British Yeasts, Fermentation Temps and Profiles, CYBI, Other Thoughts...

elkdog said:

That's exciting to hear. So you're rousing the yeast pretty regularly, then, to get that last bit of attenuation at 64?

Click to expand...

I only roused it the two times. I'm worried about oxidizing it in an attempt to rush things so I'm going to see what it does without rousing. I'll check the gravity again tonight and if it is still at 1.013 I'll give it a gentle rouse.

KingBrianI said:

I only roused it the two times. I'm worried about oxidizing it in an attempt to rush things so I'm going to see what it does without rousing. I'll check the gravity again tonight and if it is still at 1.013 I'll give it a gentle rouse.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. Thanks for the updates on your experiment.

Gravity is still at 1.013 so I gave it a stir but I'm not sure how much good that will do. The yeast was clumped on the bottom and stirring only brought up big chunks of peanut butter looking yeast that I'm sure dropped right back down to the bottom.

Flavor is becoming very very nice. Great malt flavor dominated by toast and nuts from the amber malt and rich caramel from the crystal malt. Diacetyl was close to yesterday's levels, maybe slighty lower. It really acts to give the beer nice body and mouthfeel while providing a bit of butterscotch to the flavor. It doesn't taste too sweet or underattenuated so I think I will go ahead and chill it down tomorrow even if it doesn't drop another point. I'm hoping the diacetyl continues to reduce, but just a tiny bit. I know the samples taste good, but it's hard to tell what it will taste like when chilled, carbonated and you're drinking a whole pint. I'm afraid the diacetyl which tastes good in the small sample might become overwhelming in a pint. We'll see how it turns out.

It sure does feel crazy to be turning down the thermostat on a a batch with WLP002, but the logic and results are compelling. Nudging it back down...

elkdog said:

It sure does feel crazy to be turning down the thermostat on a a batch with WLP002, but the logic and results are compelling. Nudging it back down...

Click to expand...

With a half gallon starter and 10% sugar I think you shouldn't have a problem with it attenuating or it producing too much diacetyl. Is it first generation yeast? I have a feeling that second or third generation yeast will probably finish quicker than the 1st gen I pitched. For my next batch I'm just going to scoop out however much trub the mr. malty calculator says to and pitch that immediately.

Just out of curiosity, what was the OG and the SG at when you started cooling it for your batch?

The sugar should keep me in good shape, and I went with it because I like the flavor profile of the 002 but didn't want too much sweetness in the beer. This is first generation yeast, and it did start a bit slower than I'm accustomed to. OG was 1.057, and when I turned it down this morning it was at 1.023, so that's already 60% attenuation- probably should have done it yesterday instead, but I forgot to take the gravity last night.
Still hoping to keep the esters around and maybe a touch of diacetyl. I'm bottling this batch, but I think I'll follow through with the Fuller's plan and cool it to 50 when it's down to terminal gravity, as I think that will still leave enough yeast in suspension to carb up my beer, but I'd like to call off the bulk process as much as I can, as it's not throwing many off-flavors at all that I'd want it to clean up. Also not planning to give it the standard 3 weeks in a fermenter. I just don't see the point for these styles, as bitters are best fresh and this yeast is so flocculant.

KingBrianI said:

Is it first generation yeast? I have a feeling that second or third generation yeast will probably finish quicker than the 1st gen I pitched.

Click to expand...

That's been my experience. Seems the second or third generation has the best mix of fermentation characteristics too; ferments faster, floccs quicker, ect...

A little update: It's been about a week since I pitched some leftover wy1187 for my two (1.25 gallon) test batches. The gravity has gone down from 1.045 to 1.010 for both and each was fermented at 68. My taste buds are somewhat shot due to a cold, but both samples tasted very nice. There is some diacetyl in the samples, though at appropriate levels. I will let them sit at 68 for a couple more days, then crash cool one to 43F for a few days with the other sitting at room temp. Should give me an idea what effect crash cooling has on the malt profile once fermentation is over.

elkdog said:

The sugar should keep me in good shape, and I went with it because I like the flavor profile of the 002 but didn't want too much sweetness in the beer...I'm bottling this batch, but I think I'll follow through with the Fuller's plan and cool it to 50 when it's down to terminal gravity, as I think that will still leave enough yeast in suspension to carb up my beer

Click to expand...

