Pasteur dry champagne yeast

[ImperialAlchemist]

Hello all

Brewing an Imperial Stout and pitched scottish ale 1728 that I think may be dead. I have 3 packets of Red Star Pasteur Dry Champagne yeast in the cabinet. My plan is to use my thief to get a sample of the wort for a starter and pitch some of that if nothing happens in the next 48 hrs. Any reason I shouldn't?

 

[Shaneoco1981]

Why do you think your scottish ale yeast is dead?

 

[eastoak]

unclear what's going on here. you think your initial pitch of yeast is dead and you want to pitch champagne yeast into a scottish ale? why do you think your yeast is dead?

 

[malkore]

Let me guess...you didn't make a starter with your smack-pack, so you think its dead?

Starters prove the yeast is viable, but more importantly they ramp you up to the right amount of yeast for pitching, so that when you pitch, you get fermentation immediately.

likely your yeast colony is still waking up and growing, which doesn't produce CO2 yet, so it appears 'idle'.

 

[JDFlow]

I understand the basic misconceptions about yeast health. I read the sticky : ). What I'm asking is, if it is dead would the champagne yeast do? Just asking so I know my next step and can be ready.

 

[frazier]

I have no idea what champagne yeast would do to the wort. Never heard of anyone trying it. Which, to me, is a red flag indicating that it's probably not a good idea. Because if it were a good idea, people would be talking about it, making champagne beer, etc.

Your next step is to wait. After that, you could pitch more 1728.

 

[rcng]

I believe Brooklyn Black Ops uses champagne yeast, I don't know whether it's the whole time or not tho

 

[HibsMax]

I have a recipe for a big beer (Thomas Hardy's Ale clone) that calls for racking to a secondary and pitching in a packet of champagne yeast after 3 weeks. My LHBS recommended that I rack and pitch after 1 week rather than 3 weeks. I followed his advice.

Fast forward 2 weeks, there have been no visible signs of a secondary fermentation and I checked my SG yesterday, still 20 points above the FG. So I pitched in another packet of champagne yeast last night and I'll see what that does.

I'm not saying do what I did, I'm just saying that champagne yeast is sometimes used.

 

[edmanster]

I believe wine and champagne yeast cant eat maltose sugars.. And if pitched on a beer yeast will secrete a chemical that will kill off the beer yeast.. Check me on that!!

 

[ABrewingApe]

I've used champagne yeast. It makes for a very quick ferment and a fairly sweet end result, because the yeast strain is better able to digest fruit sugars (fructose, sucrose, and glucose) and not so good with maltose. It provides a fairly neutral flavor of its own.

I quite like the results on the batches I've made with it, personally, but that doesn't mean you should use it for this. You'd actually like your yeast to contribute some flavor and dry out your wort, no? Try re-pitching the same strain if you're sure the first was a dud.

 

[dcp27]

I'm not saying do what I did, I'm just saying that champagne yeast is sometimes used.

its used for carbonation. its rather useless in beer otherwise

 

[ABrewingApe]

its rather useless in beer otherwise

It isn't, though. It really, really isn't. There are things in wort that champagne yeast can and will ferment. It's not an unusual thing to pop some into a big beer for a secondary fermentation--whether this does what the brewer was intending is another issue, but I've seen it mentioned as a conventional practice for years. There's nothing wrong or even especially weird about using a slightly different kind of yeast in beer.

And, as stated, I've used it in the primary and liked it. It's useful, no doubt about that. It may not be useful for the OP's purposes, but those aren't the only purposes to which it can be put. Don't write it off so easily.

 

[edmanster]

I believe on the packages it does say add to a stuck beer fermentation!!

 

[dcp27]

many things in brewing have incorrectly been mentioned as a conventional practice for years. sure u can use it, but it will not dry out a beer or fully ferment it, thus rather useless beyond carbonation.

 

[ABrewingApe]

many things in brewing have incorrectly been mentioned as a conventional practice for years. sure u can use it, but it will not dry out a beer or fully ferment it, thus rather useless beyond carbonation.

