Membership questions? Log in issues? Email info@brewersassociation.org

Author Topic: SNS Starter question  (Read 878 times)

Offline BrewBama

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 6170
SNS Starter question
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2024, 10:24:23 am »
A well-shaken starter in a 5L media bottle: http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv356/tonestack/Brewing/WSY_NO_64_SNS_zps4331525f.jpg

Note it is not full of foam.

How I adapted SnS to dry yeast: Once I add strike water to grain and begin the mash, I add water and Go Ferm Protect to a mason jar and shake the crap out of it. I then add my calculated pitch rate of dry yeast and let it sit until mash out. I then shake the crap out of it again. I shake a cpl more time during boil and cool.  I add Fermax to the jar and shake the crap out of it, transfer wort to fermenter and simultaneously pitch the yeast and add ALDC.  I get rapid starts, vigorous fermentation in a few days, and full attenuation. YMMV

Full Instructions:

Vitality Starter

 author S. cerevisiae

All one needs to make a well-shaken starter is a sanitizable vessel that is at least four times the volume of the starter being prepared, a sanitizable screw-on cap for the vessel, and a funnel.  I do not know if anything comparable is available in the UK; however, one U.S.-gallon glass jugs (demijohns in UK speak) are plentiful in the United States.   Home brew supply stores sell plastic replacement caps for these jugs that can be sanitized (38mm polyseal screw top caps).  If one has money to burn, a 5L borosilicate glass media bottle like I currently use is a very nice toy.  However, 5L media bottles can cost prohibitive when purchased new.  I acquired my current 5L media bottle as unused laboratory surplus, and it was not cheap.  I used a 1-gallon glass jug for a very long time before switching over to using a 5L media bottle.

Preparing the starter medium (a.k.a. starter wort)

The starter medium is prepared like one would prepare a starter any other way.  A 10% weight/volume solution is made by mixing 100 grams of pale DME into a little more than 1L of water.  The goal here is to end up with 1L of media after the solution has been boiled and cooled to room temperature.  I boil the solution for 15 minutes in a 3-quart stainless steel sauce pan (A U.S. quart is slightly smaller than a liter).  The media is chilled in the sauce pan with the cover affixed using an ice water bath in my kitchen sink. 

Sanitizing the starter vessel, screw-on cap, and funnel

The starter vessel, screw-on cap, and funnel should be sanitized while the medium is boiling and chilling. While I use bleach and StarSan, feel free to use your preferred sanitizer.  It is critical that the funnel is sanitized as well, and that one does not touch the inside surface of the funnel after it has been sanitized.

Note: One thing that I like to teach home brewers is to get into the habit of wiping the lip over which yeast or nutrient will be poured with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before decanting yeast, medium, or supernatant (supernatant is the clear liquid that lies above the solids in a starter, yeast crop, or a batch of beer).  Wild microflora (yeast, mold, and bacteria) rides through the air on house dust.  What we want to do is ensure that we do not drag any dust that may have come to rest on the pouring lip of the container that we are decanting into a vessel in which we intend to grow a culture or ferment a batch of beer.  This precaution makes sense If one thinks about what a nurse or doctor does before giving one an injection.  The reason why a doctor or a nurse cleans an injection site with an alcohol wipe before giving one an injection is to prevent the needle from dragging microflora that is on one’s skin into the injection site.

Pouring the starter medium

After placing the funnel in the starter vessel, one should wipe the pouring lip of the sauce pan in with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before pouring the starter medium into the starter vessel.  I use 70% or 90% isopropyl alcohol.  I used to use 95% ethanol (a.k.a. grain alcohol).  However, my state outlawed its sale due to teenagers and young adults abusing it.  Any 140 proof or better clear spirit will work.  Please do not use methylated spirits. 


Inoculating the starter medium

If using a White Labs vial, wipe the pouring lip of the vial with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before pouring the yeast culture into the starter vessel.   If using a Wyeast smack pack, wipe the outside of the smack and the blades of the pair of scissors that one is using to cut a corner off of the smack pack with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before making the cut, and wipe the cut edge of the smack pack with an alcohol saturated cotton ball before pouring the contents of the smack pack into the starter vessel.


