There's Some Bad Info Going Around

Revvy said:

And Fermentis has never had any of their yeasts recalled have they?
(I personally think Notty sucks.)

Click to expand...

They should have recalled the recent bad lot of US-05 they put out. I know a few people whose beers stalled above 1.020 because of it. There is a thread about a bad lot here.

kmk1012 said:

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't a person aerate their wort? Just one extra little step to ensure (for me) a good faster fermentation.

Click to expand...

The same reason why you wouldn't recite the national anthem every morning before you get out of bed...you don't have to. Sure you COULD do it, but WHY do it if it's not necessary.

I get why you might want to do it, but I've found it's only necessary with liquid yeasts personally.

These kind of debates bring up an interesting notion. Scientists have nailed down the multitude of reactions and processes and the components that are required, as well as the proper ratios for successful reactions.

Brewers have been making beer long before they had any idea of why it was working, using a slew of methods that, in hindsight, are contrary to some of the science.

The other factor is that there are many simultaneous reactions, so you may be trying to hit a sweet spot (like mash temps) to get the right balance, instead of trying to optimize one single reaction.

I oxygenate, make starters, and I've had some tremendous fermentation lately. I also rarely use dry yeast, but that's just because I prefer liquid.

So many ways to brew. That's the most fun part about the hobby.

sudsmcgee said:

Completely false? The only statement that's completely false is that you're a paid member who values this site enough to fork over some cash for a membership. :fro:

You CAN, but don't NEED to aerate when using dry yeast. I've done it both ways and it makes no difference that I can perceive.

Click to expand...

oh please, bud. my being a non paying member has nothing to do with my statements. stick to the topic.

There are competing theories about yeast performance regarding areation from highly informed professionals who manufacture the stuff. Why is everyone arguing this? Let the yeast PhDs settle this before you become invested in either side...in the meantime humbly practice what you believe...

I aerate my wort, wine and balloons and no one here can convince me to change!

I could care less if anyone aerates with dry yeast or not. I'm not wasting oxygen on it when it's expensive, and have NEVER had a suck fermentation (or high fg) with just rehydrating, including a lot of high gravity beers.

The problem I have is people preaching it as gospel, and telling new brewers it's absolutely why they have a stuck fermentation. That's garbage advice.

I also don't leave my beer in the fermenter for a month either, so there.

i guess my question is still, if we advocate aerating with liquid yeast, but not with dry...why? they are both yeast. there's no "real" difference in the way that they work, so is aeration itself not necessary or is there some fundamental difference that i'm missing?

honest question.

MrManifesto said:

i guess my question is still, if we advocate aerating with liquid yeast, but not with dry...why? they are both yeast. there's no "real" difference in the way that they work, so is aeration itself not necessary or is there some fundamental difference that i'm missing?

honest question.

Click to expand...

It's been posted in this thread as well as many other threads, I've even done so myself.

During its aerobic production, dry yeast accumulates sufficient amounts of unsaturated fatty acids and sterols to produce enough biomass in the first stage of fermentation.

Liquid yeast doesn't get this leg up on fermentation so it needs more Oxygen to accomplish this task.

samc said:

It's been posted in this thread as well as many other threads, I've even done so myself.

During its aerobic production, dry yeast accumulates sufficient amounts of unsaturated fatty acids and sterols to produce enough biomass in the first stage of fermentation.

Liquid yeast doesn't get this leg up on fermentation so it needs more Oxygen to accomplish this task.

Click to expand...

but...how? what is the advantage that dry yeast has in this regard that liquid doesn't?

Read the man's answer. The way the two different yeasts are produced Is completely different. Your question has already been answered and is becoming redundant.

samc said:

It's been posted in this thread as well as many other threads, I've even done so myself.

During its aerobic production, dry yeast accumulates sufficient amounts of unsaturated fatty acids and sterols to produce enough biomass in the first stage of fermentation.

