitched a wyeast into a damn mild (1.040) recently and got fusels and (possible) under-attenuation.
> From now on in my brewery if it's liquid, it needs a starter.


I'd be looking at other parts of your process. I cannot see how direct pitching a swollen viable wyeast would lead to fusels and under attenuation in a 1040 mild.


----------



## fletcher (25/5/13)

this thread must be for the sake of causing a shitstir, because all i've seen is "no it's not!", "yes it is!" like bickering school children; and is a complete waste of time and internet pixels better suited for porn.


----------



## bradsbrew (25/5/13)

Hello my name is Brad and I am a certified under and over pitcher.

As I have stated in other threads, with the hundreds of full mash brews I have made and fermented I have probably made 3 starters and 2 of them were from coopers yeast. I will either direct pitch a wyeast smack pack, sprinkle one satchel of packet or use a yeast cake. I have my own little process that I change dependent on the brew type and size, this is stuff I have learnt over the years by experience in my little brewery.

It is not due to laziness I just like the results I get. Yes I have made some not so great beers but the issues were from other things not yeast. I have also tried beers made from starters that are just full of phenolics. I can make a well attenuated beer without the use of starters but I do make adjustments.

Cheers


----------



## Jazzafish (25/5/13)

Im a fan of the Jamil yeast calculator. I have noticed an improvement in my ferments and beers when utilising it so won't go back. Sometimes that means a starter, sometimes it doesn't. All about viable cells into the ferment. Some strains are forgiving, but altering the pitching rate will drastically change the beer in most belgian and wheat strains. Any naysayers will change their tune if they experiment with a side by side ferment.

Lastly, in a smack pack, how many viable cells or nutrients do you estimate remains in the packet if you simply up end it without rinsing?


----------



## Spiesy (25/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yes there is.
> 
> I will be blunt.
> 
> ...


Sorry mate - but some big generalisations there.

Are you saying that gravity plays no part in the amount of yeast required for a "standard" batch?
And are you saying that yeast populations do not diminish over time? 

If there's 100 billion yeasties in a Wyeast smack pack - and the manufacturer claims that the 100 billion are needed to do the job; tell me how 30-odd billion are going to do the job equally as well, if the yeast is 3-months old?


----------



## Yob (25/5/13)

4 pages and still ON topic? 

What have you done with AHB and who are you?


----------



## mje1980 (26/5/13)

In theory, a smack pack has enough for a single batch of normal strength ale. But I prefer to make a small starter for ales ( 1.5litres), and a big one for lagers ( 4 litres, as I cold pitch ). I got sick of occasional long lag times, even with a fresh pack that was quite swollen. It's worth that little extra effort for me. I have made plenty of fine beers just pitching, but I like to be sure.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/5/13)

Yob said:


> 4 pages and still ON topic?
> 
> What have you done with AHB and who are you?


This is nearly an AHB record


----------



## NewtownClown (26/5/13)

Ho-Hum....

One either believes the science or not


----------



## Nick JD (26/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Who has had an issue pitching a packet/smack pack into a wort that it was designed for...


Me.

Wyeast lager smackpacks. Anything that's more than a month old is not pitchable if you want a great lager.

Say you run a squad of cheerleaders. They all wear metalic gold hotpants (you with me here?) and can bend over backwards and lick their own ankles.

Right, so you want these cheerleaders to provide entertainment to the crowd. But you run three fat chicks wearing g-strings and ask them to dance and wonder why the crowd gets sour.

It's all about a billion hot cheerleaders. YOU HEARD ME. Yeast is _HOT_.


----------



## citizensnips (26/5/13)

amen clown, amen


----------



## jc64 (26/5/13)

If using a White labs vial that is at it's use by date, what size starter is optimum for ensuring a strong fermentation? Question without notice but I'm interested in what people are thinking. Do you need to step it up?


----------



## Yob (27/5/13)

Size of the starter will depend on 1: size of the brew 2: OG of the brew and yes, depending on those 2 factors may need to be stepped


----------



## philmud (27/5/13)

Nick, your analogy is too distracting.


----------



## djar007 (27/5/13)

To lighten the mood.


----------



## Yob (27/5/13)

or




:lol:


----------



## treefiddy (27/5/13)

I always build starters with my dry yeast packs as I am very concerned about the 4% viability loss per year.


----------



## jc64 (27/5/13)

Yob said:


> Size of the starter will depend on 1: size of the brew 2: OG of the brew and yes, depending on those 2 factors may need to be stepped


So say I have a vial 1 month past it's best before date. Going into a 1060 SG batch of 21 liters Mr Malty tells me I would need 6 vials in a 1.8 liter starter!! I must be doing something wrong with the calculator, surely no-one uses 6 vials?


----------



## Yob (27/5/13)

If it's a month past its use by its lost most of its viability, hence the multiple vials, you my friend require a starter fo shizzle

ed: and I would probably step it, 500ml then 2lt


----------



## jc64 (27/5/13)

500 ml to 2 liters sounds good to me, but the 6 vials I mentioned are what is needed *with *a starter according to Mr Malty, unless I have it wrong. I have used old vials in a starter before, I must have massively underpitched if I needed 6 vials along with a starter.


----------



## NewtownClown (27/5/13)

Underpitched? Not if you have been listening to the flat-earthers.


----------



## Bizier (27/5/13)

One word: viability.

It decreases quicker than most will accept.


----------



## Nick JD (27/5/13)

Pitching a 2 month old smackpack is like a 90 year old man donating sperm.


----------



## Yob (27/5/13)

jc64 said:


> 500 ml to 2 liters sounds good to me, but the 6 vials I mentioned are what is needed *with *a starter according to Mr Malty, unless I have it wrong. I have used old vials in a starter before, I must have massively underpitched if I needed 6 vials along with a starter.


I bet you will still have the check viability by date box ticked (and the old date), of course, when you have made a starter (fully fermented out) the viability is reset to almost 100%.. 90-95% is a good target

@ Nick


----------



## jyo (27/5/13)

So following Nick's analogy, I am reckoning that the old bloke above has been frequently agitating the old Erlenmeyer to keep his yeast viable.


----------



## seamad (27/5/13)

mr malty is shit.
use this: http://www.yeastcalc.com/


----------



## jc64 (27/5/13)

Yob said:


> I bet you will still have the check viability by date box ticked (and the old date), of course, when you have made a starter (fully fermented out) the viability is reset to almost 100%.. 90-95% is a good target
> 
> @ Nick



Yep cheers YOB, so if I use my old vial in a 500ml starter to wake them up, then calculate what size starter to step up to using my 500ml batch as the equivalent of one vial I'm on the right track? Does that sound correct?


----------



## Yob (27/5/13)

ball park.. others are fussier with numbers but Im shit at maths so Im _*very*_ ballpark... should at least get you to the right game sort of thing...

Wolfy has some good threads on calcing yeast but I get lost real quick so Im a bit rough and tumble..

Seamads link Ive also played with but again.. bit too scientific for me.. I kind of like the lick the thumb approach


----------



## Kudzu (27/5/13)

Can I ask a stupid slightly off-topic question? I have no experience with liquid yeast yet. I'm seeing all this talk of several litre starters and am wondering if this effects the amount of trub you end up with?

If I pitch a pack of dry yeast I generally end up with about 1 litre of trub.

If I'm pitching more yeast to begin with than I normally end up with at the end of fermentation will I end up with a massive trub once it's all done? Or am I missing something?


----------



## Bizier (27/5/13)

Kudzu said:


> Can I ask a stupid slightly off-topic question? I have no experience with liquid yeast yet. I'm seeing all this talk of several litre starters and am wondering if this effects the amount of trub you end up with?
> 
> If I pitch a pack of dry yeast I generally end up with about 1 litre of trub.
> 
> If I'm pitching more yeast to begin with than I normally end up with at the end of fermentation will I end up with a massive trub once it's all done? Or am I missing something?