Caping and shaking

Here’s where my method differs from the way the average home brewer makes a starter.  The reason why a vessel with a screw-on cap is necessary with this method is because one is going to shake the culture very vigorously for about a minute.  I usually tell brewers to shake the starter vessel like it owes you money (think mafia enforcer).  The goal here is to attempt to turn the media into foam. That's why the vessel has to be at least four times the volume of the starter.  One should then allow the starter to sit for around thirty minutes before loosening the cap to allow the foam to drop.

A well-shaken starter in a 5L media bottle: http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv356/tonestack/Brewing/WSY_NO_64_SNS_zps4331525f.jpg

Pitching the starter

Pitching is one area where most home brewers get it completely wrong.  A starter is not a small batch of beer.  It is a yeast biomass growth medium.  The goal here is to grow the culture to maximum cell density and then pitch it.  Maximum cell density occurs at high krausen.  Beyond that point, all cell reproduction is for replacement only. Yeast taken at high krausen is much healthier than yeast that is taken from a sedimented starter or batch of beer.  That’s why traditional breweries crop yeast at high krausen.  Allowing a starter to ferment out and settle places the cells in the yeast equivalent of hibernation where they will have to undo survival-related morphological changes that occurred at the end of fermentation as well as completely replenish their ergosterol and unsaturated fatty acid reserves after being pitched. 

High krausen should occur within 12 to 18 hours after pitching the starter.  The yeast biomass grows exponentially, not linearly.  The yeast cell count grows at a rate of 2^n, where the symbol “^” means raised to the power of, and n equals the number of minutes that have elapsed since the end of the lag phase divided by 90; hence, the difference in propagation time between 200B cells and 400B cells can be as little as 90 minutes.


British Versus American Pitching Rates

If one believes the yeast calculators found on American sites, one will end up growing 2 to 3 liter starters for 23L batches.  Frankly, the guys who wrote this code know more about coding than they do about yeast.  No two yeast cultures behave the same when pitched, and no two yeast cultures require the same pitching rate.   The only thing that will teach one the proper pitch rate for any given strain is experience with the strain in one’s brew house.  Additionally, it is often desirable to underpitch in order to achieve a desired flavor profile.  British styles benefit from underpitching.  I often pitch as little as 60B cells into 19L of wort when fermenting normal gravity beer (i.e., < 1.065).   Wyeast 1768, which is allegedly Young’s stain, performs much better when pitched at a rate of 3B cells per liter than at a rate of 10B cells per liter when fermenting normal gravity ale.  It produces what I like to refer to as the British lollipop ester when the beer is young.   This strain produces a .delightfully fruity and malty pint when used with a grist that is composed mostly of British pale malt.


One day, you’ll wake up and there won’t be anymore time to do the things you’ve always wanted to do. Don’t wait. Do it now.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2024, 10:27:48 am by BrewBama »

Offline Richard

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2024, 02:36:30 pm »
If I remember Mark Van Ditta's original articles on the SNS method I don't believe he said the vessel had to be completely filled by foam. I seem to remember 50% which is what I've always aimed for. I can get that by shaking for far less that 15 minutes... more like 3 to 5 max.

Yes, he did say to completely fill it with foam.
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/blogs/saccharomyces/shaken-not-stirred-stir-plate-myth-buster

He says "The goal is to attempt to transform as much of the starter wort into foam as is humanly possible." In other words, turn the liquid into 100% foam, but that would not necessarily fill 100% of the container with foam.
Original Gravity - that would be Newton's

Offline CounterPressure

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2024, 04:32:58 pm »
It might be wise to note that in the same article it begins by saying the idea behind the whole shaking thing is a poor man's way of using an oxygen stone to inject oxygen directly. This is just me talking but, I'm just going to take the damn oxygen stone and put oxygen in the wort. Life is too short for all this scientific shaking. Lol. :D

