I know that I have used the nuclear weapon analogy in different threads on this forum, but it is the title of my first non-fluff blog entry. Once again, I have covered most, if not all of the information in this entry in various threads, but here is an opportunity for new forum members to be able to see it compiled into one page.
That’s an excellent choice for a first post, Mark. I think if you’re going to delve into the fine details of yeast wrangling, this topic is something you always should have in the back of your mind.
Excellent synopsis, Mark. Thanks !
Great article! Thanks for the effort…
Again, good on ya Mark. Gonna have to go back and read this in full when there is not a raging debate over free will in my living room. This is what I am interested in, just can’t focus at the moment with all the nonsense floating around my house right now
If the illusion of free will is indistinguishable from actual free will, then the two are identical from the perspective of the person who is making the choice. Just sayin’ ;D
But what if the argument is that no one is able to make a/that choice. All of existence is pre-determined. Man is unable to make a choice even when he/she feels a choice has been made. All I know is that “even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”
Oh, and apparently this is all scientific fact. Gawd I hate when she comes over…
Sorry for the high jack Mark, I will go back over this post and the blog post in the near future once this blow hard leaves the house
Deep stuff, indeed. 
“Maybe both is happening at the same time” F Gump
Not a problem, you guys have all read this information at least one time. I posted the link for newer forum members.
Dont worry about repeating. I’ve seen it before but I dont think I really got it till now. I’m not wired for formulas, and probably my log and your log are two different things. But I focused and kept reading. I think I grasp it now, maybe. My take away is that cell count calculating is more important when you are pitching quiescent yeast (slury). Not as important if you are pitching a “close enough” amount of yeast actively in the exponential phase (high krausen). Which, if my understanding is correct, makes me wonder… when a yeast calculator tells me that 300b cells (slury) is enough, why wouldnt 200b in exponential phase also be good enough? Actually better. If it only took 3 hrs to get that 300b slury into the beginning of exponential phase, by that time my 200b high krausen cells have already become 800b. But doesnt it actually take more like 9 hours? By 9 hours mine have maxed out you would think.
Or am I still lost?
I’m with you. I have little patience for stupid thinking. Free will/determinism is the area 51 of philosophy.
Sorry to Hijack the thread Mark. You know I’m a fan. A large part of which is that there is solid reasoning in your posts.
I’m glad yeast doesn’t have free will.
Even though we’ve read it all before, it’s nice to have it without all the extraneous questions and comments, even though those discussions may have helped you sharpen some of your ideas. Nice job!
In either case, most home brewers are usually working with an approximation at best because they do not have the ability to count. I going to introduce an alternate method of looking at pitching rates in future entry. The method is not a new way of looking at the problem. It is just a way of pitching that has gotten lost in the noise due to the overuse of/over-reliance on brewing software.
No, you are not lost. Pitching 200 billion cells at high krausen instead of pitching 300 billion cells at quiescence gives the 200 billion cell culture an advantage over the 300 billion cell culture because it should spend less time in the the lag phase. Even if the both cultures were pitched as quiescent cultures, the difference between pitching 200 and 300 billion cells is in the noise when dealing with normal gravity wort. Now, high gravity wort is a different story due to increased osmotic pressure, ethanol stress, and the fact that O2 saturation goes down as gravity goes up. However, even in that case, an increase of less than a factor of two is not going to make a noticeable difference in outcome.
Cool! I think I now know all I need to know for my purposes. Thanks
Awesome article. If you had a chance to team up with someone to make how-to videos on homebrew-scale yeast culturing for us visual learners, those would be worth paying for.
Great info, Mark. Gotta say, I’ve ‘shaked not stirred’ for a few batches and I’m sold. Not a big departure from Charlie P’s old starter method, which I used for years (quart starter in a gallon wine jug), except for the shaking into foam like it owes you $. So far, 8 hours to HK seems to be the target time for most strains. Really liking it.