Liquid yeast doesn't get this leg up on fermentation so it needs more Oxygen to accomplish this task.

Click to expand...

Yeast need fatty acids and sterols to produce biomass for initial fermentation. Dry yeast have that already because of the production process includes plenty of O2. Liquid do not have the acids and sterols so they need O2 to make them in order to produce enough cells for initial fermentation.

1+1=2, 0+1+1=2

damien said:

1+1=2, 0+1+1=2

Click to expand...

save the attitude. i'm not stupid.

"the production process" isn't really an answer. i'm asking how that works.

if you know what that process entails, cool, i'm listening.

MrManifesto said:

save the attitude. i'm not stupid.

"the production process" isn't really an answer. i'm asking how that works.

if you know what that process entails, cool, i'm listening.

Click to expand...

Eaaaaasy, duke.

But uh, yeah, I agree with the overall idea of what you're saying (though not much more than that, heh). All explanations I've heard, in this thread and everywhere else, have been uncomfortably vague. Just what exactly is the difference in the "production process" of dry versus liquid yeast that is specifically responsible for the difference in the packaged sterol levels?

(And, just as an interesting observation: you can tell a lot about a person based on what they consider to be an acceptable explanation to questions like these.)

MrManifesto said:

save the attitude. i'm not stupid.

"the production process" isn't really an answer. i'm asking how that works.

if you know what that process entails, cool, i'm listening.

Click to expand...

With dry yeast the manufacturer builds bubbles of happy yeast that are encased with nutrients and harvested out of an O2 rich environment, they have everything they need to get right on to fermenting. Liquid yeasts are "easier" to produce, as the production process is much more gentle, they simply put already dorment yeast in a stable, temperature controled environment. In that gentleness, there is a trade off, in that the yeast are put in a much more temporary stasis, devoid of nutrients and and oxygen. To get these liquid yeasts back to kicking ass, they need some help from the brewer that a dry, processed, "put in a perfect bubble" yeast balls do not need. Liquid yeasts need, because of their fragility, some more help; oxygen, starters, and careful handling are all much more necessary.

EDIT: also, that gentleness means that there can be many more strains of liquid yeast, compared to dry yeast, as not all yeasts can survive the manufacturing process involved in creating dry yeasts. Double edged sword.

DOUBLE EDIT: If you're really interested in the specifics of the process differences, you could email identical questions to fermentis and wyeast, and I'm sure you'd get some interesting results.

AZ_IPA said:

it certainly isn't to increase oxygen levels; it's solely for mixing of yeast/wort.

Click to expand...

Um, that's a *gigantic* logical leap... that is nowhere near equivent to what Fermentis states, nor is it a reasonably safe inference.

emjay said:

Um, that's a *gigantic* logical leap... that is nowhere near equivent to what Fermentis states, nor is it a reasonably safe inference.

Click to expand...

Well, I for one can't wait to see the results. You could always pm me a draft to proof read

yeast companies offer condescending instructions to homebrewers and correct instructions to pro brewers. they're all giving BS advice on processes and pitching rate.

believe wyeast and white labs that 1 vial or packet is sufficient for 6 gallons 1.060 wort. believe the dry yeast companies that rehydration isn't necessary. believe whoever you want that aeration or oxygenation isn't necessary. and the rest of us will continue to make better beer than you.

thegerm said:

believe the dry yeast companies that rehydration isn't necessary. believe whoever you want that aeration or oxygenation isn't necessary. and the rest of us will continue to make better beer than you.

Click to expand...

Which company says not to rehydrate?

pabloj13 said:

Right, and who is making 3% beer here? I want them BANNED!

Click to expand...

Me!

wildwest450 said:

Which company says not to rehydrate?

Click to expand...

I believe they both say that you could rehydrate now, but at one time at least one of them said to just pitch on the wort, while telling the pro brewers to rehydrate.