All joking aside however, if there is no vacuum formed when doing the shaking, then there is absolutely not one iota of oxygen being dissolved into that wort. There is no free lunch, that gas has volume and the volume has to go somewhere. So if it dissolves, either we are forming a vacuum or something has to come in to replace it. If neither of those two things happened, then nothing dissolved.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27317
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2024, 08:42:57 am »
It might be wise to note that in the same article it begins by saying the idea behind the whole shaking thing is a poor man's way of using an oxygen stone to inject oxygen directly. This is just me talking but, I'm just going to take the damn oxygen stone and put oxygen in the wort. Life is too short for all this scientific shaking. Lol. :D

All joking aside however, if there is no vacuum formed when doing the shaking, then there is absolutely not one iota of oxygen being dissolved into that wort. There is no free lunch, that gas has volume and the volume has to go somewhere. So if it dissolves, either we are forming a vacuum or something has to come in to replace it. If neither of those two things happened, then nothing dissolved.

Sorry, but that's not the reality. Homebrewers have been shaking starters for decades to aerate them. That's why some use stir plates.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline Richard

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2024, 05:52:40 pm »
It might be wise to note that in the same article it begins by saying the idea behind the whole shaking thing is a poor man's way of using an oxygen stone to inject oxygen directly. This is just me talking but, I'm just going to take the damn oxygen stone and put oxygen in the wort. Life is too short for all this scientific shaking. Lol. :D

All joking aside however, if there is no vacuum formed when doing the shaking, then there is absolutely not one iota of oxygen being dissolved into that wort. There is no free lunch, that gas has volume and the volume has to go somewhere. So if it dissolves, either we are forming a vacuum or something has to come in to replace it. If neither of those two things happened, then nothing dissolved.

The maximum concentration of oxygen you can get in wort from shaking or bubbling air is about 10 ppm. For 1 liter of wort that means about 10 micrograms of oxygen. A 4 liter jar with 3 liters of air at 20% oxygen concentration would have a bit less than 1 gram of oxygen. The fraction that dissolves is 10^-5, or 0.001%, which would cause a negligible pressure drop in the container.
Original Gravity - that would be Newton's

Offline CounterPressure

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2024, 06:36:24 pm »
The maximum concentration of oxygen you can get in wort from shaking or bubbling air is about 10 ppm. For 1 liter of wort that means about 10 micrograms of oxygen. A 4 liter jar with 3 liters of air at 20% oxygen concentration would have a bit less than 1 gram of oxygen. The fraction that dissolves is 10^-5, or 0.001%, which would cause a negligible pressure drop in the container.
I think you are making a very big leap from volume to mass, and you are assuming that somehow they are related, but only in the way that best suits your observation. But then after that you are disconnecting the mass from the volume when it is no longer convenient for them to be related.. If 20% of the gas is oxygen, then 20% of the airspace in there is oxygen. If it dissolves into the liquid, 20% of the space is now a vacuum. It's really some pretty basic physics, there is no free lunch.

Offline Richard

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2024, 09:51:55 pm »
The maximum concentration of oxygen you can get in wort from shaking or bubbling air is about 10 ppm. For 1 liter of wort that means about 10 micrograms of oxygen. A 4 liter jar with 3 liters of air at 20% oxygen concentration would have a bit less than 1 gram of oxygen. The fraction that dissolves is 10^-5, or 0.001%, which would cause a negligible pressure drop in the container.
I think you are making a very big leap from volume to mass, and you are assuming that somehow they are related, but only in the way that best suits your observation. But then after that you are disconnecting the mass from the volume when it is no longer convenient for them to be related.. If 20% of the gas is oxygen, then 20% of the airspace in there is oxygen. If it dissolves into the liquid, 20% of the space is now a vacuum. It's really some pretty basic physics, there is no free lunch.

