Right! We're not going to let our yeast debate be settled by silly things like "science"!
Nottingham yeast - hydrate or not ?
- Thread starter BOBTHEukBREWER
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Right! We're not going to let our yeast debate be settled by silly things like "science"!
No, the whole point is that this is a proven scientific fact, and is not debatable. Reminds me of people who deny evolution or global warming b/c it disagrees with some ill-informed pre-conceived notion.
Anyway, it is clearly pointless to argue any further. I'm punching out...enjoy your homebrew.
boscobeans
Well-Known Member
Leaving the "undisputed" scientific facts out of the conversation there is the "undisputed" reality of many people's experiences using Nottingham.
I use it all the time for ales that start out from 1.050 to 1.062.. I start with about 6 - 7 gallons in the fermenter. I pour directly into the fermenter from my kettle and pitch the yeast evenly on the resulting foam. I try to keep it at about 64 for the first week.
Nottingham comes in 11 gram packages.. It has never failed to do what it is supposed to do..FERMENT. It is usually bubbling along in the first 6-8 hours.
My son used it on a 5 gallon batch of brown ale OG 1.058. When pitching he took the pack straight from the fridge, ripped it open and as he was pitching it on the surface about 1/2 the package fell out in one lump and sunk to the bottom.. No stirring or anything was done. He simply covered the fermenter and went on his way.
Result; The full fermentation was delayed by about 4 hours or so. The final product was as usual very good.
I don't know if I would ever need any better results from a yeast or even want them.. Nottingham is noted for blowing airlocks and bucket lids into outer space so why try to supercharge it. Maybe if I was doing 10 gallons at 1.060.
OMO
bosco
I use it all the time for ales that start out from 1.050 to 1.062.. I start with about 6 - 7 gallons in the fermenter. I pour directly into the fermenter from my kettle and pitch the yeast evenly on the resulting foam. I try to keep it at about 64 for the first week.
Nottingham comes in 11 gram packages.. It has never failed to do what it is supposed to do..FERMENT. It is usually bubbling along in the first 6-8 hours.
My son used it on a 5 gallon batch of brown ale OG 1.058. When pitching he took the pack straight from the fridge, ripped it open and as he was pitching it on the surface about 1/2 the package fell out in one lump and sunk to the bottom.. No stirring or anything was done. He simply covered the fermenter and went on his way.
Result; The full fermentation was delayed by about 4 hours or so. The final product was as usual very good.
I don't know if I would ever need any better results from a yeast or even want them.. Nottingham is noted for blowing airlocks and bucket lids into outer space so why try to supercharge it. Maybe if I was doing 10 gallons at 1.060.
OMO
bosco
Right, and that gets into the debate of underpitching and whether or not it makes a difference. Rather than rehash the hundreds of threads about that topic, we can just say that if you need (based on the volume and OG of your wort) 1 entire packet of yeast and you direct sprinkle the yeast, you are underpitching. Period. Does that make a difference? That's up to your tastes I suppose, but the experts say it does. If you are happy with your process, that's great. But that doesn't make it correct.
Cold water freezes faster than warm water and warm water boils faster than cold water. Yet everyday people bring cold water to a boil and warm water to freezing. See, the facts haven't changed but similar results were achieved through different processes. This happens all the time in the world of science. It doesn't mean the facts have been debunked, it just means you can manipulate the variables and get similar results. So, everyone's right!
No, the whole point is that this is a proven scientific fact, and is not debatable. Reminds me of people who deny evolution or global warming b/c it disagrees with some ill-informed pre-conceived notion.
Anyway, it is clearly pointless to argue any further. I'm punching out...enjoy your homebrew.
The results (taste, apperance ect) ARE debateable no matter what the science says. The so called facts are found doing research right? which is exactly what we do every time we brew. So does our research not matter? are you saying beer taste better because you rehydrated? That IS the topic remember?
zachattack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 2,808
- Reaction score
- 323
To agree with the point that pabloj13 is trying to make: it's fact that not rehydrating lowers your cell count. Which makes this a debate about how important proper pitch rate is. And that's been done so, so many times on this forum already. We aren't getting into new territory here. If you're comfortable underpitching and you're happy with your beer, fine. I prefer to follow Jamil's advice and use his calculated pitch rates. No big deal.
Nobody's shooting down your "research."
<Facepalm>
There should be a selection on MrMalty and other pitching calculators for whether you're a "by the books" person or a "good enough" person. Literature says pitching rates are important. How important, and for what types of beers, and for what volumes, and personal taste, makes all the difference. And those things can't be adequately addressed here.
You can learn from the books or learn from experience. Most of the wisdom on this forum comes from other peoples' experience. Most of the time, that's good enough for me.