Not at all stupid, amount of yeast, viability and oxygenation (and nutrients) will have massive influence over the final amount of yeast. This is something you can control as part of the art of brewing to provide flavour differences.

If I actually brewed occasionally at home, I would still ballpark it with a starter to get more hungry daughter cells made and pitch those with like 99.9% viability plus whatever octogenarian grandmas I purchased.

Lower O2 and you will have less trub because aerobic phase will be short and whatever is there will basically focus on just eating rather than multiplying.


----------



## Nick JD (27/5/13)

Kudzu said:


> Can I ask a stupid slightly off-topic question? I have no experience with liquid yeast yet. I'm seeing all this talk of several litre starters and am wondering if this effects the amount of trub you end up with?
> 
> If I pitch a pack of dry yeast I generally end up with about 1 litre of trub.
> 
> If I'm pitching more yeast to begin with than I normally end up with at the end of fermentation will I end up with a massive trub once it's all done? Or am I missing something?


The reason people pitch the correct amount is to limit some undesirable flavours, and promote desirable ones.

If you pitched just one cell (and there were zero other micro-organisms in your fermenter) you'd make beer. And still have a normal amount of trub. It's taste different to a correct pitch, and it'd probably finish with a high FG, but it'd be beer.

As Bizier says, people worry about pitch rates and then pitch into wort with inadequate oxygen. Pitch calcs assume you are oxygenating optimally, when almost no one is. One of the reasons why K&K beers do okay with 6g of yeast is probably due to the tap water having all that oxygen.

I work on the rule that close is good enough.


----------



## tricache (27/5/13)

jyo said:


> So following Nick's analogy, I am reckoning that the old bloke above has been frequently agitating the old Erlenmeyer to keep his yeast viable.


Hang on...where is the stir plate?


----------



## QldKev (27/5/13)

I used to get the exact pitch rate using mr malty, but lately I feel I may be miscounting a yeast cell or two.


----------



## bum (27/5/13)

QldKev said:


> I used to get the exact pitch rate using mr malty, but lately I feel I may be miscounting a yeast cell or two.


Shit beer 'round at Kev's house!

I can lend you a cell or two, if you like. I need them back though.


----------



## AndrewQLD (27/5/13)

Certainly is confusing, the difference between these two calculators one and two is HUGE. 44g of dry yeast for one and 22g for the other both calculating a 23lt lager @1.050.
I wonder which one is right :blink: .


----------



## Kudzu (27/5/13)

Nick JD said:


> The reason people pitch the correct amount is to limit some undesirable flavours, and promote desirable ones.
> 
> If you pitched just one cell (and there were zero other micro-organisms in your fermenter) you'd make beer. And still have a normal amount of trub. It's taste different to a correct pitch, and it'd probably finish with a high FG, but it'd be beer.
> 
> ...


Yeah no worries, I wasn't questioning the need for adequate pitching rates. I was just wondering how pitching large amounts of liquid yeast effects the trub (if it does). For example, someone said earlier in the thread they sometimes use a six litre starter, does that mean 6 litres of yeast? Do you end up with a 6 litre trub, more? less? Or is it just normal?


----------



## jc64 (27/5/13)

With a six liter starter I would think you decant off the liquid and just pitch the yeast.


----------



## Nick JD (27/5/13)

Kudzu said:


> Yeah no worries, I wasn't questioning the need for adequate pitching rates. I was just wondering how pitching large amounts of liquid yeast effects the trub (if it does). For example, someone said earlier in the thread they sometimes use a six litre starter, does that mean 6 litres of yeast? Do you end up with a 6 litre trub, more? less? Or is it just normal?


If you are making a 6L starter, you're best to throw in some hops to your LDME boil and make 6L of beer and bottle it instead of tipping it down the sink.


----------



## bradsbrew (27/5/13)

Nick JD said:


> If you are making a 6L starter, you're best to throw in some hops to your LDME boil and make 6L of beer and bottle it instead of tipping it down the sink.


Holy crap, had to read that twice. But I think I know what you meant Nick. If I was new to brewing I would have taken that as, throw in some hops and some LDME into the starter and boil.

But if they are making a 6L starter they would not have 6L of beer?


----------



## treefiddy (27/5/13)

There is a Maibock recipe by Jamil Z that requires a 15 L starter for a 19 L batch.


Mind you it is a big beer, but I can't but help think that anyone who recommends a 15 L starter, or $50 worth of wyeast packs is a bit of a twat.





Nick JD said:


> If you are making a 6L starter, you're best to throw in some hops to your LDME boil and make 6L of beer and bottle it instead of tipping it down the sink.


Half a slab from a starter, you'd be bonkers not to.


----------



## bradsbrew (27/5/13)

Kudzu said:


> Yeah no worries, I wasn't questioning the need for adequate pitching rates. I was just wondering how pitching large amounts of liquid yeast effects the trub (if it does). For example, someone said earlier in the thread they sometimes use a six litre starter, does that mean 6 litres of yeast? Do you end up with a 6 litre trub, more? less? Or is it just normal?


I think this is a good question.

How are people measuring what size their starter is?
How are people determining what is the 'active' yeast within their starter?
How much of the starter is that 'dead yeast' that contributes the faults, and would that not throw out calculations?
If you are pitching straight from the smack pack are you not getting a truer version?
Do those that make starters exclusively/mostly use visual methods to determine amount or do they weigh the flask to calculate?

Cheers


----------



## jc64 (27/5/13)

Nick JD said:


> If you are making a 6L starter, you're best to throw in some hops to your LDME boil and make 6L of beer and bottle it instead of tipping it down the sink.


Have you kept a starter of this size Nick? How was the result? I'm sure it wasn't the best beer you have ever made but I guess as a quick drink it would have been ok. I guess in a way when needing those big starter volumes it's best to brew a smaller beer and use the yeast cake. Two birds with one stone and all that.

Agree about the 15 litre starter comment from treefiddy,


----------



## jc64 (27/5/13)

bradsbrew said:


> I think this is a good question.
> 
> How are people measuring what size their starter is?
> How are people determining what is the 'active' yeast within their starter?
> ...


Pitching from the pack vs from the starter should be the same if your process is sound I thought. I guess there would be a minimal change but surely nothing worth thinking about? 

All the other points would be interesting to find out.


----------



## Bada Bing Brewery (27/5/13)

The Americans plan to loop this thread at Guantanamo Bay ......
Six pages, please stop.
BBB


----------



## jc64 (27/5/13)

Bada Bing Brewery said:


> The Americans plan to loop this thread at Guantanamo Bay ......
> Six pages, please stop.
> BBB


Thanks for the insightful answer


----------



## slash22000 (27/5/13)

I've read on the internet of people making mild, low alcohol batches specifically to harvest and pitch the relatively healthy yeast left over. Somewhat similar to this massive starter idea I guess.


----------



## jc64 (27/5/13)

slash22000 said:


> I've read on the internet of people making mild, low alcohol batches specifically to harvest and pitch the relatively healthy yeast left over. Somewhat similar to this massive starter idea I guess.


Absolutely. When thought of in this way why would you bother pitching what could be not enough yeast, when you could have a nice mild, then go for a big IPA. 

I might start viewing all my little 21 liter batches as massive starters for my inevitable Barley wine progression.


----------



## Yob (28/5/13)

@ brad, I know from experiments that I get ~75ml (compact) yeast from a 1lt starter, as a general rule of thumb you sill have about 90% viability (as stated before this number is what I've always used) if I have a 1050-60 wort at 24 lt Good old Mr malty tells me I need about 65ml of compact yeast.. Bang, I'm in business! 

Sometimes if I've used some older yeast I may make a 2lt starter, let ferment out and rinse like I would collecting trub,


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/5/13)

Still enough in a pack


----------



## seamad (28/5/13)

slash22000 said:


> I've read on the internet of people making mild, low alcohol batches specifically to harvest and pitch the relatively healthy yeast left over. Somewhat similar to this massive starter idea I guess.