Just a word of warning: If you really are planning on bottling this batch, I would make sure your final gravity is low enough to ensure the yeast don't reactivate once in the bottle. This yeast is notorious for going dormant in the fermenter only to 'wake up' after bottling, eating both the priming sugar and residual sugars in the beer; producing an over-carbonated, cidery taste. I've seen this happen soo many times, both in my own beers and while judging. For that reason, I rarely bottle carbonate beer fermented with this yeast. If I absolutely have to do it, I will crash cool the beer to near freezing as to flocc as much of the yeast out and then bottle using some US-05. It doesn't always happen, but just be aware that it might.

bierhaus15 said:

Just a word of warning: If you really are planning on bottling this batch, I would make sure your final gravity is low enough to ensure the yeast don't reactivate once in the bottle. This yeast is notorious for going dormant in the fermenter only to 'wake up' after bottling, eating both the priming sugar and residual sugars in the beer; producing an over-carbonated, cidery taste. I've seen this happen soo many times, both in my own beers and while judging. For that reason, I rarely bottle carbonate beer fermented with this yeast. If I absolutely have to do it, I will crash cool the beer to near freezing as to flocc as much of the yeast out and then bottle using some US-05. It doesn't always happen, but just be aware that it might.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. I've used this one before, but never in conjunction with cooling it like this. I've got some S-05 on hand.

My batch still had a gravity of 1.013 so I set the temp to 44 and it's chilling right now. Diacetyl had reduced slightly again and hopefully is at a good level right now. I hope I'm not one of the people who is relatively insensitive to it and that this beer tastes like butter to everyone else! I'm so pleased with how the malt is coming through though. It is really amazing how a beer can taste this layered and complex now, but if left on the yeast for a couple more weeks would be flat and boring by comparison. If I continue to have success with this method, I'm definitely going to have to start challenging the current knowledge that beers taste better after 3 weeks in primary (at least for British ales). Now, to perfect my late hop technique and I'll be turning out british ales I can really be proud of.

subscribed. Nothing to add. just want to keep up with this one

I just got a batch going, too. 95% MO, 5% dark British crystal, 1.054/45IBU. I mashed at 149 for 90 minutes, at 1 qt./lb., and boiled for 90 minutes. I pitched the yeast only from a WLP002 starter straight from the fridge into 64-degree wort.

I plan to let it go to 68 over the next day or so, then bring it back down to 64 over a few days, starting when I perceive (guess) that I have a few days of fairly active fermentation left. I hate taking hydro samples during fermentation, due to a wild yeast "problem" I had once.

I expect this to go to about 1.015 (72% attenuation), based on prior batches with this yeast, so I guess I will have to break down at some point and take a gravity reading to know when to drop it to 40 degrees. We'll see.

Kegged the first half last night, letting the other half clean up after itself for a little longer.

Bottenbrew said:

Kegged the first half last night, letting the other half clean up after itself for a little longer.

Click to expand...

Nice, how did it taste when you kegged it?

Brewed an ordinary bitter yesterday, just now starting to brew/appreciate these small British beers. KB I was hoping you'd have this all figured out for me by now so I could just copy you.

If I continue to have success with this method, I'm definitely going to have to start challenging the current knowledge that beers taste better after 3 weeks in primary (at least for British ales).

Click to expand...

Just curious where you read that beers are better after 3 weeks in primary? And was that compared to 2 weeks or less...or 4 weeks or more?

SpanishCastleAle said:

Brewed an ordinary bitter yesterday, just now starting to brew/appreciate these small British beers. KB I was hoping you'd have this all figured out for me by now so I could just copy you.


Just curious where you read that beers are better after 3 weeks in primary? And was that compared to 2 weeks or less...or 4 weeks or more?

Click to expand...