No, I actually looked up the mass of the oxygen at STP for a volume of 20% of 3 liters. The oxygen does not all dissolve into the liquid, but saturates at somewhere around 10 ppm (10 mg/liter). I did get that wrong and say micrograms instead of milligrams. Even so, if 10 mg of the 1 gram of oxygen in the headspace dissolves into the liquid it is a 1% effect, not enough to pull a noticeable vacuum. I am not trying to pick a fight, but if you can clearly explain where I have gone wrong I would like to hear it.
Original Gravity - that would be Newton's

Offline CounterPressure

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2024, 01:35:05 am »
No, I actually looked up the mass of the oxygen at STP for a volume of 20% of 3 liters. The oxygen does not all dissolve into the liquid, but saturates at somewhere around 10 ppm (10 mg/liter). I did get that wrong and say micrograms instead of milligrams. Even so, if 10 mg of the 1 gram of oxygen in the headspace dissolves into the liquid it is a 1% effect, not enough to pull a noticeable vacuum. I am not trying to pick a fight, but if you can clearly explain where I have gone wrong I would like to hear it.
Many years ago, middle school physics, we did an experiment. Pans of water, 3 flasks roughly 3-4" dia, wire racks to support the flasks. Flasks had very small long stems, say 1/8" ID x 1.5-2" long. Put a little salt in the water to make it electrically conductive.  Filled the flasks 100% full with water and turned them upside down over the pan of water so the stems were submerged, no water can escape.


Took 2 pieces of romex wire, stripped a small amount of the ends and bent it to hook below and up into the stems of the flasks (2 of them). Hook the other ends to a battery charger (dc supply) and wait. Bubbles form as electrolysis separates the H from the O at a rate of 2:1. Flask 1 is 100% full of H when flask 2 is 50% full of O.  Swap out flask 1 with flask 3 and continue.  When flask 3 is 100% full, flask 2 is also 100% full. Now there's 2 flasks of hydrogen and one of oxygen. We now know why they call it H2O.  2 parts H to 1 part O. Ok, cool enough.

Now the teacher lights a match and puts it to flask 1 and poof, Hindenburg example.  Great, learned that's flammable. Wonderful. Now to show how gas dissolves into liquid, takes the O flask with finger covering the opening and places it on another wire rack in a new pan of water. I do not recall the new pan being treated, boiled, any of that. I think it was just clean water. Very slowly, water begins moving up the stem to the globe portion of the flask. It has a minuscule amount of surface area so this takes a few seconds,  but only a few. Guessing here, say 4-6 seconds. Once the water reaches the globe of the flask, obviously the surface area increases dramatically. Immediately there's acceleration of the rate the O dissolves. The inrush very quickly increases to where it looks like a fire hose filling the flask, and in the span of maybe 3 seconds, it's 100% full of water with not so much as an atom of gas remaining in the flask. The vacuum formed was absolute as best as we could tell. I would fear doing this experiment again using a flask that wasn't a sphere, that it might implode the glass if the shape wasn't conducive to handling 30 inches of vacuum.

The oxygen vanished instantly into the water that wasn't already saturated. The wort we are dealing with which has been boiled, is devoid of DO. So it is basically the canary in the coal mine with respect to the affinity for oxygen uptake, it's massively thirsty. That's the reason when we use an O stone in wort,  bubbles don't even approach the surface of the wort for 1-1.5 seconds after the gas is turned on. The very first stuff dissolves instantly, till at least some wort has enough DO to allow other bubbles to rise to the surface through the stuff which is no longer 0% DO.. If you ferment in glass and inject O, you can see this happen when you place the stone right next to the glass where its visible.  Watch closely and the initial bubbles will not come anywhere near the surface. Later, you get foam forming from all the excess. If you stir the stone around, it will take considerably longer before any substantial bubbles reach the surface, then near all of em will. The dissolving slows quickly.

Volume is volume. _IF_ oxygen is being dissolved, something must displace it. No displacement = nothing dissolved.  Either we begin to pull a vacuum and star san enters my hypothetical hose, or the container collapses some, or nothing is happening. But we must pick one.

Dump some beer on a plate and taste it, it's oxidized instantly.  Doesn't need shaken the life out of it, it loves oxygen, at least till it doesn't. And I'm not trying to say sns doesn't work.  I'm simply saying the assumptions about O uptake are flawed.

