New bad lot of Nottingham yeast ???

Brewer's Friend 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.
I had two packets from this lot# & brewed 2 weeks ago with success. Proofed and had airlock activity in under 8 hours. I had some s-04 & s-05 in case there was no activity for an extended period.
 
How frustrating that there is no way to tell if you have a dud before proofing the yeast. I had two pouches out of the bad lot, the first has taken off and given me a krausen in 24 hrs, the second is still in the fridge. I do like the nottingham, but I think I will be buying something else until they acknowledge/deal with this problem.
 
No use of campden tablets here and still had poor results with Nottingham. I also sent the manufacturer a detailed e-mail with measurements, times, temps and received no reply.
 
It is sad that the company is not taking appropriate action to address customer issues, especially after it had an earlier recall of a different lot number last year.
 
As long as you didn't toss the Campden in at the same time, you're good. I had the same worry and after doing some research found that Campdens break down and do their thing in a very short time. Plus, you're boiling your wort, so no worries. I also learned to always rehydrate dry yeast for optimum cell count.
 
robertbartsch said:
It is sad that the company is not taking appropriate action to address customer issues, especially after it had an earlier recall of a different lot number last year.
Click to expand...

I think if enough of the Home brew supply stores send back their stock, they will get the message. I doubt it is just coincidental that nobody who has emailed the Nottingham folks is getting a reply.
 
RavenChief said:
I think if enough of the Home brew supply stores send back their stock, they will get the message. I doubt it is just coincidental that nobody who has emailed the Nottingham folks is getting a reply.
Click to expand...

Plausible deniability. Acknowledging an email means they're aware of a problem.
 
I just tried a turbo cider with this batch (1 gallon batch, full packet) and got activity after 24 hours.
 
Just pitched a packet of this batch late sunday night. Rehydrated but it didn't 'proof' as people call it, just sank to the bottom of the cup, no bubbling or mixing in when stirred.

I pitched it anyway and fermentation started within 12 hrs, it's bubbling away like mad now.
 
Just thought I'd say I used this yeast about a month ago on a batch of Centennial Blonde.

I did get fermentation at around 48 hours but unfortunately it seems my beer is sour though it has never shown any signs of visible contamination either in the carboy or the in the bottles.

I'll be using Safale or Wyeast from now on. Such a waste!:(
 
I posted earlier that I had used this lot and had success both times... well if success is determine by quick visible signs of fermentation. The most recent usage has produced a beer with a lot of fusels. The ferm temp was in the 65-68 range, so nothing crazy. From all I know about fusels, it can be caused by not aerating enough or underpitching/stressed yeast. I aerated well, so with all the questioning of this lot... it makes me wonder if the yeast is the culprit here. Not positive, but I just dont think i want to chance this lot anymore cause in my experience, even when it appears to ferment fine, i received off flavors. I have to packs of this lot in the fridge, but don't plan on using them..... Danstar really needs to get on this.
 
lalnx said:
Yep, if you rehydrate @ the 86-92 deg that they ask for, and do not get that light foamy mass on the top within 20 minutes or so, I would consider it junk. pitch another pack, lot number, or US-05 what ever will work. I found some more Notty at another shop ($.75 :rockin:) with a different lot#, so I will have that on hand when I pitch my last pack from the lot# in question. (not much confidence in the last pack after 2 duds prior.) And no it is not my process. just pitched a Danstar Munich and a US-05 on saturday with no problems.
Click to expand...
Good to see I didn't chase you out of this thread forever. Did you ever send your brew info in to the manufacturer?

SkyHighBrew88 said:
I did get fermentation at around 48 hours but unfortunately it seems my beer is sour though it has never shown any signs of visible contamination either in the carboy or the in the bottles.
Click to expand...
What temp did you ferment it at? Nottingham at or above 70 degrees has always given tartness and/or harsh esters.

brettwasbtd said:
I posted earlier that I had used this lot and had success both times... well if success is determine by quick visible signs of fermentation. The most recent usage has produced a beer with a lot of fusels. The ferm temp was in the 65-68 range, so nothing crazy. From all I know about fusels, it can be caused by not aerating enough or underpitching/stressed yeast. I aerated well, so with all the questioning of this lot... it makes me wonder if the yeast is the culprit here. Not positive, but I just dont think i want to chance this lot anymore cause in my experience, even when it appears to ferment fine, i received off flavors. I have to packs of this lot in the fridge, but don't plan on using them..... Danstar really needs to get on this.
Click to expand...

