Cool. I hope someone will post the results when available. I suppose it doesn’t really matter all that much, as long as you are pitching the desired amount of healthy cells.
In the meantime, I’ve got a Saison to brew (sans starter altogether in fact).
This is starting to make me feel better about never bothering to invest in a stir plate. I may have to try the “shake to a froth” technique in one of my 3-gallon Better Bottles the next time I make a starter.
I made shaken starters for years and felt like I got great performance. Then someone gave me a stir plate. My starters are not only done sooner, but my subjective analysis is that the yeast performs better. YMMV.
There’s no doubt that a stir plate results in reduced fermentation times. A stir plate keeps most if not all of the viable cells in suspension (that’s what it is designed to do). However, getting a starter to ferment to completion sooner is not the goal of making a starter. The goal of a starter is to increase viable yeast biomass, and no appreciable viable biomass is created after the end of the deceleration phase (which is technically the tail end of the log or exponential phase).
With that said, my results have been the opposite of yours. I have experienced no appreciable performance improvement since switching to using a stir plate. What I have experienced are stressed yeast cultures (e.g., ale yeast strains throwing sulfur), which is why I started to question the value-add of a stir plate as used by most amateur brewers. I am hoping to be able to find the time to test well-shaken at pitching time, continuously stirred, and continuously shaken starters over the winter.
Good thing I’m a homebrewer not an amateur brewer. [emoji6]
Homebrewers are amateur brewers. An amateur brewer is a brewer who brews sans compensation.
I personally do care for the terms “home brewing” and “home brewer.” Both terms carry negative connotations that date back to the days of Prohibition. The hobby has grown well beyond the days of PBR malt extract, white sugar, and Red Star yeast. However, that’s the image that comes to mind when people my age and older who do not brew think of home brew.
Well I prefer homebrewer over amateur. To me amateur carries a negative connotation of inexperience and lack of skill. Tomato potato.
remember, until they started letting pro basketball players compete, the olympics were an all amateur competition. The concept of amateur can actually encompass the very best of the best because there is no need to pander for pay. it essentially means one do does it for the love
Well, that’s one definition of amateur. However, most professions recognize the following definition:
am·a·teur
*noun \ˈa-mə-(ˌ)tər, -ˌtu̇r, -ˌtyu̇r, -ˌchu̇r, -chər*
: a person who does something (such as a sport or hobby) for pleasure and not as a job
I would give you amateur if another widely accepted word didn’t exist. But we both agree homebrewer is appropriate, we just have different reasons to use one or the other due to our respective experiences with those that do not brew.
If only to bring this back on topic (!)…For my part, I reported here that my current ‘Rochefort’ was firmly stuck at 1.016 (OG 1.079). Although this represents 80%AA, it’s nowhere near what I’d hoped for with such a low mash, 15% sugar and theoretically ample starter. Despite further rousing and 76F, it continued to drop bright clear with absolutely no movement. It tastes far too full and ‘sweet’ as it is IMO, certainly not the ‘digestable’ quality we might expect of the style.
I racked the ‘clear’ beer to a secondary and repitched it with a 1L 1.040 active (13hr) DME starter of US-05 last night (at 72f). I was not hopeful, but this morning (11 hours on) there is a new thin disk of kraeusen forming on top, which has warmed my amateur/home brewer’s heart considerably! If it just shifted by 2 or 3 points I would be much happier I suspect, so I will be interested to see what happens.
Amateur brewer is also equally appropriate. In fact, one of the earliest publications dedicated to the hobby you call homebrewing was entitled “Amateur Brewer.” It was published in the seventies by Fred Eckhardt. Fred is considered to be one of the godfathers of the movement.
By the way, many brewing clubs and associations outside of the United States have no problem whatsoever with the term “amateur brewer.” In fact, the Canadian counterpart to the AHA is called the Canadian Amateur Brewers Association.
Eighty percent apparent attenuation on a big beer is still very good.
Well it seems like I can cautiously recommend the US-05 repitch I did on mine. It’s down to just over 1.011 now (around 85%AA), possibly with tiny bubbles still rising (unless my sample was just degassing a little). No noticeable change to the underlying taste, except the increasing dryness. It was really going nowhere with the Rochefort yeast at 1.016, but this is more like it.
egg - what was your starting gravity?
1.079 (details in 7th post)
Mine was 1.087 and it seems to have settled @ 1.020.
I guess it’s just your call on what you do. You’ve had it in there 7 or 8 weeks if I understand correctly, it’s been kept warm and you used pure O2. Personally, 1.020 is nothing like the digestible Belgian beers I’ve had and I’d risk a repitch rather than accept a different beer to what I intended, but just because it looks to have worked in my own, I don’t feel empowered to suggest it will necessarily work in yours. A forced ferment mentioned above would waste very little and give you a better idea. I mean this helpfully, but mine is down to 1.010 today, 4 weeks fermenting and a week after the active repitch. However, this beer will have to taste fantastic in a few months for me to go into a repeat brew knowing that I may well have to repitch again. I don’t have pure O2 and I could put the simple sugars later into the ferment, but other than that, it seems a problematic yeast to use.