Haha, I think it may still be a while before I get it all figured out, but I'm definitely making progress.

As for the three week primary, that seems to be the most current advice being thrown around the forum. Lots of people (I've probably been among them) stating that their beers were better after a 3 week or longer primary (as opposed to shorter). And I have found that I get very good beers using that method - in every style I've tried except english ales. I think that is why it has taken me so long to really hone in on the problem. I've been treating the british beer the same as I did everything else and didn't realize that was the problem. I was chasing different brands of malt, water profile, hop timing and amount, different types of malts, different yeasts and everything else trying to get that malt character down. I'm realizing now that yeast management (as far as temperature profile and duration of fermentation) may have more bearing on malt expression than anything else I've experimented with.

Dog House Brew said:

Interesting information! I have found that when I moved to a 3 week long primary that my malt forward beers took a step back. The only reason I moved to this was that I read here that everyone was doing long primary ferments.

Click to expand...

Sorry to reach so far back in this thread, but I meant to ask this when I first read it and forgot.

I started using longer ferments last summer, a couple of beers after I started using temperature controlled fermentation for my ales. I had made an ESB in which I could perceive quite a bit of acetaldehyde. That was the second straight beer in which I had noticed that particular flaw.

I used WLP002 in the ESB. I moved all of my beers to a 3-4 week primary and have not been bitten by the green apple bug since.

So my question is this: How do you go to a shorter, temperature controlled ferment on your British ales in order to capture some of the estery goodness associated with that line of brews, without getting some of the undesireables?

Or is it just that flavor/aroma notes like those contributed by acetaldehyde just get wrapped up in the "fruity" notes often associated with the style? I notice several posts here where people are leaving a "controlled" amount of diacetyl in their British beers. Do you just plan to do the same with some of the fruity esters that would otherwise be considered a flaw in a "cleaner" beer?

I have fortunately never had acetaldehyde in any of my batches. Are you using appropriate-sized starters, aerating well, and fermenting in the yeast's preferred range? In the batch I recently made to test the short ferment, I detected no "off-flavors" besides too much diacetyl in the very young beer. It did taste better each successive day due to the flavors "coming together" and the yeast dropping out, bu there was nothing other than diacetyl in the beer I wanted the yeast to "clean up".

As I said before, I've had good luck going with 3 week or longer primaries in most styles, and may continue to use them, but I'm starting to think that if you pitch enough healthy yeast, aerate well, and ferment at controlled temps, the yeast really don't have much to clean up. For british ales, I like the fruity esters and want them to stay. In styles where a lot of fruity esters aren't desireable, I'll typically use a yeast that doesn't produce much of them, and a 3 week or longer primary only reduces them more.

winvarin said:

I had made an ESB in which I could perceive quite a bit of acetaldehyde. That was the second straight beer in which I had noticed that particular flaw. I used WLP002 in the ESB. I moved all of my beers to a 3-4 week primary and have not been bitten by the green apple bug since.

Click to expand...

I've never had acetaldehyde problems with any of my English ales. Where are you noticing this 'acetaldehyde' flavor - after tasting the beer out of the fermenter or once it had been sitting in the bottles/keg for a while? I ask because there are often problems with wlp002/1968 producing tart-apple flavors after bottling.

So my question is this: How do you go to a shorter, temperature controlled ferment on your British ales in order to capture some of the estery goodness associated with that line of brews, without getting some of the undesireables?

Click to expand...

It's all about fermentation control. Start with healthy yeast, aerate well, and don't let your fermentation temps fluctuate. Pitch below fermentation temperature, let rise to 68F for most of the fermentation, give it a good d-rest at 70F for a few days, then crash cool before kegging/bottling. All this should not take more than 2 weeks; and you'll still have a clean, flavorful beer.

There still is more testing to be done for sure, but I have had great results with this method for some time now.

I'll field both at once:

KB1:
starter size may have been the culprit. The two beers I definitely got the acetaldehyde on (one confirmed by judges comments in a contest) were beers that had definitely undersized starters.

