Yeast Starter: Is My Thinking Correct?

[Tomcat0304]

I have started using YeastCalc recently since I find it more helpful with my equipment than MrMalty.

I have a 2L flask and a stir plate that I use for my starters, and have been stepping them up recently. I have been saving part of the grown yeast in two - 1 pint (500mL) mason jars; one for backup if the fermentation stalls/adding more yeast at bottling after a long conditioning time and one for my yeast bank.

Would this process work, or am I missing something?

So, for example using the calculator, I wanted to make a batch of beer (hybrid, 5.5 gallons, 1.049 SG) that calls for 253 billion yeast cells (MrMalty confirms). The pack of yeast was produced on Nov 24, 2013 for 72% viability.

Step 1: Make a 1.5L starter with yeast provides 229 B cells. I divide this into thirds, giving me approximately 76 B cells in each jar and the flask. (one in case the fermentation stalls, and one for my yeast bank). Then refrigerate to flocculate the yeast in the flask.

Step 2: I then go to the calculator and uncheck the "Calculate Viability from Date" box and set the initial cell count at 76 B and 100% viability.

Step 3 (A): Decant the liquid off the flocculated yeast in the flask, and step up starter to 1.75L to reach 253 B cells. Refrigerate, decant, pitch.

OR (I would prefer not to make over a 1.5L starter, I have had a mess of krausen to clean up previously, not to mention lost yeast in the eruption)

Step 3 (B): Decant the liquid off the flocculated yeast in the flask, step up the starter to 0.8L to reach 177 B cells. Refrigerate, decant, pitch. Add yeast from one of the jars containing approx. 76 B cells at pitching time for a total of 253 B cells.

Would this process work? Is this a better way to harvest and store yeast than the yeast washing process?

 

[Tomcat0304]

Bump

 

[dobe12]

Seems a little obsessive. Do you really have so many stuck fermentations that you need back up yeast? I've NEVER had a stuck fermentation. I've had a few slower fermentations, but never stuck. And definitely not enough to make me want to make backup starters.

How about just making the starter you need for a specific beer. After racking to secondary, keg, bottling bucket or whatever... collect the slurry in sanitized jars. BOOM!!! You got more yeast for another brew day!

I use to rinse yeast, but have come around to the school of thought that keeping the slurry (I know... trub and all??? Yes, it will be ok) under actual beer and not water is much better/healthier for the yeast. So now, that's what I do and have not had any problems.

 

[cervid]

This is the best way I've found and should be getting my stirplate and 5L starter today. Ranching yeast of of a starter with an OG of 1.037 under constant aeration is the best and yes, washing and saving them from this is better and easier than doing it from a fermenter.

Keep at least 2 jars of around 100-150 billion cells on hand, one you can work with and one that is the master stock. After storage for a while, when the viability is down to 50%, you can refresh that master stock by doubling it in a new starter and repacking it into your pint jar. This way, you master stock has the least number of generations of use as well.

I use both sites and kind of get an average between that and beersmith. I'll post a white paper study below that seems to back up how mr malty figures the viability percentage. Yeast calc seems high when referenced with empirical data. But, I also like Kai's logic on the stir plate growth and he seems to be more actively pursuing experimenting with this. The growth rates he shows seems to fit better with the study below and other one on Brett I found a .pdf version of online.

If you look at the growth rate below, it is a constant upward slant and then tapers off flatly. That straight upward slant (written by a phd and heavily referenced) is interpreted similarly by Kai, who show's growth as being at a constant rate up to a certain point and then stalling. Mr Malty's chart shows it as a curve. I think Jamil and White are wrong about the stir plate based on these other sources. But, yeast calc's viability is off.

Brewer's Friend has one I've been playing with and seem to like it so far. I may use that in the future.

Here's the study I mentioned. http://www.maltosefalcons.com/tech/yeast-propagation-and-maintenance-principles-and-practices

Between this article and kai's take on stir plates, I think this really has all the info on sacc farming at home one needs.

 

[dobe12]

and yes, washing and saving them from this is better and easier than doing it from a fermenter.

Have to ask... how is this easier than collecting yeast from a fermentor?

 

[cervid]

Seems a little obsessive. Do you really have so many stuck fermentations that you need back up yeast? I've NEVER had a stuck fermentation. I've had a few slower fermentations, but never stuck. And definitely not enough to make me want to make backup starters.