Danstar really needs to get on what, exactly? Is your belief that since other people are reporting fermentation trouble, then your reported fusels must be the fault of the yeast, even though no one reporting fermentation trouble is also reporting fusels?

IMHO, these last two posts I quoted are prime examples of what Revvy and Shooter were talking about at the very beginning of this thread: newer brewers getting scared about the yeast because of this thread and convincing themselves that the yeast is the cause of a common beer fault. No offense to you guys, but it's complaints like yours that makes it easier for Danstar to ignore the possibility that there is a problem with their product.
 
dwarven_stout said:
Danstar really needs to get on what, exactly? Is your belief that since other people are reporting fermentation trouble, then your reported fusels must be the fault of the yeast, even though no one reporting fermentation trouble is also reporting fusels?

IMHO, these last two posts I quoted are prime examples of what Revvy and Shooter were talking about at the very beginning of this thread: newer brewers getting scared about the yeast because of this thread and convincing themselves that the yeast is the cause of a common beer fault. No offense to you guys, but it's complaints like yours that makes it easier for Danstar to ignore the possibility that there is a problem with their product.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I was ambiguous. My point was to say that I feel Danstar needs to come out and say that they are aware of all the complaints regarding this lot and are testing it or something. It seems that everyone is just upset that there is no response from the company.

As far as my issue, I aerated well on a 1050 starting gravity brew, and pitched a pack of nottingham (should be enough yeast). It fermented around 66 degrees and the resulting beer has produced a lot of fusels. From all i know about fusels (and i have researched a lot) the number one culprit is high ferm temp (not the case here). The other culprit is underpitching/stressed yeast. You are right that I may be blaming the yeast, but I would need evidence of other possibly reasons for fusels (other then the 2 i previously stated and am aware of). The brew in question did show visible signs of fermentation at 12 hours, but what if a large portion of this yeast wasnt viable? That could cause the other yeasties to be stressed. I simply want to add another variable to this. Maybe others have experienced my same symptoms but haven't voiced it.

It is very likely that the yeast is not the cause, but in my case i am no longer comfortable with using this batch. If it is the yeast, i dont want to take another chance on a batch - my preference.
 
dwarven_stout said:
IMHO, these last two posts I quoted are prime examples of what Revvy and Shooter were talking about at the very beginning of this thread: newer brewers getting scared about the yeast because of this thread and convincing themselves that the yeast is the cause of a common beer fault. No offense to you guys, but it's complaints like yours that makes it easier for Danstar to ignore the possibility that there is a problem with their product.
Click to expand...

Homebrew shops are starting to send it back because of this problem. I also guarantee only a fraction of brewers having trouble with this yeast have read this thread. Danstar was slow as hell acknowledging the last problem, even with people taking photos of flashlights shining through the date stamp.
 
Dwarven would of made a good spokes person for Fire Stone when the treads would separate. Could pass the blame from the distribution, to the store owner and then to the user.
 
Sorry if I was ambiguous. My point was to say that I feel Danstar needs to come out and say that they are aware of all the complaints regarding this lot and are testing it or something. It seems that everyone is just upset that there is no response from the company.
Click to expand...
That's certainly reasonable. If I had to guess, I would guess that 11g Nottingham packets are a small portion of Lallemand's profit margin compared to bread yeast and 2kg blocks of beer yeast, and from their perspective, it doesn't hurt to just ignore a few non-industrial complaints about quality. It could be a lot less sinister, but who knows.


SwampassJ said:
Dwarven would of made a good spokes person for Fire Stone when the treads would separate. Could pass the blame from the distribution, to the store owner and then to the user.
Click to expand...

Swampass would have made a good juror in Old Salem.