I think they've started to realize the homebrewers are not as simple-minded about brewing as they once were, as a whole, and capable of following slightly more challenging instructions in order to make a better beer.

I was directing the question to "thegerm" who says the yeast company's say that rehydration isn't necessary. And of course, he makes better beer than the rest of us.

Yeast must be completely dormant for packaging purposes. Reading articles here lead me to believe cold crashing causes the yeast to build up their reserves. With dry yeast you can cold crash, dry and package and they remain dormant. You can't do that with liquid yeast because they will warm up and become active in the package.

Revvy said:

But fermentis says to aerate with their yeasts. So do you want to believe the makers of Notty, or the makers of us-05?

This is another one of those arguments that probably will never be resolved and will be argued incessantly. And like all the others will have no resolution, so it's stupid to argue, just choose what you believe, and do it.

I was taught to aerate will all yeasts....And I personally don't plan on stopping. It may not be "necessary," but I don't think doing it is harmful either.

Click to expand...

This is a bad mindset, IMO. To make an analogy, you would not follow common knowledge to install a roof. Instead, you would read the directions and FOLLOW the manufacturers MINIMUM reccomendations for your application because your insurance and guarantee would require it.

This mindset should apply to EVERYTHING.

MrManifesto said:

about not needing to aerate dry yeast. This is completely false info and I can just picture noobs taking this in and having a ton of stuck ferments. Let's nip this in the bud! Aerate, people!

Click to expand...

Agreed! You should always aerate people.

Otherwise they suffocate.

Yeast however can do thing aerobically (eat yer heart out p90) and anaerobically. Often times, teh yeast producer has already satisfied the cardio phase.

One company says aerate and the other says don't... Doesn't sound like it matters too much. They both are selling a product and they both want to keep selling that product. If one company says aeration is unnecessary then I am inclined to believe them. They aren't disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing here, they both obviously think they are right and neither probably know the whole truth behind it. It would be idiotic for a company to give you incorrect directions on purpose seeing as they want you to buy again.

I'm gonna blow your mind here... take a pack of yeast, throw it into any sugary solution, you will make beer (more like hooch I guess).

That said, if both have conflicting directions then you need to decide what works best for you.

Revvy had it right. Who do you want to believe? I will continue to aerate everytime I pitch any yeast and I will continue to make beer with that method. I have also never rehydrated or made a starter and still miraculously came out with beer! Once I get some other processes under control I will be studying hard on pitching rates and O2 levels to help make the best beer I can but until then this seems like it would have such a small impact on my beer. There is so much to fine tune in this hobby that when you see conflicting info about something this obscure just use your power of free will and make your own damn decision.

+1

h-ost said:

one company says aerate and the other says don't... Doesn't sound like it matters too much. They both are selling a product and they both want to keep selling that product. If one company says aeration is unnecessary then i am inclined to believe them. They aren't disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing here, they both obviously think they are right and neither probably know the whole truth behind it. It would be idiotic for a company to give you incorrect directions on purpose seeing as they want you to buy again.

I'm gonna blow your mind here... Take a pack of yeast, throw it into any sugary solution, you will make beer (more like hooch i guess).

That said, if both have conflicting directions then you need to decide what works best for you.

Revvy had it right. Who do you want to believe? I will continue to aerate everytime i pitch any yeast and i will continue to make beer with that method. I have also never rehydrated or made a starter and still miraculously came out with beer! Once i get some other processes under control i will be studying hard on pitching rates and o2 levels to help make the best beer i can but until then this seems like it would have such a small impact on my beer. There is so much to fine tune in this hobby that when you see conflicting info about something this obscure just use your power of free will and make your own damn decision.

Click to expand...

Well, the way I see it, you've got three options here:

1) Contact Wyeast, White Labs, Danstar, and Fermentis and ask them whether or not they believe it is necessary to aerate the wort and why. Also ask if they have any credible scientific evidence to back it up. You will either believe what they have to say, and move on with your life, or you will not believe what they have to say because they are just a company selling a product and want to ensure they keep doing so.