How about just making the starter you need for a specific beer. After racking to secondary, keg, bottling bucket or whatever... collect the slurry in sanitized jars. BOOM!!! You got more yeast for another brew day!

I use to rinse yeast, but have come around to the school of thought that keeping the slurry (I know... trub and all??? Yes, it will be ok) under actual beer and not water is much better/healthier for the yeast. So now, that's what I do and have not had any problems.

It saves money, a lot of money, on yeast. You can keep limited release strains better. It's not really possibly to quantify what you are pitching from the slurry in a fermenter without using methylene blue. It's much easier to decant and store yeast from a relatively lightweight Erlenmeyer flask than from a heavy carboy. You can do this activity in between brew sessions, while beer is fermenting and have a clean source of yeast to brew what you want on brew day. You don't have to follow the rules of using the same brew or darker brews on a yeast cake. Lastly, with a yeast slurry, you are always overpitching. Overpitching is worse than underpitching according to people smarter than I. These are all the reasons I can think of to do it the way he is going to over what you are saying.

Also, it's not about a stuck fermentation. Its' about the taste of your beer. Healthy yeast, and the proper amount of it, is the most important thing to the flavor of your beer.

It's not about 'it being OK'. It's about it being the best it possibly can be, better than OK. Also, regarding storing yeast on trub and not sterilized de oxygenated water is backwards. Storing yeast on the trub effects it negatively. There is data out there on this from scientists, it's not really a matter of opinion or a school of thought. It's also a matter of fact that hops negatively effect the growth of yeast and that is another reason repitching is not recommended when the slurry comes from heavily hopped beers. Or high ABV beers.

What he plans to do is really the best way to do it. It's how a lab with PhD's working in it does it. It's inline with what brewery schools around the world teach. If you have the means, why wouldn't you do it that way?

 

[cervid]

Have to ask... how is this easier than collecting yeast from a fermentor?

How is it not? I can pour a precise amount from a flask with it in one hand and a beer in the other if I chose to.

To pick up a 6.5 gallon carboy and pour a precise amount and not breathing all over the mouth of it while struggling is harder than pouring from a flask. If your just pouring onto a yeast cake with no care, then.. well.. that's like a caveman with stick and a loin cloth telling a guy in plate mail with a broadsword that he doesn't need all that stuff.

Easier is not the same as lazier to me. Easier means less effort for more quantifiable results.

A lot of people do it the way you do it. That's fine. But to deny that there is a better way to do it isn't really genuine. If he wants to do it that way, and there is scientific data to support doing it that way, why criticize him and then offer a rudimentary solution?

 

[dobe12]

You can save money either way. So that point is moot.

It's much easier to collect yeast slurry from a fermentor than all the steps needed to make a starter. If you're talking about the difficulty of lifting an almost empty fermentor compared to a flask... ok you got me. But I'm talking about the process itself. It take a lot more time (more than I can afford) to make starters, slants, etc than collecting slurry from the bottom of a fermentor. You're gonna swirl and dump anyway. Just make sure there's a sanitized jar under it.

Over pitching is EXTREMELY difficult to do and definitely NOT worse than under pitching. Not sure where you are getting that info from, but IMO it's wrong.

The original post mentions having backup yeast for stuck fermentations. He mentions it several times. That's why I asked. My point being if you need to have backup yeast reserves for stalled fermentations than there is a much bigger problem with your process.

As for storing yeast... storing in water which the PH may not be suitable is a bigger problem than storing it with some trub.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not knocking your process. I was simply giving an alternative that's much less time consuming. Your process is fine if you have the time. It just seems like a lot of work and very time consuming. Time I just don't have. And again, I'll go back to the OP. Having back up yeast for stalled fermentations seems like a huge warning sign to me. I'll say again, if you need to have backup yeast for stalled fermentation, there is a bigger problem with your process.

 

[dobe12]

How is it not? I can pour a precise amount from a flask with it in one hand and a beer in the other if I chose to.

To pick up a 6.5 gallon carboy and pour a precise amount and not breathing all over the mouth of it while struggling is harder than pouring from a flask. If your just pouring onto a yeast cake with no care, then.. well.. that's like a caveman with stick and a loin cloth telling a guy in plate mail with a broadsword that he doesn't need all that stuff.

Easier is not the same as lazier to me. Easier means less effort for more quantifiable results.

