| Author |
Message |
    
JimTanguay
Member
Username: Pizzaman
Post Number: 216
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 04:40 pm: | 
|
Just got a starter going with the new large pak. Anyone else use these yet?
Word of caution, the pkg is thinner and I burst the outer pkg when popping it. Think I saved it but I wasn't happy
Using 1056 I'll see how it goes. |
Jim Keaveney
Intermediate Member
Username: Jimkeaveney
Post Number: 466
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 05:51 pm: |
|
used one for the first time last week. i was impressed with how fast the starter got going and the beer. the yeast was very fresh as it was a recent delivery to the lhbs |
Vance Barnes
Advanced Member
Username: Vancebarnes
Post Number: 780
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 05:52 pm: |
|
There's a thread going about these on the rec.crafts.brewing site. Seems most folks think it's still only half the optimal cell count and are still making starters. Several reported just pitching after 3-4 hours of swelling and having activity in 10-12 hours. |
Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 06:44 pm: |
|
If 1 million/ml/P is taken to be the commonly thought of "recommended optimal" pitching rate, 5 gallons @ 11P would require some 200 billion cells. The new 125ml smack pack is said to average be around 100 billion, so that does indeed seem to be half.
The other question is wether you have to pitch the optimal amount? I did my belgian at about 25% of the recommended rate WY3787 as an experiment + no-wort-aeration. I noticed a fairly low maltotriose depletion. Even though I never used the yeast in question it seemed a clearly lower attenuation that what was reasonable as per wyeast relative attenuation tables. It wasn't the end of the world however, the beer still turned out excellent (my best so far btw), though a bit sweeter than target.
/Fredrik |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 3131
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 06:48 pm: |
|
I think people place too much emphasis on lag time as an indication of pitching rate. To me, the bigger issue is the quality and completeness of fermentation.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl
Post Number: 1070
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 06:54 pm: |
|
I'm mostly oblivious to lag time, I trust that I areated and pitched and enough yeast, so I don't even look
I monitior my ferm temp, and thats about it, |
JimTanguay
Member
Username: Pizzaman
Post Number: 217
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 07:08 pm: |
|
Lag time IMO doesn't matter that much unless your talking 24 hrs +. I like my beers fully attenuated and a bit on the dry side. However I was happy to see my starter show signs of activity after just a couple hours (3/4 gallon) as I wasn't sure how much yeast I lost when the outer pkg bursta whole. I think I only lost a little bit of the starter nutriuents and wort. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 3132
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 07:08 pm: |
|
Yeah, I the same way, Big Earl. My lag times are short enough that I don't even think about it unless I notice 2 days later that it hasn't started. ;)
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Jim Keaveney
Intermediate Member
Username: Jimkeaveney
Post Number: 468
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 07:26 pm: |
|
To me, the bigger issue is the quality and completeness of fermentation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck finding someone to disagree with that. But a short lag time is a good thing also. Reduces the chance of infection and is just nice to see it take off. I usually pitch in the late afternoon, early evening and am happy if it is going the next morning which is 99% of the time. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 3134
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 07:41 pm: |
|
Jim, I'm certainly not disagreeing that a short lag is good!
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
David Beckerdite
Member
Username: Darkislandfan
Post Number: 187
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 11:01 pm: |
|
I have had longer lag times in the past but I have a very cool room to store the fermenting wert in so I haven't had any problems with infection's....YET! |
Kevin Dennis
Junior Member
Username: Kevin_dennis
Post Number: 32
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 02:52 pm: |
|
I used one of the new ones on my last batch.
I have always hated smack packs.
My LHBS didn't have pitchable tubes of 1056
He said he did have smack packs. I declined and told him I hated the fool things and would sooner use bread yeast.
Oh no these are new he says much better.
Ok so I was full of •••• about the bread yeast let me try the smack pack. I am gonna brew today so lets pop it now. He goes to pop it and blew the stuff all over me when the out side bag broke.
Did I mention that I hate smack packs?
I really can't explain it. Must have been some traumatic experience with them when I first started brewing I dunno
Any way the guy gets another one pops it succsessfully and four hours or so later it was in the fermenter. Chugging away by morning.
I wonder if wyyeast has gotten much feed back about the pouches bursting when they are being popped.
