[denny]

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?

Apples and oranges on the oxygen thing. Not to mention that I think people are way too paranoid about O2. Having done the stir plate thing for many years, for ME SNS is faster and easier.  My impression is that I get better results. Everyone should do whatever the hell they want to.

[Village Taphouse]

IIRC, the thread on the SNS starter was less about "being easier" and more about "this is the proper way to do it" as if a stirplate was inferior and damaging to the yeast (cell shear or something?).  Do I remember that correctly?  I agree everyone should use the process they prefer but when I hear someone with some deep knowledge on a topic (especially yeast), I tend to listen.  I seem to remember the thread being more of a "do this, not that" .. not "here's another way to do it that's easier!" kind of thing. 

[denny]

IIRC, the thread on the SNS starter was less about "being easier" and more about "this is the proper way to do it" as if a stirplate was inferior and damaging to the yeast (cell shear or something?).  Do I remember that correctly?  I agree everyone should use the process they prefer but when I hear someone with some deep knowledge on a topic (especially yeast), I tend to listen.  I seem to remember the thread being more of a "do this, not that" .. not "here's another way to do it that's easier!" kind of thing.

It was as much, if not more, about the starter wort not being as oxidized. Also faster if you're one who crashes and decant. Easier is my own observation.

https://www.experimentalbrew.com/2020/12/09/shaken-not-stirred-the-stir-plate-myth-buster/

https://www.experimentalbrew.com/2021/01/28/yeast-cultures-are-like-nuclear-weapons/

[CounterPressure]

IIRC, the thread on the SNS starter was less about "being easier" and more about "this is the proper way to do it" as if a stirplate was inferior and damaging to the yeast (cell shear or something?).  Do I remember that correctly?  I agree everyone should use the process they prefer but when I hear someone with some deep knowledge on a topic (especially yeast), I tend to listen.  I seem to remember the thread being more of a "do this, not that" .. not "here's another way to do it that's easier!" kind of thing.

I recall the same thing you do, that it was not about just an easier way but Superior as well. And the one thing I specifically took note of was the stir plate damaging the yeast mechanically. I'm paraphrasing there but you know what I mean. I just happened to have a really slow stir plate so I feel mine is perfectly fine.


Denny, I agree with you completely, whatever is simple and works, believe me I'm all for it. As I said, I would try it but I just don't feel like buying a container for that right at this minute, especially when I'm winding down on brewing for the next couple of months. I have an awful lot of beer in stock. And I just spent $1150 on brewing equipment over the weekend. LOL

[Richard]

IIRC, the thread on the SNS starter was less about "being easier" and more about "this is the proper way to do it" as if a stirplate was inferior and damaging to the yeast (cell shear or something?).  Do I remember that correctly?  I agree everyone should use the process they prefer but when I hear someone with some deep knowledge on a topic (especially yeast), I tend to listen.  I seem to remember the thread being more of a "do this, not that" .. not "here's another way to do it that's easier!" kind of thing.

Yes, the original author was very strongly opinionated on the subject and quite sure that his way was the only way. I am skeptical that the yeast are that fragile. I do SNS usually because it is simpler, and I think pitching active yeast rather than dormant yeast is good.

[Village Taphouse]

Yes, the original author was very strongly opinionated on the subject and quite sure that his way was the only way. I am skeptical that the yeast are that fragile. I do SNS usually because it is simpler, and I think pitching active yeast rather than dormant yeast is good.

Well, one could pitch active yeast from an SNS starter or a stirplate starter for sure.  I guess I am generally open-minded about things like this because if something is going to make better beer, I'm there.  But if I don't find the value in it I will mention it .. maybe not to pour cold water on it but maybe to ask if I'm missing something, etc.  In this particular case, the SNS starter (to me) seemed like a solution looking for a problem.  I was already having good success with stirplate starters.

[HighVoltageMan!]

Yes, the original author was very strongly opinionated on the subject and quite sure that his way was the only way. I am skeptical that the yeast are that fragile. I do SNS usually because it is simpler, and I think pitching active yeast rather than dormant yeast is good.

Well, one could pitch active yeast from an SNS starter or a stirplate starter for sure.  I guess I am generally open-minded about things like this because if something is going to make better beer, I'm there.  But if I don't find the value in it I will mention it .. maybe not to pour cold water on it but maybe to ask if I'm missing something, etc.  In this particular case, the SNS starter (to me) seemed like a solution looking for a problem.  I was already having good success with stirplate starters.