Offline Richard

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2024, 08:22:34 am »
I agree with you in principle, but I am saying that in practice the numbers are so small the effect is insignificant. Here is a blog from White Labs, where they know a thing or two about wort oxygenation. It says that the maximum solubility of oxygen into wort from air is 9.5 ppm. From pure oxygen it is 40 ppm.
https://www.whitelabs.com/news-update-detail?id=75&type=NEWS
Original Gravity - that would be Newton's

Offline Village Taphouse

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2385
  • Ken from Chicago
    • The new Mayfair Court Brewhouse
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2024, 08:45:26 am »
I'm not scientific.  I have respect for those of you who dive deep into things like this because we all benefit from it.  I have made stir-plate starters for years and lately I have made 4, 5, 6 SNS starters with lager yeast.  I shake the vessel and get a good amount of foam but it seems like all the shaking in the world will still only produce "so much" foam.  I pitch.  I believe I have also sent my sanitized O2 stone into the vessel because I believe that giving fresh yeast O2 seems beneficial.  My stir-plate starters started pretty quickly.  I feel like my SNS starters start slower although there must be a lot of variables here including yeast health.  The resulting beers don't seem any different between the two processes.  I will be making a starter coming up here in about a month or so.  I'll probably do the SNS + SHAKE + PURE O2 method again but I am not seeing anything VERY different between the two processes.  A stir-plate starter spins .. the SNS starter gets the occasional shake or swirl.  They both work.  The beer is no different, IMO. 
Ken from Chicago. 
A day without beer is like... just kidding, I have no idea.

Offline HighVoltageMan!

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2024, 09:14:45 am »
I'm not scientific.  I have respect for those of you who dive deep into things like this because we all benefit from it.  I have made stir-plate starters for years and lately I have made 4, 5, 6 SNS starters with lager yeast.  I shake the vessel and get a good amount of foam but it seems like all the shaking in the world will still only produce "so much" foam.  I pitch.  I believe I have also sent my sanitized O2 stone into the vessel because I believe that giving fresh yeast O2 seems beneficial.  My stir-plate starters started pretty quickly.  I feel like my SNS starters start slower although there must be a lot of variables here including yeast health.  The resulting beers don't seem any different between the two processes.  I will be making a starter coming up here in about a month or so.  I'll probably do the SNS + SHAKE + PURE O2 method again but I am not seeing anything VERY different between the two processes.  A stir-plate starter spins .. the SNS starter gets the occasional shake or swirl.  They both work.  The beer is no different, IMO.
I agree. I see no benefit to the yeast with SNS over a stir plate. There is nothing special that is accomplished with the SNS that a stir plate won't do. I prefer a stir plate, I can start the yeast, go to bed and wake up to a starter in full krausen.

Whether you use a stir plate or SNS, the exchange of gases is key, get rid of co2, introduce small amounts of oxygen. Both will increase yeast counts and health. I think both are very important, but push comes to shove, yeast health tops yeast cell counts.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2024, 09:17:04 am by HighVoltageMan! »

Offline CounterPressure

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2024, 09:35:27 am »
I agree with you in principle, but I am saying that in practice the numbers are so small the effect is insignificant. Here is a blog from White Labs, where they know a thing or two about wort oxygenation. It says that the maximum solubility of oxygen into wort from air is 9.5 ppm. From pure oxygen it is 40 ppm.
https://www.whitelabs.com/news-update-detail?id=75&type=NEWS
I've seen those stated numbers, but I seem to recall 9 and 20 thrown around.  Maybe it's 40, I never really cared enough to delve into that. Either number is ok with me for my beer. :D

Something seems wrong with these stated volume vs mass numbers though.  The flasks we used in school were roughly 1/2 a L.  This was late 70s or maybe 1980, so it's been a long time and I more recall the profound parts, not so much the details. But I recall having them in my hands, and they were large enough hold a good bit of water.  Idk if flasks were metric then. But 1/2L is close enough.
 