A lot of people do it the way you do it. That's fine. But to deny that there is a better way to do it isn't really genuine. If he wants to do it that way, and there is scientific data to support doing it that way, why criticize him and then offer a rudimentary solution?

Relax bro. No one said it was "better". I just love when people on forums read a post and then translate it to read what they want it to say. I was simply offering a more simple solution to having some extra yeast around. I didn't get into any "scientific data" or try to offer "rudimentary solutions". I was simply offering another option for collecting yeast. A way I consider to be MUCH easier.

 

[philipCT]

I would agree with dobe12. It's great you are making starters. This will insure good cell count and healthy yeast, so you shouldn't be too worried about a stalled fermentation. I've never had one, and would not go to the extra effort of making a "backup".

Making one for the bank is a great idea though, and I've always been happy I did that when I've been able to. It's a lot less time consuming than harvesting from a carboy (but I've only ever done the whole washing thing so I guess, per the above advice, I could be taking some shortcuts).

I've used all the calculators and they're all in the ballpark. They've all worked for me in that the results have always produced really good fermentations. Even on bigger batches where my OG & starter combination have been marginal, I've had great results.

Remember about the calculators, the numbers are all very approximate if you aren't equipped for doing cell counts, which most aren't (me included). After a while (and I've only got 10 brews under my belt) I have dialed in my practices and I've gotten pretty good reliability from what I'm doing with yeast and fermentation. I don't feel I need to be counting cells to get the results I'm looking for.

One last thought - though it's certainly effective, it's time consuming to be stepping up. My last brew was a 10 gallon batch, fermented in two separate 6.5 carboys. I didn't have time to do a 2 step starter because Christmas was breathing down my neck and this was our Christmas beer.

To ferment it, I used one very recent London 1028 Smack pack, in a single-step 2200ml starter (pushing the limits of the 2L flask I was using, and a slightly beefier wort than usual - 1.048 as I recall (not in front of my log right now). With spin-plate, the calculators put me right at the bottom edge of cell count for the 1.062 OG beer I was brewing. I split the starter in two - one for each carboy. The fermentation was healthy and terminated right where it should have in about 4 days. I'm drinking that beer now and it's superb. One of my best ever.

So you should be able to get a deuce even with a single step starter.

The proof is in the pudding though, and I would say you're on the right track - you'll have great results.

All the best {beer} in the New Year!

 

[cervid]

Relax bro. No one said it was "better". I just love when people on forums read a post and then translate it to read what they want it to say. I was simply offering a more simple solution to having some extra yeast around. I didn't get into any "scientific data" or try to offer "rudimentary solutions". I was simply offering another option for collecting yeast. A way I consider to be MUCH easier.

You started off your post with a rhetorical question that basically called him obsessive for doing it that way, bro. Then assumed he had stuck fermentations and bragged that your never do, brah. Had you rephrased that differently, and not tried to insinuate debate by following up with 'How is it easier' it would've just been kind of.. whatever.

I think you guys are stuck on the 'backup for stalled fermentation' part. Focus on the yeast bank part he mentions in the same sentence. Maybe he's doing a lot of really big beers? It's a legit concern. One of the many reasons people have a yeast bank.

 

[dobe12]

You started off your post with a rhetorical question that basically called him obsessive for doing it that way, bro. Then assumed he had stuck fermentations and bragged that your never do, brah. Had you rephrased that differently, and not tried to insinuate debate by following up with 'How is it easier', broseph.

I think you guys are stuck on the 'backup for stalled fermentation' part. Focus on the yeast bank part he mentions in the same sentence. Maybe he's doing a lot of really big beers? It's a legit concern.

I assumed nothing. The OP mentions stalled fermentations several times and lists it as a reason for making backup starters. Again, you can read into this whatever you want. I'll read the words and speak to them. I wont' assume anything, such as he's making a lot of really big beers. You a lot of assumptions for someone who talks a lot to the scientific side of brewing.

 

[cervid]

Over pitching is EXTREMELY difficult to do and definitely NOT worse than under pitching. Not sure where you are getting that info from, but IMO it's wrong.

Brwing Classic styles by Jamil, page 284. "You might ask, why not pitch as much yeast as possible? There is also an upper limit to how much yeast you should add. Overpitching can cause other problems with beer flavor, such as lack of esters, yeasty off-flavors, and poor head retention. Changes in flavor profile are noticeable when the pitch rates are as little as 20 percent over the recommended amount"

I don't his word as gospel on everything, but I do trust whatever he says about flavor profiles in the homebrewing world.

