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

[verysupple]

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]

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]

There will never be one

 

[Spiesy]

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]

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

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

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

No need to out yourself....

 

[Spiesy]

good chats, bro

 

[verysupple]

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]

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

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]

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]

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 **** 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]

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 **** 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]

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]

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

 

[slash22000]

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]

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 **** 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]

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]

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]

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

 

[iralosavic]

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.