Nottingham yeast - hydrate or not ?
- Thread starter BOBTHEukBREWER
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
You "punched out" on post 42.
How can anybody believe anything you say?
However, I wonder what the "science" will say in 20 - 30 years time. I suspect that it will be very different to what is believed (by some) to be accurate now.
-a.
I am familiar with Lallemand and Scott and both recommend rehydration for optimum yeast health. Rehydration is done with fairly warm water, 106F, and provides the necessary heat and moisture to rehydrate and "unfold" the dehydrated cell membrane. Without this procedure, the yeast cell membrane can remain in a deformed state (which is permanent) making the cell unable to function properly. In wine making, dry yeast is used almost exclusively and I have yet to meet a wine maker that does not rehydrate.
amandabab
Well-Known Member
hello.
never rehydrate when making wine. And I made wine a lot longer than I've made beer.
You're right, I should stay away, but the willful ignorance is really maddening.
It is actually an interesting observation of human behavior...people will sometimes believe what they want to believe to suit an internal bias, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Just a sampling of the nonsense in this thread (paraphrasing):
"The science must be wrong".
"It hasn't been tested by every person under every imaginable condition, therefore it may not be true'".
"My shortcuts work, so there's nothing to discuss".
"The science will be different in 20 years".
"You continued a discussion when you said you wouldn't, therefore you have no credibility".
The whole thing is really kind of laughable to the objective observer.
boscobeans
Well-Known Member
I think most folks are not ignorant of the "science", however they seem to have differing opinions on how important it really is when brewing.
As an objective observer I don't care how you or anyone else pitches their yeast. Rehydrate, dry, starter or not, I don't care if you throw the packet in the wort unopened for that matter.
My objective experience over the last several decades, although contrary to what was considered fact and the only way to do things, has shown me that a secondary is not essential for a good beer. I have skipped that step throughout all my brewing years and although my experiences and beers were good (excellent for the most part...Sorry but that is a subjective opinion) I have never claimed my method was as good as or better than another, even though the science of the times frowned on my method.
As far as the OP. I have never had a problem with Nottingham. No slow starts, stalls or any of the other varied fermentation problems. I pitch dry on the foam caused by pouring from the kettle to the fermenter. I do not stir it in or aerate the wort in any other fashion.. I brew all brown ales with original gravities from 1.050 to 1.065. 11 grams of yeast has always served me well when pitched at around 70 degrees and then brought down to the mid 60's. Nottingham from 65 up can get wild so I like to keep it controlled at <65. It is fast, clean and the trub if given enough time lays on the bottom like a wet blanket.
bosco
I think most folks are not ignorant of the "science", however they seem to have differing opinions on how important it really is when brewing.
As an objective observer I don't care how you or anyone else pitches their yeast. Rehydrate, dry, starter or not, I don't care if you throw the packet in the wort unopened for that matter.
My objective experience over the last several decades, although contrary to what was considered fact and the only way to do things, has shown me that a secondary is not essential for a good beer. I have skipped that step throughout all my brewing years and although my experiences and beers were good (excellent for the most part...Sorry but that is a subjective opinion) I have never claimed my method was as good as or better than another, even though the science of the times frowned on my method.
As far as the OP. I have never had a problem with Nottingham. No slow starts, stalls or any of the other varied fermentation problems. I pitch dry on the foam caused by pouring from the kettle to the fermenter. I do not stir it in or aerate the wort in any other fashion.. I brew all brown ales with original gravities from 1.050 to 1.065. 11 grams of yeast has always served me well when pitched at around 70 degrees and then brought down to the mid 60's. Nottingham from 65 up can get wild so I like to keep it controlled at <65. It is fast, clean and the trub if given enough time lays on the bottom like a wet blanket.
bosco
And again you, like so many others, are debating whether or not underpitching makes a difference or not. "Science" didn't say to use a secondary. That was common brewing practice based on people's experience. Science is saying that not rehydrating yeast causes cell death. Now some people's brewing practice may find that unnecessary. Maybe 20 years from now they'll think that pitching 200 billion cells for a 1.060 wort was silly. Maybe it doesn't really make a difference. But what it does do is cut down on the number of yeast. If you're the type of person that is trying to pitch what professional brewers have determined as the "proper" amount of yeast, and you're using dry yeast, you should probably rehydrate (assuming your recipe calls for an entire packet). If you're not, carry on.
ChessRockwell
Well-Known Member
What I find most interesting is that YOU'RE doing exactly this.
That's not exactly true.
boscobeans
Well-Known Member
I just added a third subject to my list of things not to debate in a bar..1. Religion
2. Politics
3. Pitching yeast
To each his own
bosco
ChessRockwell
Well-Known Member
People over and over again, based on their own experiences (including side by side tests) saying that they could tell no difference either way isn't evidence to the contrary?
No I'm not. Let me help you understand:
If I don't fall off the earth because I believe in gravity, its not because I'm biased towards gravity, its due to the irrefutable fact that gravity exists.
If I continue detrimental behavior despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is due to a personal bias towards that behavior for whatever reason, take your pick.
Get it?
zachattack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 2,808
- Reaction score
- 323
Like we've said before, it may be evidence that pitch rate isn't as significant a variable as some people think it is, but it says nothing about a potential drop in cell count due to pitching dry.
Beer tasting will always be subjecting (and non-scientific), and we can (and do) debate that all day. Whether or not rehydrating affects the flavor of your beer is something we can debate. Whether or not rehydrating affects active cell count isn't something we can debate.