There'd be several variables in our experiment.  How quickly does the dissolved oxygen move into liquid that isn't yet saturated?  My observation was the liquid was entering the flask at about 2 zillion mph.  Seriously, that was the impressive part was seeing the incredible speed at which that flask filled.  Then also, that the flask was totally full when finished. I distinctly recall there not being a single bubble left.  At that speed, and with such a small opening for the liquid to enter through, one would think the only liquid receiving any of that oxygen was what went in the flask.  But, I don't know what speeds things move at an atomic level. 
Next variable, how much water was in the pan?  Well, that was a pretty good bit of water.  I'd say the water was 2 to 2-1/2 inches deep, and understand here this was decades ago, but I recall the pans as at least a foot front to back and oblong, longer in width.  So, quite a large volume of water. 

The number which makes the least sense to me is the 6 cc of volume into a L of liquid.  No matter how I view this, our experiment absolutely exceeded that.  Even if that's reflective of what we're seeing, that's a lot of distance in a 1/4" ID tube. So there should be a good bit of liquid pulled in my hypothetical tube regardless of how little oxygen gets dissolved.  No matter what, the amount is non-zero.  And even if we use 1L liquid, and 1/4" ID tubing, 6 cc of oxygen = not quite 8" of tubing volume. 

The next part that is quite unintuitive is to know that 1L of water will dissolve a trainload of sugar, but supposedly almost no oxygen. If 6 cc of Oxygen is all that will dissolve, that amounts to 1.217 teaspoons of gas.  Saturation at 40cc = 2.71 Tablespoons of gas.  Absolutely none of this reflects what I saw all those years ago. I don't know what's missing, but something has to be.

Offline CounterPressure

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2024, 09:49:53 am »
I agree. I see no benefit to the yeast with SNS over a stir plate. There is nothing special that is accomplished with the SNS that a stir plate won't do. I prefer a stir plate, I can start the yeast, go to bed and wake up to a starter in full krausen.
The claims are twofold. 1, it's easier and requires less gear.  2, some seem to think the stir bar is acting like a blender and damaging the yeast.  May or may not be true, I do not know and make no claim either way.  I do know I made my own stir plate and use a 2" stir bar at a very slow speed.  So mine is considerably slower than other types commercially available.  I've continued using mine only because I really don't have an ideal container to try the SNS way. 


It's interesting that people jump through incredible hoops of fire to keep oxygen away from their finished beer. Some claim that so much as opening a fermenter to do anything causes oxygen ingress. Yet when they want some in there, one must shake the life out of it to get anything at all. Lol. Which is it?

Offline Richard

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2024, 12:00:32 pm »
It's interesting that people jump through incredible hoops of fire to keep oxygen away from their finished beer. Some claim that so much as opening a fermenter to do anything causes oxygen ingress. Yet when they want some in there, one must shake the life out of it to get anything at all. Lol. Which is it?

Both are correct. You need to look at the numbers. For yeast health the goal is something like 10 parts per million of dissolved oxygen, and it is hard to get that much. For packaged beer the goal is to keep the dissolved oxygen below something like 40 parts per BILLION, or hundreds of times less. It is easy to get that level of dissolved oxygen into finished beer if you aren't careful.
Original Gravity - that would be Newton's

Offline Village Taphouse

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2385
  • Ken from Chicago
    • The new Mayfair Court Brewhouse
Re: SNS Starter question
« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2024, 12:03:09 pm »
I agree. I see no benefit to the yeast with SNS over a stir plate. There is nothing special that is accomplished with the SNS that a stir plate won't do. I prefer a stir plate, I can start the yeast, go to bed and wake up to a starter in full krausen.

Whether you use a stir plate or SNS, the exchange of gases is key, get rid of co2, introduce small amounts of oxygen. Both will increase yeast counts and health. I think both are very important, but push comes to shove, yeast health tops yeast cell counts.
But the part that makes me rub my chin is that in the original SNS starter thread there was technical information about how a stirplate is NOT the way to make a starter because of (technical stuff) and I started out a little confused because I have had great success with my stirplate and made great beers from the yeast that was grown on the stirplate.  I know the person who came up with the process and posted the information knows A LOT more about yeast growth, health, etc. than I do but the information in that thread seemed positively breathless about how one should not use a stirplate but SNS instead and the fact that I'm not overly impressed leaves me .. well .. unimpressed.  :D
Ken from Chicago. 
A day without beer is like... just kidding, I have no idea.