Exactly.

[CounterPressure]

It was as much, if not more, about the starter wort not being as oxidized. Also faster if you're one who crashes and decant. Easier is my own observation.

https://www.experimentalbrew.com/2020/12/09/shaken-not-stirred-the-stir-plate-myth-buster/

https://www.experimentalbrew.com/2021/01/28/yeast-cultures-are-like-nuclear-weapons/

Without opening, I think it's the first link is the one I found when you mentioned this to me. I don't think I've seen the second one. I'll have to check that out. I read a very large thread here also.


I must have glossed over the parts about oxidizing the starter wort, that didn't resonate with me. I would figure if we inject oxygen into our batch and it will clean it up before things are done, that more oxygen in the starter is irrelevant. But that's just my off the cuff observation. I've seen discussions about oxygen in the mash changing the maltiness of finished beers, but I again don't understand why that matters if we're going to take an oxygen stone and force it into the wort in the fermenter. Doesn't that do the same thing? I know, different stages different results. But when I hear that some procedure makes something better, I like to be able to observe the difference in my own situation. If I can't say that I see a difference, I either store the information away or outright forget it, and choose the method that suits me best.


To me, I feel the biggest advantage of SNS is that you can save the money on a stir plate and the associated trinkets, which can definitely add up. But that ship has sailed for me so that's out of the equation now. And I built my own for under $10 so cost wasn't really a factor. The flask cost way more.


How many years did everyone utilize starter calculators in the various software or on websites, only to be told yeast count is secondary? I personally dismissed them out of hand because I felt they were complete marketing horse%&#@* to get people to buy more yeast. When you look at the math of those things, you do a second generation starter and you gain virtually nothing. And there's diminishing returns the farther you go. Stick your batch volume into the calculator as the fourth stage and it'll say almost nothing happens. Moral of the story? You've got to buy more yeast! Only the store-bought stuff replicates! I guess the yeasties must say, no you cheap bastard, we are only going to go so far and that's it! Makes you wonder how the yeast manufacturers can talk them into replicating so they have more to sell.


I take an awful lot of stuff I hear with a grain of salt.

[Kevin]

Here are some earlier postings from Mark VanDitta (AKA YeastWhisperer, AKA S. Cerevisiae)...

Unlike some here I did not read into them any claims of superiority in these articles.

https://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=70926&sid=fecdbc5aa2ef3406434a2a2f6ff3e64c

[CounterPressure]

Here are some earlier postings from Mark VanDitta (AKA YeastWhisperer, AKA S. Cerevisiae)...

Unlike some here I did not read into them any claims of superiority in these articles.

https://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=70926&sid=fecdbc5aa2ef3406434a2a2f6ff3e64c

Taken from the first link Denny supplied above:

People claim that spinning the bar fast enough to create a vortex improves oxygenation.  To a point, that claim is true because it results in an increase in specific surface area.  However, doing so comes at a cost to yeast cell wall health due to shear stress caused by the spinning bar (i.e., the spinning bar is a source of friction for the yeast cells in a starter).  Shear stress is something that has been well studied when it comes to the production of dry yeast.

I think it was the threads here where people saw the claims that a stir plate was simply bad.  I only read these years after they'd died out, but the message was there. It's entirely possible the stir plate does 'bludgeon' the yeast to a point of being knocked out, I don't know.  Maybe that's why when I see videos in a commercial brewery lab they have 16 flasks sitting on a gizmo that swirls them around in circles to keep them moving.  But, that also leads me to believe that agitation is a good thing, not bad.  I chose to do the easy solution which was to build a stir plate with a large bar which spins slowly.  I can make a tornado if I want, I just don't.

Possible Correction Here:
I'm not a chemist, so there is that.  But from reading I did this morning, it does appear that my experiment I relayed above does indeed differ from atmospheric conditions in a substantial way.  This is just conjecture at this point, but what I am thinking is that my 3 flasks in the experiment above were full of H and O just precisely as wrote it.  However, what is being discussed in this SNS and Brewing context is NOT O, but O2.  Someone please correct me if I have that wrong.  Both are called "Oxygen", but they are NOT the same thing. Now, I'm under the impression that what I buy in the red tanks and for my Acetylene torch is O.  So when I inject my beer, I'm putting in O, not O2.  Perhaps there's some O2 in there also, hard to say.  I say the O I buy is the highly reactive type O.  Hence the reason it dissolved completely.  Anyone more knowledgeable care to expand on that?