If brewing a belgian tripel i brew an ale first and then pitch onto the cake, think that's a pretty common practice. Do the same for big ipa. Smaller starters on a stir plate are gunna be oxidized and undrinkable, but you are getting much better growth compared with just making a drinking beer starter.


----------



## Nick JD (28/5/13)

jc64 said:


> Have you kept a starter of this size Nick? How was the result? I'm sure it wasn't the best beer you have ever made but I guess as a quick drink it would have been ok.


Lager yeast at 18C is the only issue with it (which isn't much of an issue with a hoppy beer) aside from that it's just a mild extract 10 minute APA (usually I use american hops). Bottle into a 1.5L PET with 2 teaspoons of sugar simply by decanting.


----------



## Kudzu (28/5/13)

bradsbrew said:


> I think this is a good question.
> 
> How are people measuring what size their starter is?
> How are people determining what is the 'active' yeast within their starter?
> ...


Thanks, I think I understand now.

I was thinking when people said 6 litre starter it meant they were pitching 6 litres of actual yeast. So the 6 litres refers to the volume of wort you're starting the yeast in?


----------



## GalBrew (28/5/13)

Kudzu said:


> Thanks, I think I understand now.
> 
> I was thinking when people said 6 litre starter it meant they were pitching 6 litres of actual yeast. So the 6 litres refers to the volume of wort you're starting the yeast in?


Correct.


----------



## slash22000 (28/5/13)

6 litres of actual yeast would be a little excessive. :blink:


----------



## tricache (28/5/13)

slash22000 said:


> 6 litres of actual yeast would be a little excessive. :blink:


But just imagine the beer which would actually need 6L of yeast!


----------



## beachy (28/5/13)

Congratulations Stu, you will soon be the father of many many bottle bombs all across the interwebs. I hope they make you very very proud.

The quality of advice being given in this thread should certainly keep those pro memberships rolling in. :blink:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/5/13)

Some people just won't accept that there is enough in a packet or smack pack.


----------



## black_labb (28/5/13)

There seems to be a backlash against the freedom of information. People feel that thinking is stupid and they know everything because they haven't or don't have the intellect to properly think about something.

I've always driven a fuel sucking car and it was cold the other day, therefore the scientists who spend years researching and thinking are wrong and I'm right.

I've done over 15 brews without sanitising and have never had a bad beer. Sanitising is stupid

I've always pitched X g of yeast and it's always made good beer, there for that is plenty for every beer under any circumstances

I did something without thinking and I didn't notice any immediate negative results, therefore those people who actually think about things are a bunch of idiots because I can't be fucked thinking about things.


----------



## GalBrew (28/5/13)

This thread has well and truely stepped into the abyss of retardedness......

Whatever happened to the handfull of contributors that actually knew what they were talking about and were worth listening to?? (You know who you are). :unsure:


----------



## DUANNE (28/5/13)

You can make succesful beers with k+k . All this talk of using other methods is just crap. why go to the effort of starters and allgrain and temp controlled ferments when you can get pissed on a ten dollar kit and a kilo of sugar fermented at whatever ambient temp
is at the time. I will continue using correct pitching rates and making the BEST beer I can. Not just barely acceptable beer because im to lazy and want to ignore some basic fundamentals just to save time and effort.


----------



## Nick JD (28/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Some people just won't accept that there is enough in a packet or smack pack.


There's enough in a dried pack almost always. There is almost never enough in a smackpack.

Some people just won't accept that liquid yeasts deteriorate rapidly.


----------



## manticle (28/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Some people just won't accept that there is enough in a packet or smack pack.



You haven't given them any reason to.

Your argument so far is the equivalent of "there is a god. I've seen him', repeated about 8 times.


----------



## tricache (28/5/13)

manticle said:


> You haven't given them any reason to.
> 
> Your argument so far is the equivalent of "there is a god. I've seen him', repeated about 8 times.


Isn't that just how religion works?


----------



## Nick JD (28/5/13)

tricache said:


> Isn't that just how religion works?


No. It's more like _there is a God, I *haven't *seen him_.


----------



## bum (28/5/13)

"There's a god because it says so on the pack he came in."


----------



## NewtownClown (28/5/13)

I have seen God...
...She was black


----------



## mje1980 (28/5/13)

bum said:


> "There's a god because it says so on the pack he came in."


I'm sure you're aware there is always enough god in the pack?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/5/13)

well if there wasn't then we would all be making starters. Plenty of brewers make good beers, and shock horror, comp winning beers...

You don't need to make a starter to make good beer. Sure it may help, but it is not essential.


----------



## slash22000 (28/5/13)

It gets to the point where I don't know if you're trolling anymore or if you are actually serious. The joke is over but the misinformation remains.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/5/13)

I stand by what I say.


----------



## manticle (28/5/13)

Which isn't really much more than 'good beer has been made without starters'

I know.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/5/13)

Which is why I say there is enough


----------



## black_labb (28/5/13)

And if people wanted to improve their beer do you think that pitching more yeast could be one way to do that?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/5/13)

It can.But does it really make it better and could you notice the difference


----------



## manticle (28/5/13)

Loads of people complain about stalled brews, estery brews, fuselly brews etc - especially the noobs for whom you want to make things simple.

Common culprit - underpitching so yes I can, you can, we all can notice the difference.

You pitch a doppelbock with a single pack of 6 month old yeast and tell me if you can.

For what It's worth, I don't use mr malty and often find the amounts suggested way over what I find practical to use and mostly my beer turns out well (including some comp winners). You seem to be just taking the opposite end though, with no qualification and offering no justification - just 'it's fine'.

Well sometimes it isn't.

I've also noticed an improvement in flavour and fermentation in certain brews that required bigger starters (high grav etc) so that's the other bit of anecdotal evidence to deal with. Have you ever tried it and noticed an IMPROVEMENT in a beer? I have.


----------



## Bizier (28/5/13)

It also depends what you expect from your ferment. A perfect ferment with all factors available and perfect viability should rip through to terminal gravity within a couple of days.


----------



## Nick JD (28/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> It can.But does it really make it better and could you notice the difference


Not using question marks does not make your question a statement.

Pitch a 4 month old smackpack into a 1.060 lager and see what ******* happens! Till then, STFU.

Let me put this another way ducatiboy ... I've got a Monster 600, you have a Panagali ... if I say, given a few twisty corners I can beat you in a 40km race, you'd think I'm a dickwad, right? Well you're achieving the same thing in a homebrewing sense.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/5/13)

?


----------



## black_labb (28/5/13)

Basically you are saying that you are happy with your beer even if you are not pitching optimal yeast numbers according to the guidelines put forward by scientists. Why does that automatically mean that your uneducated experience with a single method mean that the single method you have used is ideal and should be taught to everyone.

If you want to tell new brewers that they will still make great beer if they don't follow the guidelines 100% then that's what you should say. Tell them to ignore them and whatever they get in whatever package they have on hand will do all they want it to do is just bad advice.

And yes I do think I would prefer a beer brewed with the correct amount of yeast compared to one which is under pitched.


----------



## mje1980 (29/5/13)

The wyeast website has a section making starters for "high gravity beer, or cold fermented lagers or ales". What a bunch of idiots huh!


----------



## mje1980 (29/5/13)

A yeast starter is used to initiate cell activity or increase the cell count before using it to make your beer. The yeast will grow in this smaller volume, usually for 1-2 days, which then can be added to 5 gallons of wort.

While a starter is not always necessary, White Labs recommends making a starter if the Original Gravity is over 1.060, if the yeast is past its "Best Before" date, if you are pitching lager yeast at temperatures below 65F, or if a faster start is desired.




The above is copied straight from the white labs website. More idiots!!