I still think temperature may have had something to do with it. I kept them both at 65F (within the manufacturer's specs) during ferment. The reason I suspect temperature is that when I had the problem with each of these beers, I was a "brew by the calendar" guy. I was using old school, one week primary then into the secondary (usually about a week) before bottling.

My assumption at the time was that my problem was caused primarily by the temperature control. I had been fermenting at room temp (70-72F) prior to those 2 beers. Those 2 were fermented in a fridge with the controller set at 65F. What I figured was that like most biological reactions, fermentation proceeded more slowly at colder temperatures. Since I was brewing by the calendar, I was not giving the yeast enough time to clean up the acetaldehyde (which I believe I read somewhere that yeast can convert it to ethanol given enough time).

I then figured that I compounded my problem by moving my beer of the bulk of the yeast after a week, while it was still trying to break things down and clean up the beer.

bierhaus
You may be onto something here as well. The flavor I caught was definitely a tart/sharp apple flavor (more pronounced than in the other affected beer that used WLP 001). This ESB with the WLP002 did not exhibit this flavor until after it had been in the keg for about 2 weeks.

Both
Thanks for the quick replies. I have a WLP002 British pale "session" beer on deck. I have learned a lot here that I plan to employ in my recipe and fermentation schedule for this beer.

I only wish I had found this thread before I made my oatmeal stout, which has been sitting quietly in primary for a little over 3 weeks while I let the yeasts clean up after themselves.

I'm another close follower of this thread and wanted to bring something up that was dismissed early on, and that's bottle conditioning with WLP002/WY1968. I have definitely noticed a significant change from hydro sample at bottling to carbed bottles. I have tried both table sugar and corn sugar, the worse result being with the latter, but the recipes were slightly different so not a great comparison. I do not have kegging setup yet and have a 1-week old ESB in the primary now. Any thoughts/experience on whether different results could be had from using honey, DME, or something else for priming?

I think the cold crashing process described earlier in this thread may assist with that. I think one or more poster talked about cold crashing to the 40s when the optimum flavor profile was achieved. WLP002 is a realiable high floccuator. You could wait until the beer tasted like you wanted, cold crash to drop the yeast out of suspension, then rack and package with a neutral yeast like US-05 or equivalent.

Thoughts?

KingBrianI said:

Nice, how did it taste when you kegged it?

Click to expand...

Fantastic, lots of flavor. I am interested in seeing what the clean up difference is.

winvarin said:

I think one or more poster talked about cold crashing to the 40s when the optimum flavor profile was achieved. WLP002 is a realiable high floccuator. You could wait until the beer tasted like you wanted, cold crash to drop the yeast out of suspension, then rack and package with a neutral yeast like US-05 or equivalent.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Drop as much of the yeast out of suspension and carbonate with some S-05 or something neutral. I have not been able to figure out why bottle carbing with wy1968 can often change the flavor profile so much, but I've done some experimenting and it definitely has to do with the addition of sugar to the beer in the bottle; rather than infection, ect...

bierhaus15 said:

Exactly. Drop as much of the yeast out of suspension and carbonate with some S-05 or something neutral. I have not been able to figure out why bottle carbing with wy1968 can often change the flavor profile so much, but I've done some experimenting and it definitely has to do with the addition of sugar to the beer in the bottle; rather than infection, ect...

Click to expand...

So have you done it? I'm not challenging your experience with the cidery flavors when bottle carbing with 002. My worry (which I'm willing to not worry about if you've done this) is that S-05 is a more attenuative strain, and I don't want it to make bottle bombs by drying out my beer. Is it the case that by cold crashing the living hell out of my beer and then adding a very small amount at S-05 at bottling I'm not adding enough yeast to do more than eat the priming sugar, decide maltose (or whatever else is left in my beer) is too much work, and drop out? I'm giving it a few good days at 64F before I crash it so I can be sure I got full attenuation from my WLP002, and would love to keep the tasty beer I have now tasty in bottles. Thanks for your time in answering these questions- I don't want to distract significantly from KB's experiment thread here (which I'm doing my best to contribute results to).