Long lag times? Pitch 'er in the water and see if she's a witch.
Fusels? Probably a witch.
Tartness? Witch.
Unwanted esters? Definitely pointy-hatted.
Phenols? Broomstick in the corner, no doubt.
Yeast "sticking" to the inside of a statically charged packet? Not only a witch, but an adulterer as well!


Look, my total is up to 5 batches with this lot #, pitched without rehydration or proofing of any sort. All of them came out fine. If one eventually doesn't, then I will contact Danstar with a rundown of my brewday and expect a response. That's what I've advocated over the entire length of this thread for those who have a sound process but still have yeast trouble. That hasn't stopped (and won't stop) me from pointing out common beer flaws that are normally the result of a process variable. You attacking me for doing so adds nothing to the discussion.
 
SwampassJ said:
Dwarven would of made a good spokes person for Fire Stone when the treads would separate. Could pass the blame from the distribution, to the store owner and then to the user.
Click to expand...

If it is all the same lot, then this would make sense. Being one lot that means it was probably all came out of the same vat and packaged at the same time. That is the reason for 'batch numbers'. I've used two from that lot. One 'seemed slow' but the other took right off.
 
I am convinced that it is a bad lot#. Not anything that everyone is doing wrong. The yeast sinks to the bottom when it doesn't proof and it has a bad odor to it. If the few cells of viable yeast finally do get to a number that they can finish the beer it will leave an off flavor. The long lag time is a bad thing.

If it looks bad, smells bad , it's bad. This stuff smelled bad when I tried to proof it.

Inconsistent, unexpected, and bad flavors convinces me that it is a Bad lot #. I had luck with Northern Brewer replacing my bad packets.
 
Just received this in an e-mail:

"Lallemand has issued a recall of their Nottingham yeast with lot#1080961099V, expiration date 12/2011."
 
brewale4me said:
I am convinced that it is a bad lot#. Not anything that everyone is doing wrong. The yeast sinks to the bottom when it doesn't proof and it has a bad odor to it. If the few cells of viable yeast finally do get to a number that they can finish the beer it will leave an off flavor. The long lag time is a bad thing.

If it looks bad, smells bad , it's bad. This stuff smelled bad when I tried to proof it.

Inconsistent, unexpected, and bad flavors convinces me that it is a Bad lot #. I had luck with Northern Brewer replacing my bad packets.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I just dumped a batch with that lot #. It fermented just fine, showing krausen within a day. But even fermented at 62 degrees, it's horribly phenolic and undrinkable. The irony is that I did 10 gallons that day, pitched 5 with the notty and 5 with S05. The S05 is wonderful.
 
Yooper_Brew said:
Yeah. I just dumped a batch with that lot #. It fermented just fine, showing krausen within a day. But even fermented at 62 degrees, it's horribly phenolic and undrinkable. The irony is that I did 10 gallons that day, pitched 5 with the notty and 5 with S05. The S05 is wonderful.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that. I also dumped one because of the off flavor.
 
Yooper_Brew said:
Yeah. I just dumped a batch with that lot #. It fermented just fine, showing krausen within a day. But even fermented at 62 degrees, it's horribly phenolic and undrinkable. The irony is that I did 10 gallons that day, pitched 5 with the notty and 5 with S05. The S05 is wonderful.
Click to expand...

Wow, I have been dismissing all this nottingham bashing as noobish yeastmongering and general paranoia. Hopefully Danstar will take note and remedy the situation, still it seems to be only a nottingham problem? No problems with the other Danstar yeasts.
 
It's about time!

I have four packs if this stuff, Where do I send it?

It's really only $12 plus shipping, which is really no big deal but I'm looking at it as 22 gallons of beer, so I want some good yeast to replace it with.
 
I posted in the Bad bad notty thread so I will post here as well. The OP in the bad bad notty thread has posted the numbers. When I questioned it through Danstar support this was the reply:


Yes this is true, but the information was released to our distributors and retailer just yesterday so we need it to "get to the marketplace" via retailers to homebrewers. I will be sending information about this to homebrewing forums in the coming days to allow a few days for retailers to get notification first as we want them to be ready for any consumer requests to return the sachets from this batch. As stated below, we feel there is concern among homebrewers regarding this batch so we would like to remove it from the market as we investigate the nature of any problem.

Thanks very much for contacting us. Your support is genuinely appreciated.

Keith Lemcke
Danstar & Lalvin yeast
Click to expand...
 
I don't know about all the other home brewers out there, but this sounds like a wishy-washy answer from Danstar. I have flushed one six gallon batch of beer down the drain because it never fermented, and have another batch that did ferment but with a plus 72 hour lag time and tastes sour. I know that I spend a lot of time reading the published information about the specific qualities of the yeast strain before I buy yeast. I want to be able to count on my yeast to work "as advertised". I really don't care about getting a refund for a $1.25 pack of yest. I want them to acknowledge all the ruined beer, and state how they have found and fixed the problem. Until they do that I will not buy any more yeast from Danstar.
 
It IS a wishy-washy answer, just like it was wishy-washy last year with the perforated packets. As with the recall last year there is no public acknowledgement, no posting on their website and no formal explanation of the issue to the homebrewing community.

Sure, you can argue that its a $2 satchet and shouldn't be a big issue. But its so much more than a $2 item. It is the the one thing that turns our costly ingredients and time into a drinkable product. Were I danstar, I would be all over this like 'white on rice' trying to work it out to keep homebrewers in the loop.

Since the debacle last year I've done several batches with S-05 and I like it alot. I can pitch and go to sleep knowing that the cost of the ingredients and my hard-earned hobby-time are not going to be destroyed by a $2 sachet of crap.
 
For those of you who are looking to replace Notty, and want an alternative to S04 and US05 (which I like a lot), 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
 
Brewed up a Fat Squirrel Clone with Notty last night... at what point do I pitch a packet of S-05 that I have laying around? 36 hours with no drop in gravity?
 
wookiemofo said:
Brewed up a Fat Squirrel Clone with Notty last night... at what point do I pitch a packet of S-05 that I have laying around? 36 hours with no drop in gravity?
Click to expand...

That is a good question. My thought is: if it were me, I would not hesitate to pitch the S-05. I don't want delayed fermentation to allow some other critters to start eating my wort. Someone else will tell you to wait 72 hours...
I think it's really a matter of personal opinion/risk tolerance.
 
RavenChief said:
I don't know about all the other home brewers out there, but this sounds like a wishy-washy answer from Danstar. I have flushed one six gallon batch of beer down the drain because it never fermented, and have another batch that did ferment but with a plus 72 hour lag time and tastes sour. I know that I spend a lot of time reading the published information about the specific qualities of the yeast strain before I buy yeast. I want to be able to count on my yeast to work "as advertised". I really don't care about getting a refund for a $1.25 pack of yest. I want them to acknowledge all the ruined beer, and state how they have found and fixed the problem. Until they do that I will not buy any more yeast from Danstar.
Click to expand...

I agree with your appraisal of Danstar's message and am a little steamed myself with having dumped a lot of work.

I am trying to figure out if the infection was a result of ambient nasties or if it in fact came from the packet itself. If we are all getting the same off-flavour profile it is likely from the packet and I had it developing surprisingly rapid in some of my ferments. I would describe these odours as:
medicinal
band aid
sour
plastic
rubbery

does this sound/smell/taste familiar?
 

Similar threads

Wrendelar
Yeast Substitution for Wyeast 1450 Denny’s Favorite
Replies
13
Views
2K
jsphlynch
jsphlynch
kurds_2408
Yeast Help for DIPA Clone
Replies
3
Views
218
day_trippr
day_trippr
hilljack13
Dry yeast in bulk (fermentis)
Replies
20
Views
1K
bobtheUKbrewer2
B
CWoodard
Potassium Sorbate argument re-visited
Replies
3
Views
2K
bushpilot
B
Kristoffer84
S04 (and others) When is it overpitch with negative consequences?
Replies
12
Views
2K
hotbeer
hotbeer

Latest posts

Back
Top