Lets face it, what would these fools know about yeast?, I mean they probably have some sort of degree in microbiology or something, so what the hell do they know?!


----------



## bum (29/5/13)

You're just buying into the Illuminati conspiracy designed to sell you more yeast.

You don't even need to buy yeast in the first place. There's enough in the air.


----------



## bradsbrew (29/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yes there is.
> 
> I will be blunt.
> 
> ...





mje1980 said:


> A yeast starter is used to initiate cell activity or increase the cell count before using it to make your beer. The yeast will grow in this smaller volume, usually for 1-2 days, which then can be added to 5 gallons of wort.
> 
> While a starter is not always necessary, White Labs recommends making a starter if the Original Gravity is over 1.060, if the yeast is past its "Best Before" date, if you are pitching lager yeast at temperatures below 65F, or if a faster start is desired.
> 
> ...


The OP did mention what you have stated.

Both wyeast and whitelabs state you do not have to make a starter within their guidelines.

Within reason(excluding big beers, cold lagers), keeping a consistent temperature within the yeasts range is more important than making a starter.

Having said that my next 3 cube batch will be used as an experiment. Two identical cubes fermented at same temp at same time, 2 smack packs- 1 pitched after swelling, 1 made into a starter as per wyeast calculator. Lets see how much difference it makes.

Cheers


----------



## Phillo (29/5/13)

The main thing for me is lag time. I make all of my starters from real wort taken before I fill my cube. Pitch my smack pack into that and wait until high-krausen (there's usually a nice creamy layer of yeast at the bottom, much more than I would have pitched from the pack). Sometimes I'll get signs of fermentation within 3-4 hours if it's a monster (ie. 3787).

Small amount of yeast with unknown viablity? 24hrs+ lag time?

OR

Larger amount of freshly active viable yeast still in its reproductive phase with only a few hours lag time?

I don't use Mr. Malty or Yeast Calc, and maybe I should, but clearly there are several benefits to using starters for liquid/farmed yeast, even if you don't want to get too complicated about things.


----------



## GalBrew (29/5/13)

The bullshit spouted in this thread makes me wonder why any noob would come here for homebrewing advice.


----------



## NewtownClown (29/5/13)

mje1980 said:


> The wyeast website has a section making starters for "high gravity beer, or cold fermented lagers or ales". What a bunch of idiots huh!


 What would Wyeast or White Labs know? They probably believe in the science of climate change, too.
Friggin' white coats know nuthin'!


----------



## Nick JD (29/5/13)

Once, I smacked a pack of Wyeast 2001 (Urquell's H strain) and waited for it to swell. After 24 hours, it might have swollen a tiny bit, or it might have just been in my head. Anyway, I couldn't wait any longer, so I pitched it into a 9C wort.

Then nothing happened. 3 days later, nothing happened. Which is about the time I (and everyone else this has happened to) freaks out.

So I dump a pack of S23 in. And remind myself to do two things:

1. Never trust a smackpack's viability, especially if it has been in the post.

2. Always split the smackpack at least 3 ways and make a starter - which both assures you of an adequate pitch (vital to a clean lager), and that you've pitched live yeast.

Paying $10 for a smackpack and $5 for LDME for 5 starters is cheaper than buying dried yeast *by half. *


----------



## NewtownClown (29/5/13)

Awwww, you should've waited at least a week!

Extended lag phase and excessive ester production during the log phase is not an issue!

I know that because i have read this thread...


----------



## Nick JD (29/5/13)

NewtownClown said:


> Awwww, you should've waited at least a week!
> 
> Extended lag phase and excessive ester production during the log phase is not an issue!
> 
> I know that because i have read this thread...


Would have been a rotten stinking mess by then. My main avenue of sanitisation is relying on yeast to do their antibiotic thing.


----------



## verysupple (29/5/13)

bradsbrew said:


> Having said that my next 3 cube batch will be used as an experiment. Two identical cubes fermented at same temp at same time, 2 smack packs- 1 pitched after swelling, 1 made into a starter as per wyeast calculator. Lets see how much difference it makes.
> 
> Cheers


Anecdotal evidence is fine, but I'm glad someone is willing to test the hypothesis scientifically (other than the many, many microbiologists and brewing scientists that have already done it  )

Just to check, do you have two fermenting fridges? If you put two cubes in the same fridge they won't be fermenting at the same temp. Aside from the fact that the air temp. in the fridge won't be homogeneous, presumably the cube with the larger cell count will produce far more heat than the cube with the lower cell count.


----------



## drsmurto (29/5/13)

If you have a fresh smackpack or vial, that is, within a month or 2 of manufacture, and you are pitching the yeast into 20L (or less) of a well oxygenated wort (8ppm of DO minimum) with an OG of less than 1.060, then you _don't need _to make a starter.

I'd wager, the vast majority of brewers are not able to tick all those boxes in which case, a starter is advised.

If I can tick all those boxes then I will happily use the yeast without making a starter but only when making ales. That rarely happens so I use a starter to revitalise the yeast, build up cell numbers and ensure that I am pitching adequate numbers of yeast to avoid any off flavours developing.

Lagers, as NickJD has pointed out, require a different approach.

The OP has stated that you may need a starter but then states that yeast reproduces in wort sufficiently to make underpitching difficult. That is only true in wort that has a DO of 8+ppm and very few homebrewers achieve this.

The other end of that is overpitching which is a very real risk when people repitch entire yeast cakes. This can result in insufficient cell growth which can lead to thin beers with higher levels of off flavour such as acetaldehyde and diacetyl due to a lack of healthy yeast capable of reabsorbing these compounds.

So you can, sometimes, get away without making a starter but a small starter is not going to result in overpitching and is a very cheap insurance policy. I hate tipping out beer after the effort involved in making it.


----------



## fletcher (29/5/13)

here endeth the thread. please.


----------



## Tony (29/5/13)

I want to see the results of Brads experiment


----------



## NewtownClown (29/5/13)

fletcher said:


> here endeth the thread. please.


Not until someone mentions that nationalist party that came to power in a european country (neither Italy nor Spain) in the 1930's


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/5/13)

Clive Palmer will sort it


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/5/13)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEkwp_2Yezo&list=UUh_h4W2VmFdo3R8g1XaXN_Q&index=81


----------



## treefiddy (29/5/13)

You gonna post a specific time where he reaffirms your point or does somebody have to sit through 38 minutes a "laagers" and "woman owned" for the guy with an economics degree to get to his/your point.


----------



## manticle (29/5/13)

Around 14 minutes he starts talking about how to get optimal pitching rates by using starters if you don't want to buy multiple packs. Starter size and time are important.
He then goes onto to suggest exactly how important a good pitch rate is.

Not sure where you are going with this Stu.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/5/13)

I thought it had some points. But 38mins was a bit much


----------



## doon (29/5/13)

And it supported your point how?


----------



## slash22000 (29/5/13)

This thread is beyond a joke. I'm sure it's all just a troll and a laugh but new(er) brewers might read this and think they don't need to give a shit about pitching rates.


----------



## Nick JD (29/5/13)

Stu, you've spent far more then 38 minutes writing rubbish in this thread.


----------



## treefiddy (29/5/13)

I dunno, it only takes a few seconds to do the Tony Abbot (No


----------



## Bizier (29/5/13)

Don't stop the ball rolling now. Let's talk about the 5g sachets, they are really small. I want 10 pages.


----------



## Dars183 (29/5/13)

+1 for 10 pages, I'm sure that I won't be relying on the theory that one pack fits all  

Thank you to all the contributors


----------



## Nick JD (30/5/13)

I still find it completely suckful that I can buy a big fuckoff jar with 280g of dried S. cerevisiae for $4.29 for making pizzas ... yet the same stuff for making beer is $50-100.

RIPOFF.