You can learn from the books or learn from experience. Most of the wisdom on this forum comes from other peoples' experience. Most of the time, that's good enough for me.
zachattack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 2,808
- Reaction score
- 323
Pilgarlic
Well-Known Member
I have no objection to people choosing to ignore certain techniques or information. That's perfectly legit. What's wrong, and annoying, is to take a position that is absolutely counter to that which has been well established and say "prove I'm wrong". Here's what's been established: i) the failure to (properly) rehydrate dry yeast results in a loss of viability (of about 50%). ii) different pitching rates alter yeast growth and fermentation in ways that change the beer that results. Now, you can say "I don't care, I like my beer and I sprinkle." Or you can say "I'm willing to ignore all that because I just don't see the reason to take all that trouble." That's fine with everyone. Those are your opinions. You're entitled to them. But, as the saw goes, you're not entitled to your own facts, so, although you can say "rehydration doesn't make any difference that I care about" you can't say "rehydration doesn't make any difference". It does. Rehydration results in a higher pitching rate and higher pitching rates change beers.
That having been said, when I'm brewing a 1.050 beer with dry yeast, I sprinkle because a 50% viability gives me a good pitching rate and I don't want the contamination risk inherent in rehydrating. With a larger beer, I'll generally rehydrate.
That having been said, when I'm brewing a 1.050 beer with dry yeast, I sprinkle because a 50% viability gives me a good pitching rate and I don't want the contamination risk inherent in rehydrating. With a larger beer, I'll generally rehydrate.
I now rehydrate because I have found that it usually results in a shorter lag times ON MY SYSTEM. Safale has different protocols for the home brewer, printed on the 11g sachet (ie. "do not rehydrate or baby Jesus will harm a puppy!"), than on the 500g bricks that they sell to commercial brewers, which includes instructions for rehydrating.
Still, there are a lot of hazy information surrounding dry yeast. Danstar states that 1g = 5 billion cells on their packets, and THEY DO include instructions for rehydration, while, on the other hand, White and Jamil state that when they contacted dry yeast manufacturers, the consensus was around 20 billion cells by gram. Is that figure for rehydrated yeast or not ? And what about viability ? MrMalty calculates viability from production date, yet, the last tiem I looked, there was only a best by date on most dry yeast. While MrMalty says that to ge the production date, you have to substract a year to the best by date, I must come from the future because all of the dry yeast in my fridge expires somewhere in 2014...
There's also the fact that the vast majority of us do not have the equipment for precise cell counts (which are precise in the sense that they are vastly more precise approximations of the real pitch rate): we go by what calculators and formulas tell us, programs and formulas that often do not take into account many variables or who will approximate such variables (I'm looking at you slurry thickness slidebar on the MrMalty website).
All that long winded novel to tell people to take a chill pill. If sprinkling works for you fine, there is still science that proves that rehydrating is better to preserve cell viability. If rehydrating works for you and you feel it is better, fine, but be aware that you might not be pitching as much viable yeast as you think you are (rehydrating protocols are pretty precise and I'd wager a good number of us don't follow them to the letter) and that it might not make a night or day difference to only sprinkle.
Still, there are a lot of hazy information surrounding dry yeast. Danstar states that 1g = 5 billion cells on their packets, and THEY DO include instructions for rehydration, while, on the other hand, White and Jamil state that when they contacted dry yeast manufacturers, the consensus was around 20 billion cells by gram. Is that figure for rehydrated yeast or not ? And what about viability ? MrMalty calculates viability from production date, yet, the last tiem I looked, there was only a best by date on most dry yeast. While MrMalty says that to ge the production date, you have to substract a year to the best by date, I must come from the future because all of the dry yeast in my fridge expires somewhere in 2014...
There's also the fact that the vast majority of us do not have the equipment for precise cell counts (which are precise in the sense that they are vastly more precise approximations of the real pitch rate): we go by what calculators and formulas tell us, programs and formulas that often do not take into account many variables or who will approximate such variables (I'm looking at you slurry thickness slidebar on the MrMalty website).
All that long winded novel to tell people to take a chill pill. If sprinkling works for you fine, there is still science that proves that rehydrating is better to preserve cell viability. If rehydrating works for you and you feel it is better, fine, but be aware that you might not be pitching as much viable yeast as you think you are (rehydrating protocols are pretty precise and I'd wager a good number of us don't follow them to the letter) and that it might not make a night or day difference to only sprinkle.
y2jrock60
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 5
I always rehydrate dry yeast. It helps kill sometime while the beer is cooling. It doesn't look right dumping little tiny balls into the beer. I like to dump a slurry of yeast into my beer. It probably doesn't matter if it's re-hydrated or not though.
BOBTHEukBREWER
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 7
As the OP of this thread, many thanks one and all, but before we drop it, what about yeast slants where we have very few cells that we have to grow up to a colony with billions of cells before we pitch, which is why I asked why not use 1/10 of a packet of dry yeast for each brew and hydrate, then grow on with sterilised 1.020 wort.