I've run out of homebrew so I am drinking Pabst to punish myself.
|
Paul Edwards
Intermediate Member
Username: Pedwards
Post Number: 415
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 03:04 pm: |
|
Wyeast had a problem years ago with the original smack packs sometimes bursting when you smacked them. Turned out to be a material & sealing process problem. If I rememberthe story correctly, the supplier of the pouch material had changed the composition w/o telling Wyeast. The sealing machine didn't seal the pouches right as a result.
Maybe it's deja-vu all over again |
David Beckerdite
Member
Username: Darkislandfan
Post Number: 188
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 03:22 pm: |
|
I've converted to the XL Wyeast packs and I have had no problem with them to date, (knock on wood) |
Adam W
Intermediate Member
Username: Adam_w
Post Number: 273
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 04:24 pm: |
|
Fredrik said:
"I noticed a fairly low maltotriose depletion."
How did you notice that? |
Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 04:56 pm: |
|
Adam, after I posted that I was wondering if someone was going to ask that It's a valid question and you are of course right that as with most things I didn't measure it directly (whatever that would mean anyway?). I do not have the equipment to do so.
However as per my understanding of yeast and fermentation, wort composition, yeast amount and FG, OF and general consistency requirements leads me to think that the maltotriose depletion must be low, not because I litteraly measured it, but because it's the only way it can be unless I got some parts wrong. To simplify, I assume that most of the time sucrose, glucose, fructose and maltose depletion as more or less complete unless of course the fermentation gets stuck really early. So until I've got more modelling done, for my own ballpark estimates the "attenuation in general" would be mostly determined by the maltotriose depletion. This way of thinking is at worst equivalent to just talking about attenuation, but I find this more plausible. And it makes it easier to translate the attenuation for non-standard worts. It would not be exactly correct, but I suspect the flaws in this reasoning is insignificant and is good enough for a ballpark estimate.
How I actually determined it in detail, I have this stuff in some excel sheet, where I estimate the maltotriose depletion as a function of the normal stuff + maltotriose contents of wort, which I also roughly estimate in a crude linear way. Higher fermentable worts has as far as I understand less maltotriose. Dominant beta-amylase favours maltose and thus supress maltotriose relatively.
/Fredrik |
Adam W
Intermediate Member
Username: Adam_w
Post Number: 274
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 05:04 pm: |
|
You're making assumptions about starting maltotriose levels, which varying with mash regime and you're also making assumptions about the extent of maltotriose metabolism. So you have one unknown affected by an unknown metabolism. Maybe the modeling is fun, but it is definitely irrelavant. |
Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik
Post Number: 1365
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 05:20 pm: |
|
I want to stress that I was doing estimates here, it's been relevant to me though as it has helped me understand things better, which is a key issue for me. You are right about the assumptions but I do not consider them as wild as it may seem. Lots of other people have done lab analysis on maltotriose levels as function of mashing, and the some typical values are on the net, and in books. I've learned from there to make sure my assumptions are consistent with that data. Also the metabolism isn't totally in darkness. Sure alot of details are missing, but the main paths are known. They way I work is that I keep expanding my set of assumptions in as long as they stay consistent with reality. Personally I don't ask for more than consistency. I find that a simple and sound approach.
/Fredrik |
JimTanguay
Member
Username: Pizzaman
Post Number: 218
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 05:58 pm: |
|
you had to ask |
Hophead
Advanced Member
Username: Hophead
Post Number: 874
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 06:04 pm: |
|
"They way I work is that I keep expanding my set of assumptions in as long as they stay consistent with reality."
That would make a great bumper sticker. I know several professors that would shudder at this statement...
I'm a WLP*** user myself. Never got into the wyeast smack packs, though I don't recall any traumatic experiences in my past... |
Vance Barnes
Advanced Member
Username: Vancebarnes
Post Number: 786
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 07:43 pm: |
|
GIGO. Garbage in = garbage out. |
Brandon Dachel
Senior Member
Username: Brandon
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 02:44 am: |
|
> Wyeast had a problem years ago with the original
> smack packs sometimes bursting when you smacked
> them.
IIRC the problem was that the inner pouch would *not* break regardless of how hard you pressed it.
> Did I mention that I hate smack packs?
I'm not sure how anyone could 'hate' smack packs, but that said, sounds like the perfect opporutunity for you to learn about culturing and maintaining your own yeast bank. You'll never (well, not really) worry about smack packs again. |
Brews and Views Archive 2004 
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page