If you have an Erlenmeyer flask, mason jars and lids, and a stir plate, it's not harder to harvest yeast this way. It's just plain better. Some people go as far as to can their wort in a pressure cooker to use in making starters so they never have to deal with boiling and making the wort with nutes for them. They'll can wort once a year, and never have to boil for their starters.

 

[cervid]

I assumed nothing. The OP mentions stalled fermentations several times and lists it as a reason for making backup starters. Again, you can read into this whatever you want. I'll read the words and speak to them. I wont' assume anything, such as he's making a lot of really big beers. You a lot of assumptions for someone who talks a lot to the scientific side of brewing.

That's odd.. When I read his post I only see stuck fermentation mentioned once, in the second paragraph, and it was a philosophical one.. IF he had a stuck ferm and to add to his bank.

Where did you 'read the words' stuck ferm several times as you say, because yes, you definitely tried to speak to them.

I'm not making any assumptions. I provided him with some links to scientific studies that I have read to increase my knowledge on yeast. I don't really talk to the scientific side of brewing at all. I don't get into the minutia, or do any calculations, or use a graphing calculator. I read what people who are smarter than me have written and use that to develop my techniques. Your not going to hear me talking about lipids, cell walls, long chain whatevers..

 

[dobe12]

Brwing Classic styles by Jamil, page 284. "You might ask, why not pitch as much yeast as possible? There is also an upper limit to how much yeast you should add. Overpitching can cause other problems with beer flavor, such as lack of esters, yeasty off-flavors, and poor head retention. Changes in flavor profile are noticeable when the pitch rates are as little as 20 percent over the recommended amount"

I don't his word as gospel on everything, but I do trust whatever he says about flavor profiles in the homebrewing world.

If you have an Erlenmeyer flask, mason jars and lids, and a stir plate, it's not harder to harvest yeast this way. It's just plain better. Some people go as far as to can their wort in a pressure cooker to use in making starters so they never have to deal with boiling and making the wort with nutes for them. They'll can wort once a year, and never have to boil for their starters.

Hey... someone can use google. Solid work!

Again, you're missing my point. I never said which method is "better" which you seem to be stuck on so badly. All I mentioned was another alternative to collecting yeast.

My god! Some people get so bent out of shape when you question any simple belief. You seriously need to relax. Have a home brew! It's people like you that take the fun out of a great hobby like home brewing.

 

[dobe12]

I have started using YeastCalc recently since I find it more helpful with my equipment than MrMalty.

I have a 2L flask and a stir plate that I use for my starters, and have been stepping them up recently. I have been saving part of the grown yeast in two - 1 pint (500mL) mason jars; one for backup if the fermentation stalls/adding more yeast at bottling after a long conditioning time and one for my yeast bank.

Would this process work, or am I missing something?

So, for example using the calculator, I wanted to make a batch of beer (hybrid, 5.5 gallons, 1.049 SG) that calls for 253 billion yeast cells (MrMalty confirms). The pack of yeast was produced on Nov 24, 2013 for 72% viability.

Step 1: Make a 1.5L starter with yeast provides 229 B cells. I divide this into thirds, giving me approximately 76 B cells in each jar and the flask. (one in case the fermentation stalls, and one for my yeast bank). Then refrigerate to flocculate the yeast in the flask.

Step 2: I then go to the calculator and uncheck the "Calculate Viability from Date" box and set the initial cell count at 76 B and 100% viability.

Step 3 (A): Decant the liquid off the flocculated yeast in the flask, and step up starter to 1.75L to reach 253 B cells. Refrigerate, decant, pitch.

OR (I would prefer not to make over a 1.5L starter, I have had a mess of krausen to clean up previously, not to mention lost yeast in the eruption)

Step 3 (B): Decant the liquid off the flocculated yeast in the flask, step up the starter to 0.8L to reach 177 B cells. Refrigerate, decant, pitch. Add yeast from one of the jars containing approx. 76 B cells at pitching time for a total of 253 B cells.

Would this process work? Is this a better way to harvest and store yeast than the yeast washing process?

Read the words, not what you want to hear.

 

[cervid]

lol.. I own the book. I really doubt you can google page 284 of a book.