I had a strong scotch ale end up with a few bottle bombs by adding s-05 to what was supposedly a fully attenuated beer. I added half an unrehydrated packet at bottling and it resulted in massive overcarbonation. I'm leaning towards trying to use speise to carbonate with british strains and see how that works.

elkdog said:

Is it the case that by cold crashing the living hell out of my beer and then adding a very small amount at S-05 at bottling I'm not adding enough yeast to do more than eat the priming sugar, decide maltose (or whatever else is left in my beer) is too much work, and drop out?

Click to expand...

That's the idea. I have not had any problems with the beer overcarbing when using S-05 for the switch, though I can't for sure say you wont have any problems either. I'm only adding a tiny amount of yeast so I don't think there is any significant amount of yeast left to start a complete re-fermentation. I usually aim for 2.0 volumes in the bottle. However, I have had some batches carb up completely fine with no off flavors while using wy1968. I wish I knew why some batches go bad in the bottle and others don't with this yeast - I've been trying to find an answer for this problem for a little over two years now.

Any information people want to provide for this thread is most appreciated. There really isn't much solid information out there about English yeast and fermentation characteristics, so anything that people have to add is great. I know KB, a few others, and I are doing some fermentation experiments and I hope other people will join in too. None of us are experts, all opinions are just that, opinions. No worries about thread-jacking/deviating from the original topic; I'm probably the worst offender here.

bierhaus15 said:

That's the idea. I have not had any problems with the beer overcarbing when using S-05 for the switch, though I can't for sure say you wont have any problems either. I'm only adding a tiny amount of yeast so I don't think there is any significant amount of yeast left to start a complete re-fermentation. I usually aim for 2.0 volumes in the bottle. However, I have had some batches carb up completely fine with no off flavors while using wy1968. I wish I knew why some batches go bad in the bottle and others don't with this yeast - I've been trying to find an answer for this problem for a little over two years now.

Any information people want to provide for this thread is most appreciated. There really isn't much solid information out there about English yeast and fermentation characteristics, so anything that people have to add is great. I know KB, a few others, and I are doing some fermentation experiments and I hope other people will join in too. None of us are experts, all opinions are just that, opinions. No worries about thread-jacking/deviating from the original topic; I'm probably the worst offender here.

Click to expand...

Cool- thanks! I'm gonna do the S-05 after crash cooling this time, as I have S-05 anyway, and I want to see what I can learn from the ferm temp schedule. If there are issues with the 002/1968 and bottle carbing, I'd just as soon tackle that later, or more realistically, start kegging soon. Thanks for mentioning your experiences with it!

Good to hear that OT will be tolerated in this thread

I might try honey for priming with my current batch just for kicks. The malt profile (95% MO, 5% british C150) has a killer honey-toffee aspect to it already and maybe it will work? Will probably not re-pitch yeast and just use the 1968 that is already there. Other than S-05, it is getting to be my most-used yeast overall and I would like to continue to make friends with it...

bierhaus15 said:

That's the idea. I have not had any problems with the beer overcarbing when using S-05 for the switch, though I can't for sure say you wont have any problems either. I'm only adding a tiny amount of yeast so I don't think there is any significant amount of yeast left to start a complete re-fermentation. I usually aim for 2.0 volumes in the bottle. However, I have had some batches carb up completely fine with no off flavors while using wy1968. I wish I knew why some batches go bad in the bottle and others don't with this yeast - I've been trying to find an answer for this problem for a little over two years now.

Click to expand...

Two questions:
1. When you say "tiny", how much yeast are you adding for 5 gallons?
2. What are you using to prime?

I'm using regular old dextrose/corn sugar that has been boiled and chilled. Never tried using DME or honey, though I don't think it would make a huge difference. When adding yeast for bottle carbing, I add maybe 1/8 or less of a packet of rehydrated dry yeast to the bottling bucket. You don't need much, nothing like 1/2 packet, 1-2 yeast grains per bottle would be plenty enough.

1/8 packet using the 11g S-05 packet? So maybe 2 grams?

