Liquid yeast without a starter?

[Silver_Is_Money]

Have you attempted this, and if yes, what results did you experience for ales, and also for Pilsner/lager beers?

Any details on the yeast addition temperature, aeration, agitation, how much was pitched vs. wort quantity and OG, etc... would be appreciated.

 

[thehaze]

I have direct pitched many, but never for Lagers/Pilsners, as I never brew these styles.

I have used 2 pure pitch packs of WLP644 in a 1.065 beer. Turned out great.
I have used 1 Omega Hothead Ale for a 1.045 session IPA. Turn out great.
I used 2 Wyeast 3726 in a 1.060 saison. Turned out great. ( fermented down to 1.007 )

You get the picture...

None of those packs were really fresh. They were like 30-45 days old from packaging. When I transfer the wort from my Grainfather to the fermenter, it goes through a hose which spills into a sieve on top of the fermenter and it splashes some and this is how the aeration happens.

I also have no temp. control and I bottle. I still make great beer. ( my NEIPAs turn brown at some point, but I consume those fast ...hehe )

For lagers, you would have to pitch many, many packs. For a 1.050 lager you will need like 3 packs of dry yeast and I imagine that translates into 4-5-6 Wyeast/WL packs ( less for Omega. GigaYeast and Imperial yeast, which pack more cells in a single yeast pack ). Which is waaaay to expensive. So that's a no go, unless you have money.

 

[bluebarnaclebrewing]

Yes in an APA with the california ale yeast. I think the OG was around 1.050 at around 20C. I wouldn't do it again as there was really no difference other than I paid more. Would use us05 instead.

All other styles I've made a starter. Its pretty easy and I would recommend.

 

[RM-MN]

I have direct pitched many, but never for Lagers/Pilsners, as I never brew these styles.

I have used 2 pure pitch packs of WLP644 in a 1.065 beer. Turned out great.
I have used 1 Omega Hothead Ale for a 1.045 session IPA. Turn out great.
I used 2 Wyeast 3726 in a 1.060 saison. Turned out great. ( fermented down to 1.007 )

You get the picture...

None of those packs were really fresh. They were like 30-45 days old from packaging. When I transfer the wort from my Grainfather to the fermenter, it goes through a hose which spills into a sieve on top of the fermenter and it splashes some and this is how the aeration happens.

I also have no temp. control and I bottle. I still make great beer. ( my NEIPAs turn brown at some point, but I consume those fast ...hehe )

For lagers, you would have to pitch many, many packs. For a 1.050 lager you will need like 3 packs of dry yeast and I imagine that translates into 4-5-6 Wyeast/WL packs ( less for Omega. GigaYeast and Imperial yeast, which pack more cells in a single yeast pack ). Which is waaaay to expensive. So that's a no go, unless you have money.

Gordon Strong, a 3 time Ninkasi winner, has said that he often pitches a single smack pack of yeast in his lagers. If he can do that and make good lagers, why do you need a big starter or multiple packs of yeast? Figure out what he does and you win.

http://www.brewgeeks.com/the-life-cycle-of-yeast.html

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

 

[thehaze]

Gordon Strong, a 3 time Ninkasi winner, has said that he often pitches a single smack pack of yeast in his lagers. If he can do that and make good lagers, why do you need a big starter or multiple packs of yeast? Figure out what he does and you win.

http://www.brewgeeks.com/the-life-cycle-of-yeast.html

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

And I agree with you.

As I am a fairly new brewer, I usually do LOTS of research before brewing and especially when using yeast.

You will find a lot of threads from people saying that you need starters and use so much yeast.

I have tried both liquid and dry yeast and some times, I underpitched, compared to what people recommend over the net.

But I always made good beer. Beer I also sold to many people around me and craft beer drinkers.

But I think each brewer, must take the bull by the horns and experiment. It takes a lot of time and many batches of beer, but when you get to that point where you know you are doing it right, just go from there.

So YES, you can make (good) beer using a direct pitch.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

All good info! Perhaps the starter isn't all it's cracked up to be.

 

[Bilsch]

Sure multiple yeast packs are expensive but so are the other ingredients and of course your time. Often I don't want to mess with multiple step starters and instead pitch 4 packs into a lager. Save the yeast from that batch and re pitch subsequent brews. Ends up being quite economical in long run.

