Kolsch is a top-fermented beer,actually.I don’t know what kind of lager would have those flavor descriptions,either.That sounds like a highly undesirable yeast to me,just based on the manufacturer’s description.If I want to produce something fruity and estery,lager is the last thing that comes to my mind.
You beat me to it![/quote]
I’ve been using that yeast for years,though,with no such problem.This is the first time I’ve ever gotten such low attenuation with that yeast.But I also experimented with a new type of fermenter with this last batch,too,which I failed to mention in that last post.That may have been a large factor.
Yeah, very good yeast. Although I’ve used it for pils, it really shines in maltier styles like Ofest, bock, and maibock.[/quote]
That’s a new one to me.I’ve never seen it listed in any catalog or website before,so I did a Bing search for it.It sounds promising,but I read the manufacturer’s description from their website,and guess what?They recommend rehydrating in water or wort before adding it to the fermenter!So there’s at least one highly credible source that seems to embrace the idea of using a starter for a dry yeast.
Rehydrating yeast is not the same as making a starter.
I’m a little confused. I was making the case that the cost savings of making a starter to propagate dry yeast results in modest savings over just buying more dry yeast. I was never saying that liquid yeast is more cost effective. Actually, I avoid liquid yeast whenever I can as it is a higher cost AND additional work.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you?
Huh. A table in his book says you’d need a lot more starter than that - 4 liters - to get from 200 billion cells to 400 billion cells. I wonder why the difference.[/quote]
You are right. I forgot to mention the 1.43L starter would be on a stir plate. You’d need a 3.8L simple starter.
Huh. A table in his book says you’d need a lot more starter than that - 4 liters - to get from 200 billion cells to 400 billion cells. I wonder why the difference.[/quote]
You are right. I forgot to mention the 1.43L starter would be on a stir plate. You’d need a 3.8L simple starter.[/quote]
Ah, gotcha. Though in that case I’m inclined to say it’s still not much of a money-saver. If you’ve got to buy/build a stir plate setup, that’s probably going to need to be paid off over a whole lot of batches’ worth of starters.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a stir plate sitting 3 feet to my left. But I have it for fun, not for frugality.
I’m a little confused. I was making the case that the cost savings of making a starter to propagate dry yeast results in modest savings over just buying more dry yeast. I was never saying that liquid yeast is more cost effective. Actually, I avoid liquid yeast whenever I can as it is a higher cost AND additional work.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you?[/quote]
Okay,that’s easier to understand.The real benefit of using a starter,though,is not just creating more healthy yeast cells,but getting the yeast in the right stage in it’s metabolic cycle before you pitch it in the wort.If you pitch yeast (of either kind) without a starter directly into wort,it takes some time to get going,and that lag time can be a real killer if you have other factors working against you,like suboptimal ambient temperature,high OG with a complex wort,etc.If you pitch yeast from a starter,you’re pitching yeast that’s already reached a highly active state that will get to work much faster and have a much higher chance of finishing the job.It’s a quality vs. quantity issue,as I see it.Volume is important,but it’s not everything.