What do you do with the rest of the packet. I have a passable (ghetto) vacuum sealer. Would that allow me to keep the rest of the yeast viable if I vacuum sealed it and put it back in the fridge?

winvarin said:

What do you do with the rest of the packet. I have a passable (ghetto) vacuum sealer. Would that allow me to keep the rest of the yeast viable if I vacuum sealed it and put it back in the fridge?

Click to expand...

I just tape the edge over and put it back in the fridge until I need it or have a use for the rest of it. Never had a packet go bad after being exposed to oxygen, though it probably reduces it's viability somehow. Vacuum sealing sounds worth a shot, never really thought of doing it even though I have one.

bierhaus15 said:

Exactly. Drop as much of the yeast out of suspension and carbonate with some S-05 or something neutral. I have not been able to figure out why bottle carbing with wy1968 can often change the flavor profile so much, but I've done some experimenting and it definitely has to do with the addition of sugar to the beer in the bottle; rather than infection, ect...

Click to expand...

Have you tried priming with wort or DME as opposed to dextrose? Just curious what different methods you've tried.

Edit: should have read the whole thread, nevermind...

that cidery flavor may be due to the way this yeast metabolizes dextrose as opposed to maltose... would be interested in a side-by-side if anyone is in the process of brewing these and wants to give it a shot.

Subscribed. Great thread, and a lot of good info. I brewed up an ESB on Sunday and is great to get some ideas on the fermentation cycle. It has me all excited about drinking this one now. Checked it last night and was going hard at 67* with 1098 and accidental open fermentation. *crap*

I have been trying to cook up something interesting to do in the near future for an ESB and to experiment. I have at least 2 yeasts to try and would be willing to try up to 4 yeasts in a split batch.

Anyone have specific experimental suggestions? I wanted to try the West Yorkshire 1469 but it looks like I am too late to the game. Right now I have the British Cask Ale Yeast 1026 and 1318. But am open to adding a couple more to the experiment (since I can freeze yeast into my yeast bank I am not averse to buying more yeast strains to try).

I would really like to do this for both an ESB and for a house Blonde Ale.

Other potential experiment would be to allow fermentation and rest in cellar at normal 68 degree range for these 2 yeasts and then compare against those in the fermentation chamber.

What do you guys think? Go 4 yeasts wide or keep it simple with 2 yeasts and the 2 different ferm temp regiments?

I used the West Yorkshire, Midwest still had some made in January when I was up there 2 weeks ago, might give it a shot.

Randar said:

What do you guys think? Go 4 yeasts wide or keep it simple with 2 yeasts and the 2 different ferm temp regiments?

Click to expand...

Either way, you can't go wrong. They would both be very informative. If you went with 4 yeasts, what other two would you go with?

Randar said:

Anyone have specific experimental suggestions? I wanted to try the West Yorkshire 1469 but it looks like I am too late to the game. Right now I have the British Cask Ale Yeast 1026 and 1318. But am open to adding a couple more to the experiment (since I can freeze yeast into my yeast bank I am not averse to buying more yeast strains to try).

Click to expand...

I would like to test wy1469 again. My first three attempts with this yeast weren't so great. I love the malt profile, but I always seem to get a really fruity/banana aroma out of it that doesn't blend well with the malt flavors. I think this yeast needs a bigger than normal starter and a different fermentation schedule.

Some people really like wy1026. I'm 'ok' with it though it has a tart quality that reminds me of nottingham, which I do not care for. I've been told it makes a good sparkling ale, aka Coopers. I love 1318 though, it's been my latest yeast of choice for english ales and it really shines in ordinary bitters/milds.

The West Yorkshire strain is currently available with Northern Brewers Innkeeper kits. The grainbill is just 6# Golden Promise and .25# Dark British Crystal. Just FYI. http://www.northernbrewer.com/brewing/the-innkeeper-limited-edition-all-grain-kit.html

Also, crash cooling my beer in the morning, assuming the gravity is good (1.016 is my target-it's an ESB). It's been at 63 for a few days now, and I didn't want to cool too early, for fear of the bottle conditioning issues bierhaus mentioned.