----------



## AndrewQLD (30/5/13)

Nick JD said:


> I still find it completely suckful that I can buy a big fuckoff jar with 280g of dried S. cerevisiae for $4.29 for making pizzas ... yet the same stuff for making beer is $50-100.
> 
> RIPOFF.


Perfect sized pack Nick, no need to worry about under pitching or having to make a starter, clearly these are the packs Stu is referring to.


----------



## Nick JD (30/5/13)

But wouldn't it be nice if Fermentis sold 280g packs of US05 for $5?

I'd scoop the shit in in great dollops.

.


----------



## NewtownClown (30/5/13)

yep. enough in that pack...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/5/13)

slash22000 said:


> This thread is beyond a joke. I'm sure it's all just a troll and a laugh but new(er) brewers might read this and think they don't need to give a shit about pitching rates.


Why


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/5/13)

Will be interesting to see new brewers asking about making starters when they havnt even knocked a beer out. Seems some are intent on saying you must or your beer will be sit


----------



## Nick JD (30/5/13)

No one likes their beer to sit.

Or roll over.


----------



## jc64 (30/5/13)

Any technical reason for bakers yeast being so much cheaper? Or is just a case of what the market will bear?


----------



## black_labb (30/5/13)

From what I've hear bakers yeast often has many wild yeasts as well as the ale yeast. Doesn't matter for bread but for beer those wild yeasts could effect flavour or at least cause a slow continued ferment leading to bottle bombs. How prominent these wild yeasts are I don't know. There is also the issue of getting a single strain in the pack and sterilisation, which isn't worried about in bread but is for beer.

could be an interesting experiment. I wouldn't bottle it in glass though.


----------



## Adr_0 (30/5/13)

Is this thread still going??


Well, my 2c:
_"I under-pitch and I vote"_

And to add to the drama, some anecdotal evidence:

_I pitched 11.5g of US-05 into 13L of wort (1.051) and it finished faster than the 1L starter of 3333 pitched into 32L of virtually identical wort (1.048) but the 3333 finished one day later, at identical temperatures (18.5°C)._

_Proof that a single packet of dried yeast provides more viable cells than a 1L starter of liquid yeast._


But seriously... why is this thread still going??


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/5/13)

I refuse to be bullied against my claim that there is enough yeast in a satchel or make pack to make a good beer that the average beer would make. I have tried various yeast pitching. I found that doubling up on dry yeast ( and even re-hydrating ) didn't make any.difference. Same with liquid smack packs. The only time I made starters for liquids was when I Split them. I just direct pitched, no issues


----------



## GalBrew (30/5/13)

If you don't want to cop shit from people, perhaps you should be less vehement with your claims that fly in the face of actual science, that are based on your anecdotal evidence (which in science talk means no evidence).


----------



## stm (30/5/13)

DrSmurto said:


> If you have a fresh smackpack or vial, that is, within a month or 2 of manufacture, and you are pitching the yeast into 20L (or less) of a well oxygenated wort (8ppm of DO minimum) with an OG of less than 1.060, then you _don't need _to make a starter.
> 
> I'd wager, the vast majority of brewers are not able to tick all those boxes in which case, a starter is advised.


The vast majority of brewers use packets of dry yeast, not smackpacks/vials of liquid yeast.


----------



## stm (30/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Will be interesting to see new brewers asking about making starters when they havnt even knocked a beer out. Seems some are intent on saying you must or your beer will be s*it


This.


----------



## tricache (30/5/13)

Yeah why not I will throw my 2c in here.

I always thought making starter was mainly about yeast efficiency...kind of like warming up before a run, if you don't you can still run but just not as well but after stretching and warming up you will perform better.


----------



## Adr_0 (30/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I refuse to be bullied against my claim that there is enough yeast in a satchel or make pack to make a good beer that the average beer would make. I have tried various yeast pitching. I found that doubling up on dry yeast ( and even re-hydrating ) didn't make any.difference. Same with liquid smack packs. The only time I made starters for liquids was when I Split them. I just direct pitched, no issues





Adr_0 said:


> _I pitched 11.5g of US-05 into 13L of wort (1.051) and it finished faster than the 1L starter of 3333 pitched into 32L of virtually identical wort (1.048) but the 3333 finished one day later, at identical temperatures (18.5°C)._


This actually happened... I'm just saying it's anecdotal because I didn't do it in a controlled test. I support you Stu, and at least 50% of the time I have used packet yeasts to good effect direct pitched, and it has turned the wort into delicious delicious beer. sometimes this has been one packet, often two. Never in a lager - or larger lager - though... but I believe that was covered on pages 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.... but that doesn't mean you can't do it.

The Wyeast site has great information, put there by experts who make yeasties every day... pretty sure their guidelines are right on. If you go outside those - high gravity beers, high volumes, lagers started at cool temps, or old yeast - then a starter will help you out.

PS: the thread is still going....


----------



## GalBrew (30/5/13)

Keeping in mind that yeast viability decreases pretty much as soon as it is packaged.


----------



## manticle (30/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Will be interesting to see new brewers asking about making starters when they havnt even knocked a beer out. Seems some are intent on saying you must or your beer will be sit



Who is saying that and why do you think people disagreeing with your generalisation equates to you being bullied?


----------



## Nick JD (30/5/13)

I'm being a bully. Just gave you a noogie and a nipple gripple.

Now you are upside down in a rubbish bin.

HA HA!

But seriously, if you make a 1.060 batch of lager, split in into two fermenters and pitch 250 million cell into one, and 2 billion into the other - you'll know what everyone is on about.

Until then - you will be bullied on the internets, because the internets has enough shit on it already.


----------



## Damien13 (30/5/13)

Yeah... this is quite the thread.
From my experience, the only time my beers have ever sucked (once I went all grain) was when I didn't treat the yeast with the respect it deserved. Be it pitching rate/temperature/ambient musak designed to relax the yeasties.. whatever. Make of this what you will, but whenever I want to crank out excellent beer, I pay close attention to Mr Malty and ensure I make a starter ONLY if needed. If it's a standard 1.030-1.050 ale I chuck in a pack of dried yeast and wish them the best of luck 
But hey that's just me.
Of interest, Journey's 'Don't stop Believing' is best for yeast growth and happiness. However, playing it on repeat causes them to mutate.


----------



## bum (30/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I refuse to be bullied against my claim that there is enough yeast in a satchel


I agree that this would certainly be an over-pitch.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/5/13)

I am not against starters, in fact I have made many. And they ate warranted. But for Joe average making their beers there is ( or should ) be enough. Of course big beers require a different approach


----------



## slash22000 (30/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I am not against starters, in fact I have made many. And they ate warranted. But for Joe average making their beers there is ( or should ) be enough. Of course big beers require a different approach


... So now you're saying that you should make a starter and pitch more yeast in a high gravity beer? Or, in other words, that underpitching yeast is a problem? :mellow:


----------



## bum (30/5/13)

Maybe just use a bum-bag rather than a whole satchel?

Or perhaps a Starter cap-full?


----------



## verysupple (30/5/13)

bum said:


> Maybe just use a bum-bag rather than a whole satchel?


While on the subject of bags...Stu needs a colostomy bag for all the sh*t he's talking.


----------



## AndrewQLD (30/5/13)

4 hours after pitching a 1lt yeast slurry......





Not looking forward to opening the fermenting fridge tomorrow morning, over pitching can be a problem as well.


----------



## warra48 (30/5/13)

I like growing yeast from a freshly smacked pack or new vial.
Makes me feel like a grown up with it cool guy better than average garage brewer well initiated into the mysteries of brewing great beer.

Meanwhile guys, I've never done double blind side by side tests to prove or disprove the hypothesis or theory or suggestion or experiment put up on page 1 in post #1, so I am not in a position to prove or disprove the OP. He may be right, or he may be not, I just don't know. If he says what he does works for him, it proves it works for him. That's it, nothing more, nor less. May or may not work for you or others.