2) Set up a molecular biological scale experiment in the confines of your own home with equipment you will probably never be able to get or afford. Suppose you could do so, record your own clinical trials and results.

3) Experiment at home disregarding the "WHY" something is happening (which would be answered by number 1 or 2 above), and pay attention only to the results produced. Experiment with dry yeast in aerated wort, non-aerated wort, liquid yeast in aerated wort, non-aerated wort, high gravity wort, low gravity wort, etc. Record your results. You will not know why you get a certain result, but you will know what result you get. This doesn't take into account different beers where you MAY want sub-par performance from yeast to reach a certain ester flavor profile (i.e. certain hefeweizens, saisons, etc.)

Anything other than those three options is merely tossing around opinions. I'm all for that as they generate discussion, curiosity, and learning experiences. However, you won't get the answers you're clearly looking for...

MrManifesto said:

A producer of a product is in selling product, not making sure you've got the best beer possible. I'm not saying they're bad people, but it's business.

Click to expand...

Not sure this really makes sense. Sure they want to sell a product. They also want to ensure they KEEP selling their product. Knowingly giving the customer false information that will result in a non-quality product will not serve their company well in the least. Not to mention, this information has zero bearing on the company whatsoever. They're not endorsing another product by saying you must aerate the wort. Whether or not they tell the customer to aerate the wort has zero cost impact on the company one way or the other, so why wouldn't they want to give free, useful, information to the customer to make them satisfied and keep coming back?

xjmox14x said:

Whether or not they tell the customer to aerate the wort has zero cost impact on the company one way or the other, so why wouldn't they want to give free, useful, information to the customer to make them satisfied and keep coming back?

Click to expand...

Well, one thing to consider is that if I know nothing about brewing and I look at two yeasts, one of them says i have to aerate, one doesn't, i might pick the one that says it doesn't just because ease of use.

I agree that in the absence of any other factors, providing the best information would be the winning option. But consumer psychology muddles the whole thing, IMO.

As a disclaimer, i'm not saying that any yeast companies intentionally mislead consumers to try to make their product seem easier to use. Just saying its a possible reason why they might, if indeed any of them are doing such things.

Some kit instructions say to primary for 3 days, secondary for 1 week and bottle. Will you make beer that way? Yes. Can you make better beer utilizing different methods and more knowledge. Yes.

But if you read the directions at the HBS and say "Wahoo, I'll have beer in 10 days!" you're probably going to buy that kit over one that has more complicated instructions and takes twice the time.

Edit: discnjh beat me to it. ^what he said.

discnjh said:

Well, one thing to consider is that if I know nothing about brewing and I look at two yeasts, one of them says i have to aerate, one doesn't, i might pick the one that says it doesn't just because ease of use.

I agree that in the absence of any other factors, providing the best information would be the winning option. But consumer psychology muddles the whole thing, IMO.

As a disclaimer, i'm not saying that any yeast companies intentionally mislead consumers to try to make their product seem easier to use. Just saying its a possible reason why they might, if indeed any of them are doing such things.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying... much like liquid yeast manufacturer's not stating the need for a starter for anything over 1.060. Certainly something to think about.

maxam said:

Some kit instructions say to primary for 3 days, secondary for 1 week and bottle. Will you make beer that way? Yes. Can you make better beer utilizing different methods and more knowledge. Yes.

But if you read the directions at the HBS and say "Wahoo, I'll have beer in 10 days!" you're probably going to buy that kit over one that has more complicated instructions and takes twice the time.

Edit: discnjh beat me to it. ^what he said.

Click to expand...

Then you could also make the argument that in order to make good beer, you'll need to have twice the amount of yeast, therefore increasing their package size and package cost.

Of course, I'm fairly sure this has been thoroughly thought through by each company's marketing department.




"thoroughly thought through"
Holy crap.

