Bad bad notty!

[Shooter]

I have watched and shook my head, watched and shook my head. I have seen certain vendors here 'take the devils advocate' side by trying to silence home brewer's publicly question the quality and state their experience with this yeast, even when there have been previous ACKNOWLEDGED issues with the yeast, so when they look dubious they have taught squelching controversy to preserve their bottom line.

I have advocated using S-05 or at least S-04 without trying to weigh in amidst the guys who slash and burn and flame those that reported problems, by insinuating it was all them, their practices or their luck, just because they themselves had not experienced it.

Had a larger majority of home brewers taken due caution and boycotted when controversy arose, I suspect that these issues woulda, coulda, shoulda been taken care of far quicker and with far less damage to the other home brewer's pocket books. There was ample cause for concern and leeriness from way back.

Shame on those that kicked rather than listened. Shame on those that counseled for quiet and chastised to not allow public experience statements.

Okay, I'll bite!

There were quite a number of people who said anyone having an issue needed to be clear they were having a problem. People were making statements like, my yeast was sticking to the package so Notty is therefore bad. Well, I'm sorry, that's hardly proof of anything. What MOST of the people that were questioning this issue were saying, and I was absolutely one of them, is that there was an awful lot of stuff being posted on here, and no where else about this problem, and not everyone seemed to be reporting the issues they were having to the manufacturer. Anyone who said anything like, you sure this isn't a problem with your process were shouted down real quickly in that other thread. In fact, Dwarven was the only one to stick it out.

In the end the manufacturer issues a recall in which they state and I quote,

"Internal tests conducted on a cross-section of sachets of this batch over several weeks have indicated normal performance, but given the widespread geographical nature of the comments being received, we feel it is best to ask retailers and distributors to return any inventory of this specific batch rather than risk brewers having a negative experience with our products."

So, in essence they can find NOTHING wrong with this product, but they are recalling the product because they are getting enough complaints that they don't want anyone to feel like they aren't confident in using. I believe this shows they are trying to go above and beyond what should be necessary, to make their customers happy. Good for them!

EDIT: Just a housekeeping issue to keep the site running smoothly, I'm wondering if there is a way to combine this thread with the larger Notty thread?

 

[Rover]

Shooter,

Danstar lied, It's not because of the "widespread geographical nature of the comments being received", It's because Yopper finally had a problem with Notty.

With your above post, it still seems like you don't believe there was problem. I understand though. My last two Notty experiences were normal, but the two before that (when many were coming down on my process or what ever) was all but normal. I guess it's not real till you experience it for your self.

I bet you can find some cheep Notty and it wouldn't take long to find the proof.

 

[dwarven_stout]

Okay, I'll bite!

There were quite a number of people who said anyone having an issue needed to be clear they were having a problem. People were making statements like, my yeast was sticking to the package so Notty is therefore bad. Well, I'm sorry, that's hardly proof of anything. What MOST of the people that were questioning this issue were saying, and I was absolutely one of them, is that there was an awful lot of stuff being posted on here, and no where else about this problem, and not everyone seemed to be reporting the issues they were having to the manufacturer. Anyone who said anything like, you sure this isn't a problem with your process were shouted down real quickly in that other thread. In fact, Dwarven was the only one to stick it out.

In the end the manufacturer issues a recall in which they state and I quote,

"Internal tests conducted on a cross-section of sachets of this batch over several weeks have indicated normal performance, but given the widespread geographical nature of the comments being received, we feel it is best to ask retailers and distributors to return any inventory of this specific batch rather than risk brewers having a negative experience with our products."

So, in essence they can find NOTHING wrong with this product, but they are recalling the product because they are getting enough complaints that they don't want anyone to feel like they aren't confident in using. I believe this shows they are trying to go above and beyond what should be necessary, to make their customers happy. Good for them!

EDIT: Just a housekeeping issue to keep the site running smoothly, I'm wondering if there is a way to combine this thread with the larger Notty thread?

I cannot agree more with this post. Just like Shooter, I was one of the posters consistently urging for a rational approach to reported yeast trouble. We advocated for people who thought they had an honest problem to contact the manufacturer and the distributor with the details of their trouble. Unshockingly, (or not, depending on your belief in the Industrial Brewing Yeast Conspiracy™) it seems that this approach bore fruit. As I wrote more than once in that thread, sitting around in an internet forum and b!tching accomplishes nothing.