BOBTHEukBREWER
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 7
As the OP let me share this with you. When I detect the first symptoms of a cold, I take 10 grams of vitamin C per day. Some folks say that amount will kill you but when I last checked I was alive. My colds tend to last about 4 days but a few years ago one lasted 10 days. I am convinced high dose vitamin C is good, but the only way of proving it is to have an identical clone of myself doing exactly the same as me.. (no rude interjections please...) and this is impossible to arrange. The best evidence I have found is a double blind cross over trial in a private school with 800 pupils. This lasted 2 terms ie 20 weeks. Pupils listed how they felt on a tick sheet. The kids on vit c in term 1 were healthier, and were unhealthier in term 2. So in each half of the trial, the placebo takers were the unhealthiest.
Well said. The actual question here is to what degree the science affects the taste, not if the science is in question. Personally I go out of my way to do everything possible to make my brews the best they can be. After all, I am the one drinking them. That being said I could probably spend less time and cut some things out of my process and make a beer that I couldn't tell didn't have the 105% effort in them. I just don't see the reason to chance it. Plus I enjoy brewing so all of the little stuff is fun to me.
BOBTHEukBREWER
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 7
As a business improvement guru in a former life, I preached you should strive for the very best quality, providing the cost was justified. This is our hobby, the time is free to most of us, so go for the best, AND REHYDRATE THE NOTTY THEN ADD SOME BREWING SUGAR TO THE JUG AND WHEN A 2 INCH MERINGUE HEAD FORMS, PITCH IT ON THE WORT....
jeffjjpkiser1
Well-Known Member
Trokair said:
Amen to that
I'll restate that: I've yet to meet a commercial winemaker in Napa or Sonoma counties that don't rehydrate. And they all use Go-Ferm or a similar nutrient...it's what the guys who make the yeast say to do. I've had 3 different consultations with Shea Comfort (http://www.yeastwhisperer.com/Background.html) and he has worked the science with Lallemand. It may not be what everybody does, but it is what's best for the yeast.
So for the first time I noticed a lag regarding airlock bubbling. I believe it was related to sprinkling the dry yeast over the wort that still had starsan foam on some of the surface. Poor yeastie bastards never saw it coming.
Guess that's perhaps one reason to rehydrate....
Guess that's perhaps one reason to rehydrate....
BOBTHEukBREWER
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 7
I always wash off the starsan or similar with boiling water - call me old fashioned.....
zachattack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 2,808
- Reaction score
- 323
I won't call you old-fashioned, I will call you wasteful, inefficient and paranoid. Starsan doesn't need to be rinsed, doing so makes it pointless to even use the product. Since it's just a weak acid, there's nothing bad that happens if a bit (or more than a bit) of Starsan gets mixed with your beer. It dilutes out to phosphate which the yeast will happily eat...
If you don't "believe" the basic science behind that, then I don't know what to say.
If you don't "believe" the basic science behind that, then I don't know what to say.
For a "weak Acid" sure can shine the crap out of copper in a dilluted state..........
zachattack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 2,808
- Reaction score
- 323
I was referring to the diluted state, my bad. I've made the point in other posts that Coke will do the same thing, in fact it's a stronger acid than properly diluted Starsan. Household vinegar is also stronger than Starsan.
What the hell. I'll start it for the OPer again: "Nottingham yeast - hydrate or not ?"
iaefebs
Well-Known Member
What the hell. I'll start it for the OPer again: "Nottingham yeast - hydrate or not ?"
Hydrate with Star San
Hydrate with Star San
I hear the secret to great brews is rehydrating in a bit of cloudy urine. Still trying to get mine cloudy.
BOBTHEukBREWER
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 7
you can clean a dirty copper coin with HP sauce...
grimzella
Well-Known Member
Remember "Science" now accepts the big bang theory. 20 years ago, they would have laughed in your face.
science changes all the time 
Pilgarlic
Well-Known Member
Remember "Science" now accepts the big bang theory. 20 years ago, they would have laughed in your face.
That's right. If you want absolute and final answers you'd better turn to the only place you can get them. But God isn't talking about reydrating Notty, to my knowledge. So it's tea leaves or science. I'm sticking with science.
grimzella
Well-Known Member
grimzella
Well-Known Member
hahahhahaha
Mikethepoolguy
Well-Known Member
During the cold war the Soviets thought that as long as they had the numbers they could not be defeated. So they built a gigantic army and huge stockpiles of crap that was unreliable, at best.
Fortunately we will never know if 50,000 cheap thin armored tanks can defeat 10,000 well built durable tanks. (point 1}
Point 2: People that quote only a small part of your post in order to make their point are better suited to write campaign adds than comment on beer brewing.
Fortunately we will never know if 50,000 cheap thin armored tanks can defeat 10,000 well built durable tanks. (point 1}
Point 2: People that quote only a small part of your post in order to make their point are better suited to write campaign adds than comment on beer brewing.
grimzella said:Remember "Science" now accepts the big bang theory. 20 years ago, they would have laughed in your face.
Unicellular reproduction is a bit easier to study and experiment with than purely theoretical universal origin astrophysics. So I would say this is a poor analogy, to put it mildly.
This is a basic, well established concept that isn't up for debate. It's mind boggling how difficult it is for some people to accept it.
grimzella
Well-Known Member
your too easy. don't you know.. this is why we have over 12 pages of argument. its fun. and your funny.
zachattack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 2,808
- Reaction score
- 323
You'd think so, but this thread has proven otherwise!