Thus, I'll just continue to enjoy my hobby as it is.

Meanwhile, boys and girls, keep using that Zit Cream, because your looks still need some improvement.


----------



## 431neb (30/5/13)

I think Stu is copping a lot of shit for what is just an opinion. A generalisation.

Relax FFS.


----------



## Yob (30/5/13)

Stu should be commended for generating 'healthy' debate and discussion.. personal insults have little place in healthy discussion.


----------



## mje1980 (30/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I am not against starters, in fact I have made many. And they ate warranted. But for Joe average making their beers there is ( or should ) be enough. Of course big beers require a different approach


If you had added this on page 1, it wouldn't have got to 10 pages. I don't know you, but you seem to have always posted helpful, well thought out info (well, I don't recall you posting crap), so thought it was an odd post for an experienced member. I think Dr Smurto hit the nail on the head in that if all variables are 100% ( fresh yeast, good oxygen levels etc), in a 5% alc ale, it would be fine with no starter. But how often do we have all those conditions 100%??. 

If you want to gamble, go ahead, you maybe lucky often, but I prefer to make sure.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/5/13)

Yob said:


> Stu should be commended for generating 'healthy' debate and discussion.. personal insults have little place in healthy discussion.


Thanks


----------



## Adr_0 (30/5/13)

Congratulations all, I think we've reached an amicable resolution... thread closed??


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/5/13)

slash22000 said:


> ... So now you're saying that you should make a starter and pitch more yeast in a high gravity beer? Or, in other words, that underpitching yeast is a problem? :mellow:


Yes. Big beers need more yeast.


----------



## Damien13 (30/5/13)

please...


----------



## Damien13 (30/5/13)

ok.. the 'please' was for the final resolution


----------



## verysupple (30/5/13)

Yob said:


> Stu should be commended for generating 'healthy' debate and discussion.. personal insults have little place in healthy discussion.


Stu should be commended for stating his opinion and sticking to his guns (nobody likes a flip-flopper), not "generating healthy debate". Trolling is not generating healthy debate.


----------



## Yob (30/5/13)

and yet there has been

I agree a few other qualifiers could have short circuted a few peoples heated opinions... none-the-less.. both researched facts and general belief have been discussed in depth, 

Peace yo


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/5/13)

There will never be one


----------



## Spiesy (30/5/13)

You have agreed that big beers need to be treated different - great... but still no mention of the effect of ageing (not old) liquid yeast?


----------



## Nick JD (30/5/13)

A million wimins vaginatorial areas have had fewer yeast issues than this thread.

Wot this thread needs is yoghurt. We already have the douchebag.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (30/5/13)

No need to out yourself....


----------



## Spiesy (30/5/13)

good chats, bro


----------



## verysupple (30/5/13)

Yob said:


> and yet there has been
> 
> I agree a few other qualifiers could have short circuted a few peoples heated opinions... none-the-less.. both researched facts and general belief have been discussed in depth,
> 
> Peace yo


I'll concede that. There has indeed been healthy debate.

Now I'm unsure. Is the aim of trolling is to provoke emotional response and thereby induce healthy debate, or just to provoke emotion response?

Either way, we can all agree that this is an epic (read: far too long) thread stemming from fallacious comments that were only rewarded with response due to the humble homebrewers desire to improve the knowledge of the new brewer - who could care less what Stu does?

EDIT: Typo


----------



## jc64 (30/5/13)

jc64 said:


> Any technical reason for bakers yeast being so much cheaper? Or is just a case of what the market will bear?





black_labb said:


> From what I've hear bakers yeast often has many wild yeasts as well as the ale yeast. Doesn't matter for bread but for beer those wild yeasts could effect flavour or at least cause a slow continued ferment leading to bottle bombs. How prominent these wild yeasts are I don't know. There is also the issue of getting a single strain in the pack and sterilisation, which isn't worried about in bread but is for beer.
> 
> could be an interesting experiment. I wouldn't bottle it in glass though.


Sounds like a good reason, thanks.


----------



## Bada Bing Brewery (30/5/13)

Can someone please give me a summary of the pages from six to eleven? I pleaded for mercy at page six ....
What have I missed?
Cheers
BBB


----------



## slash22000 (30/5/13)

Well, the science = science, ideal yeast pitching rates absolutely exist and are not at all contestable by anybody outside a laboratory.

Some people have tried to contest the science with anecdotal evidence and such riveting conclusions as "Dunno beer was okay", followed by the world-shattering observation that "Yeast grows sometimes maybe I dunno just chuck shit in and drink it".

But in the end, even the doubters had to admit that ideal yeast pitching rates scale with gravity/volume/etc and that you need starters for bigger beers, just as long as we do not dare bring "science" into the equation, making this entire exercise completely pointless.


----------



## jc64 (30/5/13)

slash22000 said:


> Well, the science = science, ideal yeast pitching rates absolutely exist and are not at all contestable by anybody outside a laboratory.
> 
> Some people have tried to contest the science with anecdotal evidence and such riveting conclusions as "Dunno beer was okay", followed by the world-shattering observation that "Yeast grows sometimes maybe I dunno just chuck shit in and drink it".
> 
> But in the end, even the doubters had to admit that ideal yeast pitching rates scale with gravity/volume/etc and that you need starters for bigger beers, just as long as we do not dare bring "science" into the equation, making this entire exercise completely pointless.


I disagree, typing skills were improved by this thread.


----------



## manticle (30/5/13)

Just like to point out that science is an ever-growing body of knowledge/evidence, not a static dogma so when science suggests something, it is because it has made attempts to demonstrate occurrences in a repeatable fashion and then offer interpretation as to the reasons for those occurrences. Anecdotal evidence is often the inspiration behind scientific testing too so it shouldn't be easily dismissed as worthless because it's anecdotal - just not convincing, repeatable basis for interpretation of a phenomenon, in and of itself.

I do not agree with Stu's approach to this but I do not see him as a troll (he's been a valuable member of the board for longer than me) and I do not agree with the approach of 'Science says, therefore ........... X!'

Good science does not say. Good science suggests, based on evidence. In this case actual observation of healthy yeast cell numbers correlated to performance in various worts, taking into account their gravity, measured oxygen levels and other important factors is science I try and use to influence my practices and anecdotally/experientially notice a benefit.


----------



## jc64 (30/5/13)

Thank's Manticle, this thread is certainly not a waste of time when people can make reasoned posts such as this.


----------



## slash22000 (30/5/13)

Of course, I did not mean to imply that science should be taken as irrefutable truth (let's leave that to theologists), but that at this stage after hundreds of years of brewing science confirming the reality behind yeast pitching rates, it's going to take a huge amount of evidence to convince people otherwise.


----------



## 431neb (30/5/13)

slash22000 said:


> Well, the science = science, ideal yeast pitching rates absolutely exist and are not at all contestable by anybody outside a laboratory.
> 
> Some people have tried to contest the science with anecdotal evidence and such riveting conclusions as "Dunno beer was okay", followed by the world-shattering observation that "Yeast grows sometimes maybe I dunno just chuck shit in and drink it".
> 
> But in the end, even the doubters had to admit that ideal yeast pitching rates scale with gravity/volume/etc and that you need starters for bigger beers, just as long as we do not dare bring "science" into the equation, making this entire exercise completely pointless.



Yay Slash! Rough science wins the day!!


----------



## iralosavic (30/5/13)

I know you said both dry and liquid packs in your opening post stu, but the majority of resistance against your theory was in relation the liquid yeasts and now it seems people in support of your notion are arguing about dried yeasts as though there was an ongoing debate about it. Beyond the general concensus of using two packs for lagers where you plan to pitch cold, no one here cares. And if you like basing things off personal observation, then pitch 7g lager yeast into a typical wort at 6c and see what that 2 week lag phase tastes like for yourself.

And in any case lets face it, you only use dried yeast if you stuff up and your ferment needs rescuing OR you never use liquid yeasts anyway - probably because you don't make staters. Whether or not a pack of dry yeast is sufficient is moot because who cares. Yeast is the number one significant ingredient in determining the quality and style of a beer, if you are restricted to a handful of dried strains then are you really in a position to be contibuting to a debate about the more subtle qualities of a home brew?

Use one, use two, use half - either way you're not even thinking about a stater, which - lets face it- is what this is all about: not overwhelming noobs with extra steps (starters).

Science aside, lets observe logic: if a newbie wants to use liquid yeasts they can put the pack straight in or they can step it up first. It's their choice. The process they following in determining their choice will be more educational than the outcome itself. If you want to help noobs, you're better off describing both extremes and a few half way points and letting them think for themselves.


----------



## Parks (31/5/13)

Stu would have been better off making an argument instead of a ridiculous blanket statement with no support.

It would have been far more beneficial if he said:

When starting out 1 packet of dry yeast is almost always the optimal amount of yeast to use in your beer. Don't spend your time worrying about pitching rates, get your sanitation and temp control in order then work on your recipes. Once you have some more experience and/or if you are having yeast issues, then look at pitching rates.

The blanket statement he made is exactly the same as me saying "You don't need to treat your water. Water from the tap is perfectly fine for all brewing"


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/5/13)

You don't need to trerat your water but you can if you want, depending on style of course


----------



## iralosavic (31/5/13)

I'd put yeast health higher on the list than recipe formulation as you should just be following tried and tested recipes until you are experienced enough to understand what you're doing, not just copying or running through the motions. But anyway... starters can be really easy and cheap (ie PET bottle with intermittent shaking), but we love our bling. Like I said, empower people with knowledge and allow them to make their own informed decision. 

I personally held off using liquid yeasts for ages because I felt that it wouldn't hurt to get more AG experience anyway and I was happy to wait until I had the whole starter kit and kaboodle. There's nothing stopping anyone from just shaking a coke bottle starter without any extra gear though - I understood I had that option and decided I'd make the transition when it suited me.


----------



## Spiesy (31/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> You don't need to trerat your water but you can if you want, depending on style of course


Depends on your water.


----------



## Nick JD (31/5/13)

Just as important to pitch rates (possibly more) is dissolved oxygen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A734B5E1C3U


----------



## GalBrew (31/5/13)

Spiesy said:


> Depends on your water.


Sure does.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/5/13)

I tend to thing that oxygen has a big affect on yeast performance. I always make sure my wort is pirated as much as possible when I pitch. Many a brewer has neglected this.


----------



## black_labb (31/5/13)

I do most of my starters right in the fermenter. a litre or 2 in the bottom of the fermenter is pretty shallow so it ends up having quite a bit of surface area for oxygen to dissolve in the wort. Shake it around a few times and it's pretty well aerated. I use this wort as part of the brew (it usually comes from the bottom of the kettle and is reboiled after decanting off the trub so it is the same wort). There's no extra equipment or sanitation needed.


----------



## Parks (31/5/13)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I tend to thing that oxygen has a big affect on yeast performance. I always make sure my wort is *pirated* as much as possible when I pitch. Many a brewer has neglected this.


I'm not currently sure if we speak the same language


----------



## black_labb (31/5/13)

Parks said:


> the same language?


We arrrrrrrr


----------



## Nick JD (31/5/13)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75gpehf_6Gk

And an experiment on pitching rates by Braukaiser. He used weight loss (of CO2) as a measure of fermentation - around 4% of the wort weight is lost to the air.

Unfortunately he doesn't go into how the resulting beers actually taste - so the info is great if you're making E85 for your pink Hyundai.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/5/13)

Parks said:


> I'm not currently sure if we speak the same language


Tucking auto correct spell feature


----------



## Adr_0 (31/5/13)

Fridge auto cucumber


----------



## verysupple (31/5/13)

manticle said:


> Good science does not say. Good science suggests, based on evidence.


Pseudoscince "suggests" based on evidence - eg: "Fat people exhibit higher rates of heart disease, therefore fat causes heart disease" is analogous to some of the anecdotal "evidence" put forward here. Science tests hypotheses based on theory and makes _conclusions _based on observations. No conclusion, no science.


----------



## treefiddy (31/5/13)

> Some scientists are lucky enough to pass through a fourth stage. This is when you realize that science is not about finding the truth at all, but about finding better ways of being wrong. The best scientific theory is not the one that reveals the truth — that is impossible. It is the one that explains what we already know about the world in the simplest way possible, and that makes useful predictions about the future. When I accepted that I would always be wrong, and that my favourite theories are inevitably destined to be replaced by other, better, theories — that is when I really knew that I wanted to be a scientist. A theory can never be perfect: the best it can be is better than the theory that went before.


An essay written by aspiring researcher, released posthumously in Nature 497, 277–278; 2013


----------



## pommiebloke (31/5/13)

treefiddy said:


> An essay written by aspiring researcher, released posthumously in Nature 497, 277–278; 2013


Linky


----------



## Lecterfan (31/5/13)

verysupple said:


> Pseudoscince "suggests" based on evidence - eg: "Fat people exhibit higher rates of heart disease, therefore fat causes heart disease" is analogous to some of the anecdotal "evidence" put forward here. Science tests hypotheses based on theory and makes _conclusions _based on observations. No conclusion, no science.


Sorry, Manticle is correct. In scientific reasoning, a conclusion is based on evidence that does not disprove the hypothesis (i.e. it confirms the hypothesis but does not 'prove' it as an irrefutable truth - thus hypothesis testing either 'rejects' or 'fails to reject' a null hypothesis rather than 'accepting' it). Claiming 'proof' within the scientific method is committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent: If P, Q + Q = (therefore) P. Proof can happen within certain regimes of representation but not within (good) science.

Science relies on falsifiability (the ability to be disproven) and each 'truth' is merely pragmatically maintained in the form of a given hypothesis that has not yet been disproven.

The grand concept of capital-T Truth a la 'proof' is the realm of unfalsifiability (i.e. God's will, Freudian theory of infant sexuality, pure logic, mathematics) thus not scientific. Karl Popper 101.

And yes, it is largely a matter of semantics around the word 'proof', and the more scientists (and people purporting to use the scientific method) who know that, the better. Science is based on a number of Humean and Cartesian presuppositions and is the most effective, pragmatic approach to issues such as brewing and most everything else pertaining to materialist issues around the useful but unproven link of cause-and-effect.

Anyway. Yeast.

Edit - shouldn't have bothered posting and just 'liked' the above two posts (now that I read the link in full). Anyway.

Edit again - if it sounds prepared that's because I just gave a lecture on fallacies in scientific reasoning to a group of psych students hahaha.


----------



## verysupple (31/5/13)

I never said anything about proof or the truth. My point was that when "science" suggests something it's only because the evidence was not strong enough to _conclude _anything. In the scientific world, many bodies of work all _suggesting _something can add together to yeild _conclusive _evidence. This conclusion may later be supported by further evidence, shown to be incorrect or merely less accurate, but until then...


----------



## GalBrew (31/5/13)

Since when did psych students have anything to do with science??


----------



## Lecterfan (31/5/13)

A conclusion is only a temporary inference drawn from evidence. Evidence 'suggests' (confirms the pragmatic utility of a theory). And as you say in your final sentence the conclusion is not actually 'conclusive' in the common day use of the word. Anyway, yes I think we are largely on the same page and using some of the terms in slightly different ways.

Galbrew - exactly!


----------



## GalBrew (31/5/13)

Lecterfan said:


> A conclusion is only a temporary inference drawn from evidence. Evidence 'suggests' (confirms the pragmatic utility of a theory). And as you say in your final sentence the conclusion is not actually 'conclusive' in the common day use of the word. Anyway, yes I think we are largely on the same page and using some of the terms in slightly different ways.
> Galbrew - exactly!