On the other hand, while it seems Lallemand is doing the right thing here, there's no way around the fact that that other thread was filled to the brim with detritus. The "sticky yeast" phenomenon that Shooter mentions is high up on the list of useless posts. EVERY dry yeast packet I've used (which has been plenty) has had yeast sticking to the sides. I have to physically shake it, bat on the bottom, what-have-you to get it out because I hate throwing away yeast. But as soon as one guy reports a problem, every johnny come lately decides he has problem because his yeast is sticking.

I'm glad that Lallemand is recalling the batch. I'm less glad that those of us advocating a reasoned response in light of "issues" like static cling yeast and "tartness" (which has been a characteristic of hot-fermented Notty as long as I've used it) are being told "shame on you".

 

[Rover]

I cannot agree more with this post. Just like Shooter, I was one of the posters consistently urging for a rational approach to reported yeast trouble. We advocated for people who thought they had an honest problem to contact the manufacturer and the distributor with the details of their trouble. Unshockingly, (or not, depending on your belief in the Industrial Brewing Yeast Conspiracy™) it seems that this approach bore fruit. As I wrote more than once in that thread, sitting around in an internet forum and b!tching accomplishes nothing.

On the other hand, while it seems Lallemand is doing the right thing here, there's no way around the fact that that other thread was filled to the brim with detritus. The "sticky yeast" phenomenon that Shooter mentions is high up on the list of useless posts. EVERY dry yeast packet I've used (which has been plenty) has had yeast sticking to the sides. I have to physically shake it, bat on the bottom, what-have-you to get it out because I hate throwing away yeast. But as soon as one guy reports a problem, every johnny come lately decides he has problem because his yeast is sticking.

I'm glad that Lallemand is recalling the batch. I'm less glad that those of us advocating a reasoned response in light of "issues" like static cling yeast and "tartness" (which has been a characteristic of hot-fermented Notty as long as I've used it) are being told "shame on you".

I only remember two or three references to the "static cling" you mention. It seems like you guys took that example (sticking to the sides) that a couple of people posted and made it your reason for ignoring all the other relevant examples being reported.

I understand why a few here were a little frustrated that a few of you got on your high horse and called many a ""noob", or a "johnny come lately" for what we were experiencing.

No hard feelings though. This is still the coolest place to hang out on the net while drinking a homebrew

 

[Shooter]

Shooter,

Danstar lied, It's not because of the "widespread geographical nature of the comments being received", It's because Yopper finally had a problem with Notty.

Rover, cheers my friend. I'm hoping you meant this in the comical way I'm taking it!!

You're right, I'm still not convinced, but that doesn't mean I'm ruling out completely that there isn't an issue. My biggest concern was with some of the odd anecdotal evidence we were getting in the the other thread without a lot of people taking the time to really analyze their results.

 

[Shooter]

I'm glad that Lallemand is recalling the batch. I'm less glad that those of us advocating a reasoned response in light of "issues" like static cling yeast and "tartness" (which has been a characteristic of hot-fermented Notty as long as I've used it) are being told "shame on you".

Exactly!

 

[Shooter]

I understand why a few here were a little frustrated that a few of you got on your high horse and called many a ""noob", or a "johnny come lately" for what we were experiencing.

No, no, no, you were doing so well, the comical reply, actually getting me to like you and then this!!! I don't think anyone was getting on any high horse. People were being honest abrupt and hoping for SOMEONE, ANYONE who thought there was a problem to do a really good test. I mean, I could have done one, but, the truth is, I wasn't the one saying there was a problem. Instead we got one post after another of, I pitched this and it smelled funny. Well, guess what, every batch of yeast I've ever pitched smelled "funny!"

On a serious note, I'm hoping this will put this issue to rest. Personally, I will continue to support Nottingham...until I start having problems and then, oh boy, just wait for the thread I start!!!

 

[Rover]

No, no, no, you were doing so well, the comical reply, actually getting me to like you and then this!!! I don't think anyone was getting on any high horse. People were being honest abrupt and hoping for SOMEONE, ANYONE who thought there was a problem to do a really good test. I mean, I could have done one, but, the truth is, I wasn't the one saying there was a problem. Instead we got one post after another of, I pitched this and it smelled funny. Well, guess what, every batch of yeast I've ever pitched smelled "funny!"

On a serious note, I'm hoping this will put this issue to rest. Personally, I will continue to support Nottingham...until I start having problems and then, oh boy, just wait for the thread I start!!!

I guess it doesn't really matter to me if you like me or not. I know that the vast majority here are good people and willing to help (you included). I hope this all quickly goes away so I can get back to reading and learning about how to brew the best beer I can make.
Man, that kind of sounds like I do care if you like me or not.
I don't really

 

[Rover]

Rover, cheers my friend. I'm hoping you meant this in the comical way I'm taking it!!

Yeah I should have puta after that comment

 

[bniesen]

I brewed a batch of porter a day before this news hit. I pitched my Notty at about 60-65F and it started to take off within 32 hrs. It looked like it was fermenting strong on 10-4, I replaced the blow off tube with an airlock last night and I checked it this morning. I'm scheduled to bottle on 10-23. I'm guessing I got lucky with the Notty?
I intend on washing it for future batches. Should I wait to wash a different batch?

 

[wyzazz]

I brewed a batch of porter a day before this news hit. I pitched my Notty at about 60-65F and it started to take off within 32 hrs. It looked like it was fermenting strong on 10-4, I replaced the blow off tube with an airlock last night and I checked it this morning. I'm scheduled to bottle on 10-23. I'm guessing I got lucky with the Notty?
I intend on washing it for future batches. Should I wait to wash a different batch?

If this batch worked for you then wash it and use it for consecutive batches, I don't see any issues with that. Now, if you have some sachet's with that recalled lot # on them then I'd return them to your closest retailer.

 

[bsdx]

Its just amazing how much commotion a $1.55 packet of yeast can cause.

For those of you who have recently used, or considering using the affected packets and aren't concerned about using extra yeast, I'd pitch another packet each 24 hours until you see the activity you usually expect. Even if its more packets of Notty or a different yeast. If you come across a good packet then you have a chance of saving your beer before the damaged yeast can have its way.

 

[Revvy]

I've never like notty for other reasons, so I don't use it. But I do want to weigh in on something that I've seen in this thread and the other ones, people using incorrect "criteria" to declare their yeast dead.

Remember folks, even with healthy yeast it sometimes takes 72 hours for yeast to show visible signs of fermentation and if you are only going by your airlock bubbling, then you don't really know what's going on. Every day we get we get panicked new brewer coming on here saying "oh my god my yeast is dead because my airlock is bubbling." And often many of them have perfectly good krausen growing inside their buckets when they go to take a hydro reading...or they see it in the carboy but they are so married to the idea that an airlock has to bubble that they are putting rationality aside because of a crappy piece of plastic and a rubber stopper or a grommet.

So all I'm urging is to use some "good brewing practices" and don't just jump on the panic bandwagon. As plenty of people are posting their yeast from the same lot is working perfectly fine. Yes I believe that there is potentially an issue with the yeast and it is not ALL just new brewer panic, but I also believe there is also a certain level of panic brewer hypochondria, because that is human nature, and we have new brewer panic/hypochondria, even when they are using yeast with NO known issues.

Remember most of the time on here, those threads turn out to be non-problems/non issues anyway, and the poster comes back and says his fermentation started or their beer turned out fine.

But if it's been 3 hours since you pitched or 12 for that matter, don't just assume there is a problem. Give it some more time give it 24 or 48 hours, and then either take a hydrometer reading, or open the bucket to check for krasuen formation, or at least push down on your bucket lid or carboy stopper and see if there is suddenly a mass of bubbles which would indicate that co2 has been created, because fermentation is happening. Obviously the only way to know is with a hydrometer.

But please, if you've pitched your beer with notty already before seeing this, then just use some common sense brewing practices, don't just jump on the panic bandwagon because it is not behaving the way you THINK it should, ie. your airlock should be bubbling, or you should have rocking krausen 3 hours after you pitched, because often, even on a GOOD day, perfectly healthy yeast may not behave that way.

And please, don't go by "static cling" as a declaration that your yeast is "bad" I've had packages of safale yeast where the yeast sticks to the sides of the packet when I've opened it...often in the winter when my place is staticy anyway...do just go by that, please.

 

[OneToothBrewingCompany]

So I repitched a another lot of Notty last night when I had roughly 48hrs of inactivity with the lot in question. Woke up this morning to bubbles. Ahhh. What a beauitful morning so far.

 

[Shooter]

I guess it doesn't really matter to me if you like me or not. I know that the vast majority here are good people and willing to help (you included). I hope this all quickly goes away so I can get back to reading and learning about how to brew the best beer I can make.
Man, that kind of sounds like I do care if you like me or not.
I don't really

Nah, I like you, I think you actually seemed to have one of the more level headed takes on everything in the other thread, which I appreciated. Hopefully this response by Llaam, llllaalla, however you spell their name, clears things up, it's all good!

Anyway, I'll be away from the computer for a few days, but expect this to all be sorted out when I get back!

 

[HenryHill]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm maybe a little more objective to all this.

I saw that there were numerous references to a bad smell from many posters, and the statement by Yoop suggesting a possibility of contamination was the only one I recall. Most experiencing poor results just stated that the yeast appeared to be largely dead.

I also saw a couple references to the datestamp issue of pinholes, but have been disappointed that no one has shown pics of the package's datestamp, flashlight testing, or examined the possibility of pinholes due to excessive stamping pressure or heat. Pics of these packages from the affected lot are really important towards solving this mystery.

The thing about Notty is it's always been reliable and has been bullet proof for many years and many millions of brewers-that is the allure, the whole reason it was so successful. But when it ceases to be worry free and creates unreliable results, it's value as a 'go to' yeast is diminished. The lack of responses to emails is also troubling, and as a PR faux pas, creates a negative stigma of manufacturer ambivalence, even if unwarranted. Thing is, Notty is not the only dry yeast readily available, and they have admitted an earlier issue, two big reasons to be on top of this or any new controversy. But there was a very long period of refusal or denial or something, with the first go round on this pinhole recall deal, and there does not seem to have been any noticeable change in character of the latest response. Surely a formal notice to look for this pinhole issue from them would have gone a long ways towards at least appearing to care.

I don't use it since I don't care for the yeast character it has, but my belief in the infallibility of this yeast (and a seemingly weak concern from the maker) is now forever shaken, and I won't- can't ever recommend it to new brewers anymore.

 

[smizak]

Oh the drama.

I'm not gonna say there is no chance some noob brewers panicked after reading these threads and exacerbated a problem.

I'll tell you what I do know. This batch of Nottingham wouldn't rehydrate for me. I've used it before, as well as other dry yeasts, wine and beer, dozens of times. I've never seen yeast behave this way. It was sour smelling as well. 24 hours later, it was still sitting on the bottom of the fermenter, still granulated. This was before I even knew there was a "new bad batch Nottingham" thread. Like Yoop, I went and searched AFTER I had a problem.

There were a few posters who were rather flippant in their replies to these problems. I understand and respect the posters who demanded more information than "sticky yeast", but some peeps were still being jerks even after I and some others posters thoroughly explained their experience and process. So I get Henry Hills rant, and I also feel a little vindicated.

I also doubt that Danstar issued a recall because of this forum alone. There has to be more going on.

 

[SwampassJ]

 

[RavenChief]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm maybe a little more objective to all this.

I saw that there were numerous references to a bad smell from many posters, and the statement by Yoop suggesting a possibility of contamination was the only one I recall. Most experiencing poor results just stated that the yeast appeared to be largely dead.

I also saw a couple references to the datestamp issue of pinholes, but have been disappointed that no one has shown pics of the package's datestamp, flashlight testing, or examined the possibility of pinholes due to excessive stamping pressure or heat. Pics of these packages from the affected lot are really important towards solving this mystery.

The thing about Notty is it's always been reliable and has been bullet proof for many years and many millions of brewers-that is the allure, the whole reason it was so successful. But when it ceases to be worry free and creates unreliable results, it's value as a 'go to' yeast is diminished. The lack of responses to emails is also troubling, and as a PR faux pas, creates a negative stigma of manufacturer ambivalence, even if unwarranted. Thing is, Notty is not the only dry yeast readily available, and they have admitted an earlier issue, two big reasons to be on top of this or any new controversy. But there was a very long period of refusal or denial or something, with the first go round on this pinhole recall deal, and there does not seem to have been any noticeable change in character of the latest response. Surely a formal notice to look for this pinhole issue from them would have gone a long ways towards at least appearing to care.

I don't use it since I don't care for the yeast character it has, but my belief in the infallibility of this yeast (and a seemingly weak concern from the maker) is now forever shaken, and I won't- can't ever recommend it to new brewers anymore.

I think the "pin hole" issue was from the previous batch. With this latest bad batch, pin holes have not been an issue.

 

[ILuvIPA]

Just a newb here, only been brewing since January. Switched to notty (from smack packs) early summer and have loved the notty. Takes off like a rocket, ferments fast & hard & FWIW I really like the character in my IPAs. . .so much so I ordered up and have 9 more packets in the fridge. (not the listed lot but still, you guys have me wondering.)

Anyway, I'm enough of a newb I was totaly oblivious to this whole "the dark side of notty" thing. I've got two batches in the fermenter (one bottles tomorrow morning) and am planning to brew/pitch again tomorrow afternoon. Both the current fermenters went zoom-zoom (like a rocket.) I guess I'll keep pitching the notty I have and keep my fingers crossed. Hoping I don't join the ranks of the fallen!

 

[RavenChief]

Just a newb here, only been brewing since January. Switched to notty (from smack packs) early summer and have loved the notty. Takes off like a rocket, ferments fast & hard & FWIW I really like the character in my IPAs. . .so much so I ordered up and have 9 more packets in the fridge. (not the listed lot but still, you guys have me wondering.)

Anyway, I'm enough of a newb I was totaly oblivious to this whole "the dark side of notty" thing. I've got two batches in the fermenter (one bottles tomorrow morning) and am planning to brew/pitch again tomorrow afternoon. Both the current fermenters went zoom-zoom (like a rocket.) I guess I'll keep pitching the notty I have and keep my fingers crossed. Hoping I don't join the ranks of the fallen!

If you "Proof" your yeast, then you will atleast know that the stuff is alive when you pitch it.

 

[Rover]

If you "Proof" your yeast, then you will atleast know that the stuff is alive when you pitch it.

I don't know if that's good advise.
Yopper brewed a 10 gal. batch, half with Notty and half with another yeast, and had the Notty fermentation take off like normal but it tasted off, so she had to dump it The other yeast was fine and she complained, which is why I think Danstar recalled

 

[ILuvIPA]

If you "Proof" your yeast, then you will atleast know that the stuff is alive when you pitch it.

(slaps forhead) I've just been rehydrating 15 minutes per the packet instructions. Looks like I'll spend the evening researching the forum (proofing & yeast starters.)
Thanks Chief!

Rover, I appreciate your point. But if I do continue to use what's on hand I'm thinking I should step up my learning curve and learn about proofing & starters. (Should probably be doing starters anyway.) Hey, like I said I'm a newb and know it. But I am learning a lot here and at a pretty good clip.

 

[Gropo]

I posted awhile ago defending Nottingham and decrying the rumors as hysteria, but I have to admit that particular batch did me wrong, even though I did everything right w/ rehydration and sanitation........long lag period, and a funky sour (but not a quite a lacto flavor) off flavor. It's turned me off to dry yeast for good. From here on out it's Wyeast with a starter....every time. Probably an over-reaction, but it's the safest, most "fail-safe" option from my point of view.

 

[RavenChief]

I posted awhile ago defending Nottingham and decrying the rumors as hysteria, but I have to admit that particular batch did me wrong, even though I did everything right w/ rehydration and sanitation........long lag period, and a funky sour (but not a quite a lacto flavor) off flavor. It's turned me off to dry yeast for good. From here on out it's Wyeast with a starter....every time. Probably an over-reaction, but it's the safest, most "fail-safe" option from my point of view.

Welcome to the Dark Side...

 

[ILuvIPA]

Well crap! just skimmed the other notty thread (272 posts? geez!)

Anyway, too late to try a starter for tomorrow's brew day. I guess I'll proof with a little DME and as long as it's active hope for the best? (No local HBS here, so no backup yeast available.) I'll see how tomorrow's pitch goes and let that help determine what I do with the rest of my notty.

 

[Rover]

Well crap! just skimmed the other notty thread (272 posts? geez!)

Anyway, too late to try a starter for tomorrow's brew day. I guess I'll proof with a little DME and as long as it's active hope for the best? (No local HBS here, so no backup yeast available.) I'll see how tomorrow's pitch goes and let that help determine what I do with the rest of my notty.

If it makes you feel better,
I tasted a batch I have had fermenting for three weeks now (I'll bottle some time this week) after pitching this batch of Notty and it tastes great.
I bet there are more good packs than bad.
Good luck

 

[pimento]

If you "Proof" your yeast, then you will atleast know that the stuff is alive when you pitch it.

Proofing doesn't seem to be an accurate predictor in my experience.

I've done 4 brews with this lot recently.

1 Proofed fine and 3 didn't, just dropped to the bottom of the cup and didn't mix with the water at all.

2 of the beers are bottled and taste fine 1 graff and 1 cider are on going. All the ferments started normally within 24 hrs.

 

[RavenChief]

Proofing doesn't seem to be an accurate predictor in my experience.

I've done 4 brews with this lot recently.

1 Proofed fine and 3 didn't, just dropped to the bottom of the cup and didn't mix with the water at all.

2 of the beers are bottled and taste fine 1 graff and 1 cider are on going. All the ferments started normally within 24 hrs.

OK, I guess I don't understand. The 3 of 4 sachets of yeast that didn't proof normally, you went ahead and used them anyway?

 

[pimento]

OK, I guess I don't understand. The 3 of 4 sachets of yeast that didn't proof normally, you went ahead and used them anyway?

Yup, I've only been brewing for about 9 months and hadn't heard the term proofing until recently, so I haven't had all that much experience with how different kinds of yeast react during rehydration/proofing and I'd only used nottingham once before these last 4 batches.

The 2 batches of beer were 1-2 months ago, before I'd read much about the nottingham issues. I didn't pay much attention when the one batch didn't proof, just dumped it in anyway.

The second 2 were a small batch of graff and 2 gallons of regular cider, so I didn't have much to lose.

Apparently I got lucky.

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm maybe a little more objective to all this.

I saw that there were numerous references to a bad smell from many posters, and the statement by Yoop suggesting a possibility of contamination was the only one I recall. Most experiencing poor results just stated that the yeast appeared to be largely dead.

I also saw a couple references to the datestamp issue of pinholes, but have been disappointed that no one has shown pics of the package's datestamp, flashlight testing, or examined the possibility of pinholes due to excessive stamping pressure or heat. Pics of these packages from the affected lot are really important towards solving this mystery.

The thing about Notty is it's always been reliable and has been bullet proof for many years and many millions of brewers-that is the allure, the whole reason it was so successful. But when it ceases to be worry free and creates unreliable results, it's value as a 'go to' yeast is diminished. The lack of responses to emails is also troubling, and as a PR faux pas, creates a negative stigma of manufacturer ambivalence, even if unwarranted. Thing is, Notty is not the only dry yeast readily available, and they have admitted an earlier issue, two big reasons to be on top of this or any new controversy. But there was a very long period of refusal or denial or something, with the first go round on this pinhole recall deal, and there does not seem to have been any noticeable change in character of the latest response. Surely a formal notice to look for this pinhole issue from them would have gone a long ways towards at least appearing to care.

Here's a shot with the holes illuminated from behind by a flashlight. This is the second problem child batch:

[/url][/IMG]

This is a picture I sent to Lallemand. They were apologetic, but their response was

"[This batch] had been testing fine to date unlike the recalled batch from a few months ago, but things can happen along the way to you that could have damaged the yeast...I made also this test with a flashlight [sic], and indeed the sachet looks damaged with several tiny holes, but there are not holes, air is not coming inside as I investigated further."

Obviously not every packet was bad. If you got one without any holes or the holes were small enough that air wasn't getting in quickly enough to do it in by the time you pitched it, you're fine. I'd guess that since it is a plastic lined foil pouch, that in some cases the foil was punctured, but not the lining.

