![]() ![]() ![]() I know my LHBS does not always treat yeast and clarifying agents properly and I'm sure the truck driver carrying the homebrew supplies from the distributor to the LHBS doesn't care if the load gets cooked in the hot summer sun or frozen during the winter (I'm in Canada and it gets COLD) so that could contribute to the dead notty packets we've used. Some homebrewers have problems with notty, some don't, even with yeast packets with the same lot number, which indicates something is causing the yeast to become inactive, or die completely. I've also had problems with the Nottingham yeast - but I wonder if mistreatment of the yeast during transport is the problem or part of the problem. So so far for me that is a 100% fail rate for Lot 1080472V. I got a bunch of S-04 and S-05 also right after I heard there was to be a big price increase so I am good to go for most of next year brewing around 3 times a month. I have, I think 14 more of these (!) so for the next 14 brew days I will try one and have some backup yeast ready. The last two packets that were bad I used were both: I think Lallemand will figure it out and we can go back to using that yeast and making good beer, but for that to happen they need to know, to be aware at how many people are suddenly experiencing problems with Nottingham yeast when their process has not changed. It is still worth keeping the discussion going though IMO. If you sift through the threads though and you'll find that it is not the case for the vast majority. I suspect, like in the other thread, that there will be a bunch of posts from brewers who think people who had problems are just not doing things right. These are some of reasons I want Lallemand to fix this rather than just throw my hands up and switch to something else. ![]() Both S-04 and S-05 are, now, twice as expensive as Nottingham. Then I go to S-05 but it is less flocculant. S-04 is good, my second choice but it is more fruity and so for some beers I don't like it. It is inexpensive and just super convenient. It is also really flocculant so it is easier to get clear beer. It is a great yeast! For the beer I make it is ideal: it ferments well at a wide temperature range - around 63-64 it is very clean, you don't need to aerate it, you can brew on a whim without making a starter, it attenuates all the way down if you mash at lower temps - up to 89% in my experience. Well actually I have had many many *great* experiences! Just not the last 4 of 5 times! Prior to this 90% of my beer was fermented with Nottingham. Someone asked why bother with Nottingham at all after so many bad experiences. 60 mins later, no change, pond water again so I prepared my S-04 and pitched it. I was half hoping I'd get Nottingham to do its thing, I added a little cooled wort to coax it along. IMHO 3 days is too long, there are too many possibilities for contamination if I let my beer sit for that long. 3 days and a little bubbling, no active fermentation, no krausen. The dud Nottingham I made a starter with to see what would happen. Having seen this before I hydrated some S-04 and after it creamed up and smelled good, like healthy yeast, I pitched that. Both exhibited the exact same issues I, and many others, have experienced in other batches: After warming the yeast to room temperature and hydrating with boiled water at the appropriate temperature, the yeast quickly sank and stayed there - no creaming, no signs of activity, looking very much like pond water with mud on the bottom! I have used 2 of these, last week and yesterday - I brew once a week or so generally. My short history is that I had problems with on batch of Nottingham yeast, contacted Lallemand, and after quite a bit of back and forth got sent replacement packets. One reason Lallemand is taking steps to fix this is due to this, and I think that is a good thing. Why another thread on dud Nottingham packets? The other one in here is closed and I really believe it is useful to let other brewers know of the problems as well as keep a public record of this. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |