I want to use yeast rather than priming sugar for bottling

Williams 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
fastricky

fastricky

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
827
Reaction score
21
Location
NYC
Got an idea I want to try...

It will involve using a different strain of yeast than I brewed with.

I'll wait til fermentation is nearly done, crash cool, and then when transferring to the bottling bucket, add the new yeast.

So the question is: how much yeast should I add?

My plan was to add the entire White Labs vial to my batch (5.5 gallons).

Is that OK? I'm thinking it will be adequate, and that I won't need to create a starter. As well, that there won't be any risk of bottle bombs.

Of course this is mostly speculation... can someone let me know if any of this thinking is off?? Thanks!! :mug:
 
What do you plan? Use a lower attenuating yeast for fementing, and then a higher attenuating yeast for the carbing?

I don't know how it'll work. I mean, the attenuation levels are iffy anyway, depending on various factors. Say you were planning on getting 70% attenuation with the first yeast, but got 67%. If you added a yeast that is alcohol tolerant (since there is alcohol already present by this point), and attenuated normally at 72%, it might work. But what if it attenated at 80% this time? Or 68%? I think that carbonation would be very tricky, and possibly create bottle bombs.

You might have flat, totally uncarbed beer. Or you might have bottle bombs. I say 50/50 chance of either.
 
YooperBrew said:
What do you plan? Use a lower attenuating yeast for fementing, and then a higher attenuating yeast for the carbing?

I don't know how it'll work. I mean, the attenuation levels are iffy anyway, depending on various factors. Say you were planning on getting 70% attenuation with the first yeast, but got 67%. If you added a yeast that is alcohol tolerant (since there is alcohol already present by this point), and attenuated normally at 72%, it might work. But what if it attenated at 80% this time? Or 68%? I think that carbonation would be very tricky, and possibly create bottle bombs.

You might have flat, totally uncarbed beer. Or you might have bottle bombs. I say 50/50 chance of either.
Click to expand...






What she said
 
I have bottled with Champagne yeast with success. I'm not sure if that's what you're after or not. It depends on the style and what you're going for, but a different yeast at bottling time can dry a beer out and give you neat bubbles.
 
Do people even read posts anymore? He is crash cooling the initial fermentation before it is complete. Then, as the bottles are warmed back up, the remaining sugars would then be consumed to produce the fermentation.

In order for you to get an accurate grasp for this, you'll need to have a satellite fermentor, aka a small aliquot in a 1000ml flask or something. Stick this on a stirplate and you should have complete fermentation within 2-3 days. Then, you'll know where your yeast is going to stop. Plan to crash a couple of gravity points above this to stop fermentation.

A problem I see you encountering is getting the original yeast out of the fermentation. Are you going to filter? Once two strains are introduced, it will be tough to really determine which yeast is the one giving the carbonation.

One vial is too much. You want to pitch about 1/4 of the vial for bottle carbonation.
 
PseudoChef said:
Do people even read posts anymore?
Click to expand...

Um. Yeah. I read the post. I was very concerned about the attenuation rate of the new yeast, whether or not it was crashed cooled before FG was reached. Some yeast strains might not do well being pitched into an already alcohol-rich environment, and that concern (and the attenuation rate of the new yeast) is what brought this to mind for me. What's with the snide comment? I answered as best as I knew how. I don't think there would be an easy, dependable way to do it. I said 50/50 chance of flat beer, or bottle bombs. I definitely haven't done the experiment, but don't appreciate the snarky comment.
 
Hey y'all, I appreciate the passionate responses! :) It's all good, pretty sure no one meant anyone any disrespect...

So... It's a wheat beer. It should be fully fermented after 2 weeks. At that point I'll crash cool it for a week. Then, yes, will add champagne yeast to add a different texture (hopefully).

So 1/4 vial is all it'll take, eh?
 
I'm not so sure this will work. In theory, it sounds ok - use a higher attenuating yeast as the bottling strain to consume "leftover" sugars from the original, lower attenuating primary strain. The problem I see (aside from what Yooper said about not knowing or being able to predict exact attenuations) is that if you introduce new yeast to an environment that is already low in sugars, with next to no oxygen, and a significant alcohol content, you may even shock the yeast to some extent where it is not attenuating as well as you would have expected. When working with such slim margins of error, I wouldn't mess with it unless you are willing to re-bottle (or if you plan on kegging and priming, in which case this would be a good experiment)
 
Yooper, I apologize for the snarky remark.

However, plenty of breweries do this. Russian River, some Belgian breweries, and lots of German breweries did (do?) this (gyle-conditioning) to conform to the Reinheitsgebot. It's not like it's total taboo or anything.