There's no reason you couldn't do that. I think the reason most people don't is that dry yeast is so cheap to begin with.
Dry yeast will spoil (viability loss + contamination) very rapidly once the packet has been opened, which is why I don't get how some lhbs get away with buying 500g bricks and repackaging. For 10 brews in the same week, it might work, but you'll be spending so much time on starters and DME that it's really not worth the costs imho.
This debate reminds me of the arguments of "fully qualified" compared to "best qualified". Sprinkling may be "fully qualified" while hydration may be "best qualified".gizmodog51
Well-Known Member
always hydrate my dry yeast, warm water. always add oygen to wort prior to pitch.
always make a 2 qt starter.....and shake fermenter after pitching...
always try to pitch at room temps ...too cold will lag out action.
always have action within 30 minutes and many times less that half that.
GD51
always make a 2 qt starter.....and shake fermenter after pitching...
always try to pitch at room temps ...too cold will lag out action.
always have action within 30 minutes and many times less that half that.
GD51
m1k3
Well-Known Member
I love Nottingham, in fact, if I could only have one yeast I would pick Nottingham.
I rehydrate with Go Ferm, but only out of superstition.
I rehydrate with Go Ferm, but only out of superstition.
amandabab
Well-Known Member
my 30 minute, 60minute and 90 minute microscope slides to not show this "fact" of 50% die off from pitching dry. longer than that is pointless as I'm producing Co2 and krausen in 4 hours anyway.
My many side-by-side timed test don't show rehydrating starts ferments faster.
Fermentis even changed it's packaging in the last couple years to say "sprinkle into wort" and removed "rehydrate". the die off thing is brewlore.
My many side-by-side timed test don't show rehydrating starts ferments faster.
Fermentis even changed it's packaging in the last couple years to say "sprinkle into wort" and removed "rehydrate". the die off thing is brewlore.
ChessRockwell
Well-Known Member
Didn't you read? It's indisputable fact. You're not allowed to argue with it. Your research and personal experience is completely meaningless...
I am not surprised that the cell death hasn't happened by 90 minutes. Stress-induced apoptosis normally takes longer than that.
gizmodog51
Well-Known Member
i like your way of thinking.....
:rockin: GD51
Another fact about this yeast: "It is unnecessary to aerate wort." I am sure that we all follow that as well. It is also Kosher and GMO Free. I love scientific facts. The only problem with them is that there are no "facts" but only theory and sometimes convention. After all, it was once a scientific "fact" that the Earth was flat. Ever read a science book from the 50's? You might get a laugh or two from the "facts".
If you follow the instructions for "best qualified", you would need to add cooled wort three times over a period of 15 minutes to your properly hydrated yeast so as to prevent "petite mutants". So you have your cooled wort sitting around for an extra 15 minutes and have three additional transfers in you sterile garage laboratory.
If is it not broken, do not fix it!
If you follow the instructions for "best qualified", you would need to add cooled wort three times over a period of 15 minutes to your properly hydrated yeast so as to prevent "petite mutants". So you have your cooled wort sitting around for an extra 15 minutes and have three additional transfers in you sterile garage laboratory.
If is it not broken, do not fix it!
Pilgarlic
Well-Known Member
Hell, yeah. And GLOBAL WARMING. Can you believe THAT??? And EVOLUTION?!?! And what about GRAVITY?? Last time I sat under an apple tree no apple fell on my head! Scientists and politicians. Can't believe any of 'em. They're all idiots and liars.
Yes, science adapts to new information. That's the beauty of it. Currently it is being suggested to rehydrate the yeast. This is not a big enough deal that people need to get all bent out of shape and snarky. If you don't want to, don't. If you want to follow the basic instructions, do.
It is unsurprising that the cell death is not apparent after 90 minutes. This paper that used high concentrations of acetic acid to induce cell death showed it took 200 minutes of treatment and then 2 DAYS to see apoptosis. Now these cells are probably significantly weakened well before that (which would alter their ability to carry out fermentation), but again not surprised one wouldn't see major morphological changes at only 90 minutes. I think to test this you'd really have to look at growth curves for rehydrated and not rehydrated.
There has been evidence that not hydrating yeast causes 50% cell death. If you have contrary evidence, I'd love to see it. If not, we're once again back to arguing about whether underpitching or not makes a difference, which is old news.
grimzella
Well-Known Member
i asked everyone at my LHBS how they do it. 7 out of 9 just pitch it. no rehydration.
m1k3
Well-Known Member
At my LHBS, Erik Schmid recommends direct pitch without rehydration.
He even stated this heresy on Brad Smith's podcast:
http://beersmith.com/blog/2012/06/14/pilsner-beer-brewing-with-erik-schmid-beersmith-podcast-40/
He even stated this heresy on Brad Smith's podcast:
http://beersmith.com/blog/2012/06/14/pilsner-beer-brewing-with-erik-schmid-beersmith-podcast-40/
jeffjjpkiser1
Well-Known Member
If its for carbonating bottles, I rehydrated them so the yeast is active and ready to go. Have used dry champagne yeast before for another beer and that worked fine.
Mikethepoolguy
Well-Known Member
Its like the grain crush debate. If one university does one experiment in one laboratory it becomes 'real science'. If a thousand homebrewers get a different result we are all ignorant. How is one experiment better than 1000? We are the science! The 'science' is the theory. Counting cells under a microscope doesn't tell you anything about the health of those cells.
Dead yeast is yeast food. So maybe 50 billion fat healthy horny yeast is as good as 100 billion starving weak yeast. The only fact that I have seen here is that nothing is undisputed.
Dead yeast is yeast food. So maybe 50 billion fat healthy horny yeast is as good as 100 billion starving weak yeast. The only fact that I have seen here is that nothing is undisputed.
gizmodog51
Well-Known Member
has the homebrewer ever considered that all the hype may be in the advantage of all the homebrew vendors to sell stuff ?
as for me i do what i have seen thru experience helps regardless of weird science. the sumarians brewed beer in 5000 bc ......
GD51
as for me i do what i have seen thru experience helps regardless of weird science. the sumarians brewed beer in 5000 bc ......
GD51
Hopefully you did not think I was snarky.:rockin: I am brewing tommorow and will likely hydrate the yeast but only with cooled water and not follow the instructions to the T. I will also aerate with welding oxygen. And just because, I also add a smak pack of wyeast along with the dry yeast as I like the flavor of the mix.I have a friend who has been brewing for, well, since before it was legal. The other day he was telling me the ingredients to the last beer he made, it was probably about 1.060. Anyway he direct pitched a pack of coopers he had in his fridge for 7+ years! Imagine the look of horror on my face whe he told me that! I gave him a speach about proper pitching rates and he totally facepalmed... His imortal quote was "then what the hell have I been making all of these years? It cant be beer, because the internet said it wouldnt work!" The beer did taste good, maybe a little more estery then I might have made, but very tastey. Anyway, rant over, and I didnt even reference nottingham (oops!).
EXACTLY!
Experiments performed under controlled conditions by people who understand how to perform them and interpret the results have validity. 1000 people performing a bad practice doesn't validate that practice.
This is not about whether it will work or not...it's about BEST PRACTICE. And pitching dry yeast without re-hydrating has been proven under laboratory conditions to be less optimal than re-hydrating first. END OF STORY.
This is a very broad generalization, but it really comes down to there being 2 camps of homebrewers out there. The first group consists of those who just want to make drinkable beer, and don't really get caught up in all the nuances of making the best beer possible. These people don't care about re-hydrating b/c sprinkling it on the wort has always just "worked". The 2nd group include those who want to take every step under his/her power to make the best beer possible, and to optimize conditions every step of the way. These people care about the objective, proven science behind brewing and thus will follow all established best brewing practices...like re-hydrating dry yeast.
boscobeans
Well-Known Member
Controlled conditions that have no differences whatsoever are extremely difficult to attain especially when dealing with an organic, living product like yeast.
Did the scientists do a study on every dry yeast?
How old was the yeast?
What temperature was it stored at?
Did they rehydrate at every temperature in the yeast's range?
Then to determine if it was better than just pitching on wort:
What was the determining factor as to the better method? Cell count? Activity?...
Did they test each different type of yeast with wort at each different temperature, specific gravity, O2 level, hop level, amount and type of fermentables, adjuncts and every other variable there can between batches?
Yes they can make generalized conclusions and predictions but as far as it being scientific fact, unless they show that it is true in ALL cases under ALL conditions that are normal to us brewers that is all they are, generalized conclusions or predictions, which may be accurate for most but not all situations.
That's just how I see it. Everyone has their own thoughts on the subject and are perfectly entitled to them. That's what makes everyday a little different and worth living.
bosco
Sorry bosco, its really not that complicated. High density wort increases the osmotic pressure on the yeast cell membrane relative to pure water. Increased osmotic pressure leads to yeast stress and increased levels of cell death, again relative to hydration in a 1.000 gm/cm3 solution. Here's just one of many peer-reviewed papers on the subject.
At its core, this is a simple principle, along the lines of something elementary - like helium is less dense than air. It is not up for debate. If you choose to ignore it or somehow otherwise mistakenly believe it is subjective, that is your prerogative. But it doesn't change the facts.
At its core, this is a simple principle, along the lines of something elementary - like helium is less dense than air. It is not up for debate. If you choose to ignore it or somehow otherwise mistakenly believe it is subjective, that is your prerogative. But it doesn't change the facts.