 

[helibrewer]

Recommended pitch rates:

Ales: 0.75 million cells per milliliter per degree plato
Lagers: 1.5 million cells per milliliter per degree plato

Can you use less? Sure, the yeast will grow and make all their things. Recommended pitch rates help give reliable, repeatable results....you should consider using them as a starting point.

 

[Horseflesh]

I use starters because they are super easy to do if you have pressure canned wort... but I honestly can't tell the difference between a starter batch and a direct pitch batch. That's for OG around 1.050 or less, anyway.

 

[kh54s10]

If you underpitch it will ferment the beer. But flavors might be created during the phase of reproduction until there are enough cells to ferment the beer fully. There will also be a longer lag time in which an infection could take hold.

You might get good results, but I prefer to give my beers the best chance to be great. I make the starters. I also make starters to save money. If you need more than one pack it doesn't pay to NOT make the starter.

IMO it is not worth the risk to NOT make the starter.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I seldom make starters. I either make small batches, or low gravity batches, to prop yeast first, and then repitch. And I simply pitch an appropriate cell count for the initial batch from fresh yeast (which varies depending upon intended results, some are low pitching rates, some are very high rates). And then I repitch up to 7 or 8 generations, and harvest and save as much as I possibly can. I tend to get 3-4 new batches out of each previous batch (1-2 for lagers).

Lagers I aim for 1.5 million cells per ml per °P as standard practice. For 5 gallon homebrew, you simply cannot get near this rate with a single smackpack/vial. So it's multiple packs. Although it's been YEARS since I've brewed a lager at home, and the last time it was something like a 5L starter.

I want to say Gordon Strong has distanced himself from the "I pitch one pack in a lager" thing, or at least he's an outlier, and his practices contrary to brewing science are well known as such.

 

[jodell]

I gotta be on the other side on this argument.

I firmly believe that yeast health has the biggest influence on beer, whether it's fermentation temps or pitch rates or health yeast cells

I did the single pack for 5 gallons for awhile and I made "good beer"

I started making great beer when I took care of my yeast cells

 

[RM-MN]

I gotta be on the other side on this argument.

I firmly believe that yeast health has the biggest influence on beer, whether it's fermentation temps or pitch rates or health yeast cells

I did the single pack for 5 gallons for awhile and I made "good beer"

I started making great beer when I took care of my yeast cells

If pitch rate is so important, why would someone like Gordon Strong ever pitch a single smack pack into a lager? Doesn't he know beer?

 

[jodell]

If pitch rate is so important, why would someone like Gordon Strong ever pitch a single smack pack into a lager? Doesn't he know beer?

I'm sure he does, but does that mean we should all say screw everything else?

To often in the homebrew community we take one example and say it's now law, take brulosphy or expiremental brew for example, their stuff gets quoted all the time that such and such has been "debunked" (lager temps, pitch rates, you name it) and even they say this doesn't mean it's a law, but that one expirement points to this.

Gordon strong is a great brewer and I have learned a good amount from him, but I call bs on one smack pack for a lager (I actually do not know what you are referencing with this particular example so I do not know style, O.G., results, etc.)

I can tell you that I have done some of this myself and I have found that yeast management is by far the biggest improvement I made with my beer. I have found that under-pitching a beer will bring out so many off-flavors (many esters and some fusel alcohols) and really hold back beer from being better. I am a judge and alot of what I taste is fermentation off flavors which are mostly caused by under-pitching and fermenting to warm.

 

[RM-MN]

I'm sure he does, but does that mean we should all say screw everything else?

To often in the homebrew community we take one example and say it's now law, take brulosphy or expiremental brew for example, their stuff gets quoted all the time that such and such has been "debunked" (lager temps, pitch rates, you name it) and even they say this doesn't mean it's a law, but that one expirement points to this.

Gordon strong is a great brewer and I have learned a good amount from him, but I call bs on one smack pack for a lager (I actually do not know what you are referencing with this particular example so I do not know style, O.G., results, etc.)

I can tell you that I have done some of this myself and I have found that yeast management is by far the biggest improvement I made with my beer. I have found that under-pitching a beer will bring out so many off-flavors (many esters and some fusel alcohols) and really hold back beer from being better. I am a judge and alot of what I taste is fermentation off flavors which are mostly caused by under-pitching and fermenting to warm.

I'm saying that we should question conventional wisdom on a lot of the "knowledge" on the homebrew front. I don't think every lager needs a 3 liter starter nor do I think that pitching dry yeast without rehydrating is always wrong. I have learned that temperature of the fermentation is critical though.