Some people get so bent out of shape when you question any simple belief

It's not belief, it's scientists facts against someone's opinion.

It's people like you that take the fun out of a great hobby like home brewing.

I feel the same way about bro-brahs like you. You borderline criticize someone as being obsessive because they are trying to take their brewing further than you. Then you give him advice that is a few steps behind what he is doing, from a progress standpoint.

Go into an all grain post and tell them they are obsessive and then offer the advice of using all extract, see what the response is. I mean, that's the equivalent of your response to the OP's first post.

Sorry for flaming you man, it just really annoys me when people do stuff like that.

 

[cervid]

Read the words, not what you want to hear.

It's obvious in that context he repeated himself. They are not several different instances or examples.

I'm done with this, bro. Take care man.

 

[Setesh]

To the debaters, I understand that you are trying to make a point, but your posts are more argumentative than helpful to the OP.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f96/

That's the debate forum, I think you might enjoy it.

 

[Tomcat0304]

Thanks for all the replies there is a lot of good information in your responses. I did just want to add though, that I have not had a stalled ferment. The last brew I did, a BDSA, a majority of the comments were saying they were stalled way to high; so that's why I did it for that brew. It was a 1.096 batch on the 22nd and has fermented strong and is nearly down to FG. The next one I plan do will be my first hybrid, so I just wanted to have extra yeast on hand.

My main question though: is the math I used getting me to the correct cell count or do the cells not grow that way?

Thanks again!

 

[boydster]

To answer the OP's question: IMO, yes, your process will work just fine. You can certainly also harvest from a beer that has just fermented (lots of people do it, it works, nothing to debate there), as has been mentioned, but the process you outlined will result in healthy yeast. It will also be less stressed since it will be grown in aerobic conditions. That's not to say you don't get healthy yeast when harvesting from the beer, just saying your process will yield the results you are asking about.

My main question though: is the math I used getting me to the correct cell count?

Looks sound to me. I didn't plug it in to Mr. Malty, but the way you outlined adjusting the viability for both calculations is exactly what I would do.

 

[dobe12]

It's obvious in that context he repeated himself. They are not several different instances or examples.

I'm done with this, bro. Take care man.

You're hilarious! You seriously just made me laugh out loud. Thank you, sir. Have a great New Year's and happy brewing.

 

[Setesh]

Thanks for all the replies there is a lot of good information in your responses. I did just want to add though, that I have not had a stalled ferment. The last brew I did, a BDSA, a majority of the comments were saying they were stalled way to high; so that's why I did it for that brew. It was a 1.096 batch on the 22nd and has fermented strong and is nearly down to FG. The next one I plan do will be my first hybrid, so I just wanted to have extra yeast on hand.

My main question though: is the math I used getting me to the correct cell count?

Thanks again!

Make sure you get all the yeast back into suspension before you divide and I would think your calculations are as close as you could get without a hemocytometer.

Have you tried using fermcap S to increase the volume you can safely have in your flask? I started using it after I tried boiling in my flask (wow, what a mess without fermcap!) and I can safely do 1.75L without any problems in my 2 liter flask as long as I use fermcap S.

From what I understand there are diminishing returns on multiplication of cells as you increase or decrease the starter volume from that necessary to double the yeast, but it is not a sliding scale. From what I understand it's more of a bell curve. I don't know how to account for that so I have tried to stay as close to 2 liters as possible.

 

[boydster]

From what I understand there are diminishing returns on multiplication of cells as you increase or decrease the starter volume from that necessary to double the yeast, but it is not a sliding scale. From what I understand it's more of a bell curve. I don't know how to account for that so I have tried to stay as close to 2 liters as possible.

This is true, and yeast calculators like yeastcalc and mrmalty take that into consideration with the estimates they provide. I really like yeastcalc for stepped starters and for the ability to adjust a lot of the variables to match what I am trying to accomplish. If you are doing mental math and guessing that a starter that is 75% of the size of what the calculator shows will result in 75% of the final cell count, that won't work.

 

[Tomcat0304]

Thanks all! I just wanted someone else to look at my math and either confirm or refute my thoughts.

Setesh, I have not used Fermcap yet, but had thought about it. I will probably pick some up my next stop at the LHBS.

Tanks again!

 

[cervid]

You're hilarious! You seriously just made me laugh out loud. Thank you, sir. Have a great New Year's and happy brewing.

Likewise!

 

[boydster]

Get a room you two.