Also, Mike Mraz's interview on The Sunday session covers this where he bottle conditioned with 4 different types of yeast, showing that it does change flavor profiles.
 
Orval does this. They bottle condition but don't add any priming sugar, they simply add 5000 brettanomyces cells per ml of beer. Takes about 3 months to carbonate and build a nice horsey character...but I think it's fantastic.
 
PseudoChef said:
Yooper, I apologize for the snarky remark.
Click to expand...

It's ok. I'm sorry I jumped back. I was surprised, because you're usually so laid back. I admit I'm no microbiologist, and appreciate your input. Microbiologists definitely trump an old lady moderator.

I was just trying to think about the attenuation/alcohol tolerance etc. I could certainly be missing the "big picture" here, and appreciate your thoughts.
 
Tonedef131 said:
Orval does this. They bottle condition but don't add any priming sugar, they simply add 5000 brettanomyces cells per ml of beer. Takes about 3 months to carbonate and build a nice horsey character...but I think it's fantastic.
Click to expand...

This isn't trueb(at least according to Brew Like a Monk). After secondary fermentation (which included the addition of various yeast, including some Brett), the beer is centrifuged before bottling. Some Brett is left over in bottled after this process. Primary yeast (which is not a strain of Brett) is then added along with a sugar solution for refermentation. Although Orval does take longer to carbonate than other Trappist brews (5 weeks at Orval) this is due to the cooler temperatures in the Orval cellars and not because of lack of sugars.
 
If I were doing this, I would make a champagne starter with carefully measured "golden syrup", well oxygenated and fermenting stongly. I have never used a liquid champagne and am interested in your results if you could let us know! Good luck.
 
Let's remember one thing about Orval: they're a professional brewery that has taken time and practice to perfect their approach. First try homebrew, odds are good you've got bottle bombs... or perhaps flat beer.
 
Parker36 said:
This isn't trueb(at least according to Brew Like a Monk). After secondary fermentation (which included the addition of various yeast, including some Brett), the beer is centrifuged before bottling. Some Brett is left over in bottled after this process. Primary yeast (which is not a strain of Brett) is then added along with a sugar solution for refermentation. Although Orval does take longer to carbonate than other Trappist brews (5 weeks at Orval) this is due to the cooler temperatures in the Orval cellars and not because of lack of sugars.
Click to expand...
I have not read Brew Like Monk, but that was taken directly from Greg Doss's brettanomyces presentation from last years NHC.

http://www.beertown.org/events/hbc/presentations/GregDoss_BrettBrewing.pdf
 
I think you will have a hard time getting the timing right. Cool too early you get bottle bombs cool too late there might not be enough sugar or you will have to wait a long time. What's wrong with the standard method?
 
PseudoChef said:
Plenty of breweries do this. Russian River, some Belgian breweries, and lots of German breweries did (do?) this (gyle-conditioning) to conform to the Reinheitsgebot. It's not like it's total taboo or anything.

Also, Mike Mraz's interview on The Sunday session covers this where he bottle conditioned with 4 different types of yeast, showing that it does change flavor profiles.
Click to expand...

Haven't had a chance to listen to this this morning but I will later today... thanks! (Hopefully they give some clue as to how much yeast they added).

I think if I ferment down to FG or right near it I should be fine... it's certainly an experiment so I'm just looking to learn. I DO want to avoid bottle bombs however... I'll be bottling into E-Z flip-top 35oz bottles...

Why do it? To learn primarily... hey, I'm a maverick! (We haven't heard that word in a while... :) )
 
fastricky said:
Haven't had a chance to listen to this this morning but I will later today... thanks! (Hopefully they give some clue as to how much yeast they added).

I think if I ferment down to FG or right near it I should be fine... it's certainly an experiment so I'm just looking to learn. I DO want to avoid bottle bombs however... I'll be bottling into E-Z flip-top 35oz bottles...

Why do it? To learn primarily... hey, I'm a maverick! (We haven't heard that word in a while... :) )
Click to expand...

I think some of the confusing (at least that I have here) is that the yeast by itself won't carbonate your beer. It doesn't matter how much you add at bottling if there is no sugar that yeast can utilize. Given that you could use another yeast (as has been mentioned) that could attenuate better... but you don't know how they're react being dropped into a 5% solution of alcohol. Krausening is taking unfermented/actively fermening wort and adding it at bottling time, this is introducing fermentable sugars as well as yeast. This might be what you are looking for Krausening - Home Brewing Wiki.
 