Under pitching has to be very under pitch before it has a major effect. If you aerate the wort so the yeast have a chance to multiply they will and the difference in lag time between pitching half the yeast as recommended and that exact amount should only be about the time it takes for the yeast to have one division.

 

[jodell]

I'm saying that we should question conventional wisdom on a lot of the "knowledge" on the homebrew front. I don't think every lager needs a 3 liter starter nor do I think that pitching dry yeast without rehydrating is always wrong. I have learned that temperature of the fermentation is critical though.

Under pitching has to be very under pitch before it has a major effect. If you aerate the wort so the yeast have a chance to multiply they will and the difference in lag time between pitching half the yeast as recommended and that exact amount should only be about the time it takes for the yeast to have one division.

Sure I think we should question the conventional wisdom (there are tons of threads that say that)

But I believe everybody needs to do it themselves. Like I said earlier too many people just read a post or a blog that was not very well done and that is their law now. If something challenges the way you do something you should try it for yourself.

In the situation with pitch rates, I have tried it myself and I disagree. Does every beer need a 3L starter? Of course not but I believe the closer you are to .75m for ales and 1.5m for lagers, the better chance you give your beer to be better

 

[dyqik]

I think yeast vitality and pitch temperature is at least as important as pitch rate. With a fresh smack pack, smacked and swollen at the correct pitching temperature, pitched into well oxygenated work at the same pitching temperature; you may be pitching healthier, more awake yeast with less temperature and other shock that results in cleaner, faster fermentation than pitching a two to three smack pack equivalent cold crashed starter directly into slightly too warm or cold under-oxygenated wort. And that may result in more healthy and unstressed yeast cells by the time the first couple of growth phase generations are done.

Although that's all supposition, I can see how you could get away with lower pitch rates if everything else is optimal (this is also the main message I get from the large number of null results from exBeeriments - no one factor will completely ruin a beer by itself if it's not off too far). So I can believe e.g. Gordon Strong can get away with a single smack pack in a lager, but can you get away with it? Do you do everything else as well as he did for those brews?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

In a Brulosophy experiment a batch of lager was split, with one half being underpitched by 50%, and the other half overpitched by 250%, and in the end the number of testers who could properly tell them apart was exactly what would be expected of purely random chance guessing. The testers absolutely could not distinguish them, nor could the guy who performed the experiment.

Both batches even hit the same FG, meaning yeast attenuation was not affected by the pitch quantity.

The yeast pitched into each 5.5 gallons of wort was 1 pack of W-34/70 for the underpitch, and 5 packs of W-34/70 for the overpitch. OG was 1.056.

 

[jodell]

In a Brulosophy experiment a batch of lager was split, with one half being underpitched by 50%, and the other half overpitched by 250%, and in the end the number of testers who could properly tell them apart was exactly what would be expected of purely random chance guessing. The testers absolutely could not distinguish them, nor could the guy who performed the experiment.

Both batches even hit the same FG, meaning yeast attenuation was not affected by the pitch quantity.

The yeast pitched into each 5.5 gallons of wort was 1 pack of W-34/70 for the underpitch, and 5 packs of W-34/70 for the overpitch. OG was 1.056.

I'm sorry but this kind of proves my point. This expirement tells me that w34/70 being under pitched was undetected by a few guys. I have no clue who these guys are, their tasting ability, etc.

Even at it's best this shows that w34/70 (which is known as being one of the most forgiving yeast avaliable) can be umderpitched without ill effect. There are hundreds of other yeast put there that will behave differently (ale and lager)

I actually really enjoy reading brulosphy articles so I hope it doesn't sound like I'm hating on them, really I just hate how they are perceived and how people blindly follow their results without challenging them themselves

 

[EnglishAndy]

Well, one benefit of doing a starter not yet mentioned is that it gives you a cheap assessment of the health of your yeast. If it doesn't ferment or ferments into something unpleasant then you just saved your brewday.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I'm sorry but this kind of proves my point. This expirement tells me that w34/70 being under pitched was undetected by a few guys. I have no clue who these guys are, their tasting ability, etc.

Even at it's best this shows that w34/70 (which is known as being one of the most forgiving yeast avaliable) can be umderpitched without ill effect. There are hundreds of other yeast put there that will behave differently (ale and lager)

I actually really enjoy reading brulosphy articles so I hope it doesn't sound like I'm hating on them, really I just hate how they are perceived and how people blindly follow their results without challenging them themselves

Same thing with the fermentation temp experiments. It's not a secret that strain can ferment very warm. Never has been. Use a different strain and the difference is much more marked.