I had interpreted MrManifesto's comments to mean that the manufacturers are simplifying information, not really trying to rip off the customer.

As previous posters have noted, the instructions that come with yeast are overly simple. They're designed to work easily for any homebrewer. It doesn't necessarily mean that's the optimal way of doing it. I think Gila made the roof analogy, which I agree with. The manufacturer's instructions will almost always work just fine and make decent beer. But I've found that I can make better beer by oxygenating and making a starter. So I do it. And hearing my fermentor bubbling away just a few hours after pitching makes me happy.

xjmox14x said:

Not sure this really makes sense. Sure they want to sell a product. They also want to ensure they KEEP selling their product. Knowingly giving the customer false information that will result in a non-quality product will not serve their company well in the least. Not to mention, this information has zero bearing on the company whatsoever. They're not endorsing another product by saying you must aerate the wort. Whether or not they tell the customer to aerate the wort has zero cost impact on the company one way or the other, so why wouldn't they want to give free, useful, information to the customer to make them satisfied and keep coming back?

Click to expand...

Not sure what to make of this. One says you don't have to, but it wont' hurt, I can't find anything in the documentation of the other either way.

However, Fermentis also says you should not re-use your yeast. ??

Now obviously you can reuse your yeast. I've even heard of breweries using the same yeast for years. The people I've read say that you can safely do at LEAST 4-5 repitches before you need to worry about mutation.

Even on the VERY slim chance that you get a mutated cell, the odds of it reproducing enough to overtake a colony and noticeably affecting your beer is practically zero.

NordeastBrewer77 said:

i'm with ya there, bro! i've been seeing this and another piece of bad info being given to new brewers. the second is that you don't need to make a starter with liquid yeast. i think it's bad for folks to be advising new brewers against proper technique because they can make decent beer without starters and proper aeration.
pitch rates, aeration and fermentation temps are crucial to great beer. i know people make good beer while ignoring these facts, but i think new brewers should be informed that with a few very simple steps, they can make great beer, and not just good beer. big thumbs up to you, MrManifesto! Prost!

Click to expand...

My first 5 batches were 1 vial liquid yeast pitched in the primary after proper temp, and they came out fine. No starter. I can offer no commentary on how much "better" they could have been, and I now do starters. But that's just because Revvy says so.

Homercidal said:

However, Fermentis also says you should not re-use your yeast. ??

Now obviously you can reuse your yeast. I've even heard of breweries using the same yeast for years. The people I've read say that you can safely do at LEAST 4-5 repitches before you need to worry about mutation.

Even on the VERY slim chance that you get a mutated cell, the odds of it reproducing enough to overtake a colony and noticeably affecting your beer is practically zero.

Click to expand...

Yes, but they do SELL yeast... And even with a slight possibility of mutation or contamination, could they really sleep well at night, knowing that you took this risk instead of buying more from them?

Homercidal said:

However, Fermentis also says you should not re-use your yeast. ??

Now obviously you can reuse your yeast. I've even heard of breweries using the same yeast for years. The people I've read say that you can safely do at LEAST 4-5 repitches before you need to worry about mutation.

Click to expand...

And i've heard that argument made (by Jamil, at least, i feel like i may have heard some of the pro brewers interviewed on the BN mention it as well) that you actually get BETTER results from your yeast on the 3rd or 4th pitch than you do on the first, because by then you have a yeast population that is tuned to operate in optimal beer making mode.

ClarnoBrewer said:

Yes, but they do SELL yeast... And even with a slight possibility of mutation or contamination, could they really sleep well at night, knowing that you took this risk instead of buying more from them?

Click to expand...

This is one of the things I like about white labs (not knocking any other yeast companies, not claiming that white labs is the only company that has done this, just the only one i've heard)... chris white was on the sunday session a good while back talking about how to wash and re-use yeast. Even though he has an interest in you buying his product, he's willing to tell you how best to avoid buying his product, if you're so inclined.