Just a noob here, but these threads have popped up recently about Krausening and now this one. Can someone just tell us noobs why? I mean everyone's told us there is yeast in suspension even after 1 month in secondary. So why Krausening (sugary wort with yeast) and now add more yeast. Is it just for different taste notes?
 
Just reviewed the conversation so far and one thing has me puzzled. Simply adding new yeast if the beer has hit TG isn't going to do anything for carbonation without the addition of fermentable sugars.

British breweries producing cask-conditioned ales would move the beer before terminal gravity has been reached onto packaging; that residual fermentation would carbonate gently.

Kaiser has written here about using a percentage of reserved, unfermented wort from the original batch to carbonate - but it's not with the addition of a new yeast strain, if I recall correctly. He has an article in the HBT Wiki describing the process and understanding the calculations. You need to have a handle on understanding what's happening during the fermentation.

Am I missing something? :confused:

EDIT: Saw you were thinking champagne yeast...that will certainly chew through any residual sugars left unprocessed by the ale yeast.
 
fastricky said:
Haven't had a chance to listen to this this morning but I will later today... thanks! (Hopefully they give some clue as to how much yeast they added).
Click to expand...

That is where I got the information to pitch 1/4 of a vial, or 1 gram of a dry yeast pack. Mike Mraz brews 20 gallon batches and splits one vial between all of it. The rate that Sierra Nevada uses to bottle carb its beers (after filtering the initial yeast in suspension) is equivalent to the 1 gram dry per 5 gallons.

flyangler18 said:
Just reviewed the conversation so far and one thing has me puzzled. Simply adding new yeast if the beer has hit TG isn't going to do anything for carbonation without the addition of fermentable sugars.

British breweries producing cask-conditioned ales would move the beer before terminal gravity has been reached onto packaging; that residual fermentation would carbonate gently.

Kaiser has written here about using a percentage of reserved, unfermented wort from the original batch to carbonate - but it's not with the addition of a new yeast strain, if I recall correctly. He has an article in the HBT Wiki describing the process and understanding the calculations. You need to have a handle on understanding what's happening during the fermentation.

Am I missing something? :confused:

EDIT: Saw you were thinking champagne yeast...that will certainly chew through any residual sugars left unprocessed by the ale yeast.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am confused now as well. When I initially read the post it seemed he was trying to halt fermentation via cold crashing before it was technically complete. Then he would use the remaining sugars to carbonate the beer. My reservations with this stemmed from not having a satellite fermenter and the original yeast still in solution.

However, now it seems the OP is letting fermentation complete, and I don't know if he's adding sugar back or not. If using the champagne yeast, I would guess he wouldn't be.
 
Bringing Sour/Lambic beers using Brett into the conversation is kind of moot because Brett works on sugars that Saccromyces doesn't. Champagne yeasts are typically more alcohol tolerant but shouldn't always ferment further than ale yeasts in a low alcohol beer. I think the results will be unpredictable at best. Use PET bottles.
 
I guess if the flavor of the second addition of the yeast is what you are looking for why not just start with that yeast? Or are you looking for some kind of complexity between the two yeasts that can only be accomplished by using both? Maybe you could brew with a half/half mix and come up with the same results as unless you can remove the first yeast they are both going to be doing some additional fermentation anyway, although less with the lower attenuating yeast.
I guess you just need to try it and see what happens, to me that is kind of what makes this hobby fun. Try a benchmark brew then your experiment and compare later. Come back and let us know what happened.
 
The concept is to add the champagne yeast to add a different texture to the beer, not so much effect the flavor (again, hopefully!)

I'll probably do a 2/3 to 1/3 split with the batch and keep the 1/3 batch as is in case this experiment is a flop. Keep y'all posted!
 
fastricky said:
The concept is to add the champagne yeast to add a different texture to the beer, not so much effect the flavor (again, hopefully!)

I'll probably do a 2/3 to 1/3 split with the batch and keep the 1/3 batch as is in case this experiment is a flop. Keep y'all posted!
Click to expand...

The 1/3 will act as your comparison brew as well.
 

Similar threads

z-bob
Bottle conditioning beer using champagne yeast
Replies
9
Views
505
deuc224
D
C
First Time Adding Priming Sugar to Bottling Bucket
Replies
23
Views
957
day_trippr
day_trippr
luckybeagle
Conditioning in kegs prior to pressurizing or bottling?
Replies
27
Views
1K
BongoYodeler
BongoYodeler
RileyOG
Newbie SG/Yeast/Bottle Bomb Question
Replies
24
Views
1K
Chalkyt
Chalkyt
M
How long should I wait before bottling after I have added the priming solution ?
Replies
28
Views
3K
Civilian
Civilian
Yakima 300

Latest posts

Back
Top