Also, the arrow on the right: It looked like there was a small fold in the seal around the edge causing another pathway for air to get in.

They did send me a bunch of packages of replacement yeast... I've used one of the packs of Windsor they sent, but while it was rehydrating I carefully inspected it for holes, and it seems to be fine.

 

[Rover]

Hmmm,

That's not the batch# most are having trouble with.

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

Hmmm,

That's not the batch# most are having trouble with.

Nope. That's the second problem batch. There have been three...

 

[Rover]

I just checked my remaining packs of the 1080961099V and the batch# isn't stamped onto the package. It is printed with no indentations. I don't think that was the issue with this batch.

 

[Rover]

Nope. That's the second problem batch. There have been three...

OIC I thought there was only two.

 

[CvilleKevin]

Its a bummer to hear this about Notty. I dont use it as much as I used to, but if it werent for Notty, I'd probably still be making mediocre cider.

I've never got a bad batch with Notty, but I've noticed its a little slower than S04 and US05, coming out of the gate. I always thought this was because of the yeast strain, but now I am wondering if their drying and packaging process does not preserve as many viable yeast.

I appreciate that Notty didnt jack their prices a couple years ago like Fermentis did, although as others have mentioned, the cost of yeast is still cheap in the larger scheme of things. I probably wouldnt mind spending a little more for better quality control.

For those of you who are looking to replace Notty, and want an alternative to S04 and US05, there are some good dry yeasts that are only distributed in the UK, but you can get a UK internet shop to mail them to you for a couple bucks. I've had great results with Brupaks Ale, Gervin English Ale, Ritchies Real Ale and Lager and Youngs Ale and Lager for ciders. These are all inexpensive, so with a few dollars postage its still cheaper than buying Fermentis from LHBS if you get a few packs

 

[XtremeBrew]

Yeah all 3 batches I made a few weeks ago were made with this batch number. Two were bad, and the other one is ok so far. I will be using White Labs Notty from now on I think.

 

[trubled]

Finally an explanation. Eureka

I am relatively new to brewing and after 25 batches going without a hitch experienced 4 out of the following 6 going off fast producing horrible medicinal phenolics of varying intensities. Basically ranging between bad to really repulsive which increased with time and rendered it all undrinkable.

Having a background in professional winemaking I figured improper sanitation was the culprit and:
(a) brought all our water in from a town that had passed through a treatment plant. We are on the side of a mountain and truly awesome water comes directly from a creek to the house and suspected that this was the source of the contamination (used to rinse and top)
(b) went hyper-clean on all fronts
(c) sterilized and boiled everything involved in my yeast starter (except the yeast)

None of this was effective and serious frustration was beginning to set in. Tosssing away that much work and 80 liters of what should be golden elixir aint fun.

In retrospect I did notice that my starters were not performing as they had in the past. Instead of rich frothy cultures things appeared rather placid and I chalked this up to the reduced oxygen in the the sterilized wort as the reason. I alo will add that in the past I would take one packet and build a robust culture to divide amongst 3 carboys and now was going with one packet into one carboy. The clarity of retrospect.

Having worked with lallemand yeasts in a number of wineries I am shocked and disappointed to realize this seems to be the guilty party. I have serious reservations as to their honesty as to the product testing.

I would be interested to hear more comments about this particular contamination as it sounds as if the packet themselves are the source of the problem as opposed to ambient infection populations in our respective brewing settings.

I would describe it as:
medicinal
band-aid
sour
sulferous
plastic
rubbery

The infection could present quite early in the fermentation -- less than 12 hours after pitching.

Thanks for this it has been driving me mental.

 

[passedpawn]

Finally an explanation. Eureka

For your sake I hope the problem was the yeast. You should quick use another yeast (say, from Fermentis) and test your theory. Declaring success now might be premature. Good luck.

 

[trubled]

For your sake I hope the problem was the yeast. You should quick use another yeast (say, from Fermentis) and test your theory. Declaring success now might be premature. Good luck.

These four failures were realized over a couple of weeks. One of the more recent ones, which was successful, I dumped a Munich on top of when I realized the ferment was struggling and was concerned because of the previous botches.

There are a number of other reasons besides my earlier post pointing at this being the perp but i dont want to write a book.