[denny]

IIRC, the thread on the SNS starter was less about "being easier" and more about "this is the proper way to do it" as if a stirplate was inferior and damaging to the yeast (cell shear or something?).  Do I remember that correctly?  I agree everyone should use the process they prefer but when I hear someone with some deep knowledge on a topic (especially yeast), I tend to listen.  I seem to remember the thread being more of a "do this, not that" .. not "here's another way to do it that's easier!" kind of thing.

Yes, the original author was very strongly opinionated on the subject and quite sure that his way was the only way. I am skeptical that the yeast are that fragile. I do SNS usually because it is simpler, and I think pitching active yeast rather than dormant yeast is good.

In theory, yes they are that fragile. In practice, for what we do, it doesn't seem to really matter.

[Richard]

Here are some earlier postings from Mark VanDitta (AKA YeastWhisperer, AKA S. Cerevisiae)...

Unlike some here I did not read into them any claims of superiority in these articles.

https://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=70926&sid=fecdbc5aa2ef3406434a2a2f6ff3e64c

Taken from the first link Denny supplied above:

People claim that spinning the bar fast enough to create a vortex improves oxygenation.  To a point, that claim is true because it results in an increase in specific surface area.  However, doing so comes at a cost to yeast cell wall health due to shear stress caused by the spinning bar (i.e., the spinning bar is a source of friction for the yeast cells in a starter).  Shear stress is something that has been well studied when it comes to the production of dry yeast.

I think it was the threads here where people saw the claims that a stir plate was simply bad.  I only read these years after they'd died out, but the message was there. It's entirely possible the stir plate does 'bludgeon' the yeast to a point of being knocked out, I don't know.  Maybe that's why when I see videos in a commercial brewery lab they have 16 flasks sitting on a gizmo that swirls them around in circles to keep them moving.  But, that also leads me to believe that agitation is a good thing, not bad.  I chose to do the easy solution which was to build a stir plate with a large bar which spins slowly.  I can make a tornado if I want, I just don't.

Possible Correction Here:
I'm not a chemist, so there is that.  But from reading I did this morning, it does appear that my experiment I relayed above does indeed differ from atmospheric conditions in a substantial way.  This is just conjecture at this point, but what I am thinking is that my 3 flasks in the experiment above were full of H and O just precisely as wrote it.  However, what is being discussed in this SNS and Brewing context is NOT O, but O2.  Someone please correct me if I have that wrong.  Both are called "Oxygen", but they are NOT the same thing. Now, I'm under the impression that what I buy in the red tanks and for my Acetylene torch is O.  So when I inject my beer, I'm putting in O, not O2.  Perhaps there's some O2 in there also, hard to say.  I say the O I buy is the highly reactive type O.  Hence the reason it dissolved completely.  Anyone more knowledgeable care to expand on that?

It is all O2. You won't find atomic oxygen (O) in any of our everyday environmental conditions. It will combine to make O2.

[Village Taphouse]

I probably mentioned this in the original thread but there were times when I was only making stirplate starters and I would get a beer on tap and sample it and over the course of the next few days I would realize that this particular batch was really, really good.  There was some specific character I was getting that just made the beer stand out.  I would go and check my notes and sure enough it was the first batch made with a new stirplate starter.  For me to pick out that beer and see that it was made with a stirplate starter .. I'm sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse but that's not an area of my brewing that I need improvement with.  I feel like I have that part covered. 

[CounterPressure]

It is all O2. You won't find atomic oxygen (O) in any of our everyday environmental conditions. It will combine to make O2.

Unless you use electrolysis to separate the atoms which is what we did in the experiment.  Am I incorrect in that.  It most definitely did not behave in the way everyone says O2 does.  It sure disappeared in a hurry.

[Richard]

It is all O2. You won't find atomic oxygen (O) in any of our everyday environmental conditions. It will combine to make O2.

Unless you use electrolysis to separate the atoms which is what we did in the experiment.  Am I incorrect in that.  It most definitely did not behave in the way everyone says O2 does.  It sure disappeared in a hurry.

You may have created the O atoms one by one, but as soon as they bump into each other (which is a very short time under these conditions) they form O2. "Electrolysis of Water" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water) has as its first sentence "Electrolysis of water is using electricity to split water into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen (H2) gas by electrolysis."