I think if want to get this discussion going really freaky, it is time to discuss the art/science of INFERENCE with which we base all of these 'conclusions' us scientists come up with and the abuse that it undergoes on a daily basis :icon_vomit:


----------



## verysupple (31/5/13)

Lecterfan said:


> And as you say in your final sentence the conclusion is not actually 'conclusive' in the common day use of the word.


Kind of like the conclusion to a film to which they then make a sequel


----------



## jc64 (31/5/13)

And someone had temerity to suggest this thread was not worthwhile!


----------



## Bizier (31/5/13)

jc64 said:


> And someone had temerity to suggest this thread was not worthwhile!


Thank you for being one of the few individuals able to teach me a new word which is neither deeply technically specific, nor recently made up on the internet.
In a twist of irony, I just learned something from the thread.

13 pages people, don't stop now.


----------



## bradsbrew (31/5/13)

Well I hope Nev has been paying attention to this thread, should help him a fair bit in his assignment.


----------



## jyo (31/5/13)

I just hope this thread drives underpitching into desuetude.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (31/5/13)

And to think I made the starter for this.....


----------



## Bizier (31/5/13)

I think this thread has still got a few points of gravity to shed before it gets into conditioning phase.


----------



## chewy (6/6/13)

Righto guys I'm lagering a tin should I just chuck in a packet of cold yeast or get it started.. My first go at lagering so feel free to confuse the flick outa me.....


----------



## chewy (6/6/13)

Noah looked at it I'm just too lazy.. I'm just pitching it!


----------



## jammer (6/6/13)

NewtownClown said:


> what has science ever done for any one???
> 
> Ho-Hum....
> 
> One either believes the science or not


----------



## Yob (6/6/13)

chewy said:


> I'm lagering a tin


You need to take it out of the tin first


----------



## bum (6/6/13)

And ferment it.


----------



## chewy (6/6/13)

Its all in stirred and now forgotten.. Oh! Beer o'clock!


----------



## chewy (6/6/13)

That's me last tin I'm going biab just because you guys make it seem so simple! Bullshot!


----------



## bum (6/6/13)

Nice work, guys.

Brilliant.


----------



## chewy (6/6/13)

Actually to lager properly the process starts as soon as fermentation starts.....


----------



## bradsbrew (6/6/13)

chewy said:


> Actually to lager properly the process starts as soon as fermentation starts.....


To make a proper Lager, the process starts at recipe design/brewing. Temps are not just relative to fermentation either.


----------



## Florian (6/6/13)

bradsbrew said:


> To make a proper Lager, the process starts at recipe design/brewing. Temps are not just relative to fermentation either.


I think Chewy is doing a tinned lager, so his influence in the process is limited to spec grains, yeast, extracts and sugars. And temps and times, of course. 

Not that that's not already enough to get your head around...


----------



## warra48 (6/6/13)

You can't make a proper lager from a tin.


----------



## bradsbrew (6/6/13)

warra48 said:


> You can't make a proper lager from a tin.


No, you need a fermenter!


----------



## bum (6/6/13)

And a cave of some description.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/6/13)

and a goat


----------



## verysupple (6/6/13)

While we're OT...

If it wasn't for those epic threads like "What are you brewing?" and "What's in the glass?" which this thread probably has no chance in beating in terms of length, I was going to issue the challenge. So what's the aim here? 20...30 pages? Maybe the same number as the number of viable yeast cells Stu seems to think is necessary for an "average" batch? 

EDIT: Lol, didn't realise I was going to make it 14 pages.


----------



## Adr_0 (6/6/13)

On about page 9 I thought it was done, but that proved me wrong. I would say there's 20 pages in it.

To throw a nappie in the wort:
Has anybody done a side-by-side (2 x 25L fermenters in a fridge, one with 1 x packet of dried yeast, one with 1 x 1-2L starter?) attenuation vs time and taste test?

When I say taste test, requirements are: "aww yeah, it's orright" or "didn't notice any difference aye"; none of this "Beer #2 in the blind test exhibited additional fusel alcohols, acetaldehyde, blah blah..."


----------



## mikec (6/6/13)

Adr_0 said:


> On about page 9 I thought it was done, but that proved me wrong. I would say there's 20 pages in it.
> 
> To throw a nappie in the wort:
> Has anybody done a side-by-side (2 x 25L fermenters in a fridge, one with 1 x packet of dried yeast, one with 1 x 1-2L starter?) attenuation vs time and taste test?
> ...


A more relevant test would be comparing a 3 month old smack pack tipped straight in, with a correctly calculated starter of the same liquid yeast.


----------



## verysupple (6/6/13)

Adr_0 said:
 

> On about page 9 I thought it was done, but that proved me wrong. I would say there's 20 pages in it.
> 
> To throw a nappie in the wort:
> Has anybody done a side-by-side (2 x 25L fermenters in a fridge, one with 1 x packet of dried yeast, one with 1 x 1-2L starter?) attenuation vs time and taste test?
> ...


Firstly, someone already proposed a (somewhat) scientific experiment in which I already asked some relevant questions regarding the methodology. Secondly, if you're only interest in "Yeah, she's right." type of interrogation, what do you care about pitching rates? As Stu has pointed out many times, even without adequate pitching rates you still make beer.


----------



## seamad (6/6/13)

warra48 said:


> You can't make a proper lager from a tin.


yeah but you can make a larger


----------



## Bada Bing Brewery (6/6/13)

I need an update from pages 11 to 14. What has happened?
Cheers
BBB


----------



## Dars183 (6/6/13)

Bada Bing Brewery said:


> I need an update from pages 11 to 14. What has happened?
> Cheers
> BBB


We have introduced largering


----------



## verysupple (6/6/13)

Bada Bing Brewery said:


> I need an update from pages 11 to 14. What has happened?
> Cheers
> BBB


Mostly OT. Then someone brought it back on topic (oh the fool!). Lol


----------



## bum (6/6/13)

Whoa. Warra getting sledged.

Is this a first?


----------



## Adr_0 (6/6/13)

verysupple said:


> Firstly, someone already proposed a (somewhat) scientific experiment in which I already asked some relevant questions regarding the methodology. *Secondly, if you're only interest in "Yeah, she's right." type of interrogation, what do you care about pitching rates?* As Stu has pointed out many times, even without adequate pitching rates you still make beer.


...um... may have been taking the piss. :unsure:


----------



## bradsbrew (6/6/13)

Vebal abuse of members will not be tolerated on AHB. Member warned.

Please play nice.


----------



## jc64 (6/6/13)

I wish everyone would stop taking the piss and stick to the topic. 

So who thinks Labor are going to win the next election? Also if Kevin Rudd was a vial of White Labs yeast, just past best before date, would he still attenuate enough to get the required seats? What yeast is Tony Abbott by the way?


----------



## Adr_0 (6/6/13)

jc64 said:


> I wish everyone would stop taking the piss and stick to the topic.
> 
> So who thinks Labor are going to win the next election? Also if Kevin Rudd was a vial of White Labs yeast, just past best before date, would he still attenuate enough to get the required seats? What yeast is Tony Abbott by the way?


Tony Abbot is 3068 - all fluff and hot air


----------



## Bada Bing Brewery (6/6/13)

I agree with Bum - sledging Warra - that's new ....
A thread for the annals
Cheers
BBB


----------



## bum (6/6/13)

I hope someone is increasing his warning level at the same rate. It seems to be what he wants.


----------



## chewy (6/6/13)

I'll take that one...


----------



## bum (6/6/13)

Bada Bing Brewery said:


> Barra or swordfish? Hurry up I need to order
> BBB


Apparently we're not allowed to talk about that.

But since someone else is paying - get both.


----------



## manticle (6/6/13)

Swordfish


----------