It's like extrapolation of Saison process using Dupont/Belgian Saison based on the process you've used for 3711. The two yeasts are not comparable in the slightest.

Plus, remember that Jamil and Gordon were winning Ninkasi in the scatter bomb days. They obviously made good beers (can't say I can claim a single NHC finals medal, despite making it there, let alone claim Ninkasi), but how many of their beers didn't make the cut?

I'm not one to emphasise universal pitching rates. I believe it's a variable that can be adjusted, like everything else, and that over and under pitching are context-dependent. I tend to refer to "over" and "under" as above/below 0.75/1.5 million cells per ml per °P, however I seldom use the ale rate- I tend to be higher or lower, and objectively the appropriate pitch is that which gives you the sensory results you desire in the fermentation schedule you desire.

But my experience emphatically disagrees with the "it doesn't matter" assessment. Some strains it certainly matters more than others. Some are very tolerant. Some are workhorses no matter what. Some strains are very finicky and very sensitive to over or under pitches.

 

[dyqik]

Well, one benefit of doing a starter not yet mentioned is that it gives you a cheap assessment of the health of your yeast. If it doesn't ferment or ferments into something unpleasant then you just saved your brewday.

Although seeing if your smackpack swells does pretty much the same thing.

 

[jodell]

Same thing with the fermentation temp experiments. It's not a secret that strain can ferment very warm. Never has been. Use a different strain and the difference is much more marked.

It's like extrapolation of Saison process using Dupont/Belgian Saison based on the process you've used for 3711. The two yeasts are not comparable in the slightest.

Plus, remember that Jamil and Gordon were winning Ninkasi in the scatter bomb days. They obviously made good beers (can't say I can claim a single NHC finals medal, despite making it there, let alone claim Ninkasi), but how many of their beers didn't make the cut?

I'm not one to emphasise universal pitching rates. I believe it's a variable that can be adjusted, like everything else, and that over and under pitching are context-dependent. I tend to refer to "over" and "under" as above/below 0.75/1.5 million cells per ml per °P, however I seldom use the ale rate- I tend to be higher or lower, and objectively the appropriate pitch is that which gives you the sensory results you desire in the fermentation schedule you desire.

But my experience emphatically disagrees with the "it doesn't matter" assessment. Some strains it certainly matters more than others. Some are very tolerant. Some are workhorses no matter what. Some strains are very finicky and very sensitive to over or under pitches.

I agree with this. I feel like this thread is saying that pitching rates do not have effect on flavor and that I disagree with

 

[marc1138]

I have pitched wlp300 a few times for some of my hefeweizens. Recently I did one batch with a starter (1L) and one without. Both batches were 1.056 and were fermented in my ferm chamber set to 62*. I like my clove.

The batch without a starter went gangbusters and I needed to set up an emergency blow off when I got home from work. The other batch fermented as my other hefes have. Very vigorous and lots of krausen but no blowoff needed.

Both batches turned out very good but I actually preferred the underpitched batch which was much more banana dominant.

 

[Comfort_Zone]

I do it all the time. Never had any problems.

 

[Dcpcooks]

I used to make 5 gallon batches and I’d direct pitch 1 pack of liquid yeast without a starter. It worked fine up to 1.065 or so for ales. I’ve even pitched three packs for a half bbl without a starter if I don’t have time to make one. It’ll work but gets expensive.

Now I make 1/2 bbl batches and make starters to save money. I usually shoot for a bit more slurry than BS recommends unless it’s a strain that offers a benefit by under or over pitching.

I’ve always aerated with 02. I’ve had fermentation temp control for long enough that I can’t remember when I didn’t have it anymore.

I’d say that pretty much describes my philosophy on fermentation. Manage and control fermentation temps and oxygenation and pitch a reasonable amount of yeast for the beer and style.

I don’t try to cheat the system, skimp on pitch rates or ferment warm to save time or money. My feeling is I’m spending a fair amount of money and time per batch so I try to do it right the first time.

I have a few friends that brew commercially and they need to be more concerned with yeast health and pitch rates because they reuse yeast up to 10-12 time before they begin with a fresh pitch. Once you go down that rabbit hole QC is much more important.