I'm talking about many specific individual people relating that they do it, have done it, and would recommend it. I'm not talking about some imaginary land of hypothetical bookbrews. Champagne yeast gets used. It gets used in the primary. It gets used in the secondary. It gets used in commercial beers.

You don't use it. You wouldn't use it except for carbonation. Groovy. But no, it's not useless. Nowhere near. The OP should have no particular hesitation or unease about using it--provided he wants the results champagne yeast will give. That's what matters.

 

[dcp27]

ok fine, useless isn't the right word to describe it's use in beer fermentation. how about sub-optimal? if underattenuated beer is your thing, go for it.

 

[JDFlow]

Wow, seems to be some varrying opinions here. If my yeast is healthy I just might brew another one with the champagne just to taste the difference. I love imperial stouts and started brewing specifically to learn the craft that creates them and hopefully come up with my own recipe one day. I'm definitely open to trying the uncommon.

 

[HibsMax]

ok fine, useless isn't the right word to describe it's use in beer fermentation. how about sub-optimal? if underattenuated beer is your thing, go for it.

If you were brewing a big beer from a recipe and the recipe instructed you to pitch some champagne yeast after 3 weeks...what would you do instead? I'm not challenging your position but since you seem opposed to it I would like to know what the alternative(s) is / are.

Cheers!

 

[dcp27]

how big are we talking? if you mean around 12% like the Thomas Hardy example you gave, then I wouldn't add anything more as many yeast can do 12% if properly pitched. some can even do up to 15%. i'd consider using champagne yeast for carbonation since it would be quicker, but i havent found a need for it. i'd assume WLP099 was the yeast for that tho since its the TH yeast, and that can handle up to 25% so not sure why you'd need anything more.

if it's under 15% and didn't finish, i'd go with something like WLP001. if its over 15%, WLP099

 

[HibsMax]

Thanks for your feedback. I started off with WLP1084 (Irish Ale) and the recipe calls for champagne yeast after 3 weeks then WLP099 3 days before bottling.

I will check the SG after a few more days and see if I have moved close to the FG.

 

[dcp27]

Interesting that it calls for both, thats a bit baffling to me. WLP099 is a beast so if the champagne doesnt do anything, the 099 should at least get you there. out of curiosity, what's your OG and current SG and was this extract/PM/AG?

 

[HibsMax]

Interesting that it calls for both, thats a bit baffling to me. WLP099 is a beast so if the champagne doesnt do anything, the 099 should at least get you there. out of curiosity, what's your OG and current SG and was this extract/PM/AG?

LOL. Everyone I have spoken to about this recipe (Clone Brews, 2nd Edition) has been baffled by the three yeasts. Especially me since I am only a couple of months into the hobby.

This is an extract recipe.
OG = 1123
SG = 1065 after 8 days
SG = 1050 after 22 days (so only down 15 points in 2 weeks)
EDIT : FG = 1030-1031

 

[dcp27]

weird, 1084 should have gotten you lower and certainly faster. racking it after 1 week definitely didnt help and was awful advice by your LHBS. how much did you pitch originally? I'd consider making a starter of 099 and pitching it and giving it a few weeks vs a few days.

 

[HibsMax]

This beer has been a clusterf*** from the beginning.....which means it will probably be my best tasting brew to date!

I pitched ONE yeast pack (I know I should have made a starter or used two packs but I can't go back now).

Since then I have pitched TWO champagne yeast packs. Of course I will wait before doing anything else but let's say that I am still not close to my FG, would you recommend the 099 starter and pitch it?

Just for clarity, here is what the book says vs. what I did.

BOOK : pitch 1084, wait 3 weeks, rack to secondary and pitch champagne yeast. 3 days before bottling, pitch WLP099.

ME : pitch 1084, wait 1 week, rack to secondary and pitch champagne yeast. Measure SG, not close to FG, no real signs of fermentation, pitch more champagne yeast.

 

[dcp27]

i'd do a highly aerated 099 starter & pitch at high krausen along with some yeast nutrient.

clearly its falling short on the attenuation, but how does it taste? i wouldnt be entirely surprised with that much extract that it could be done this high

 

[ImperialAlchemist]

I wonder what adding the champagne yeast along with the 1084 is going to do. I pitched 2 1084's in a 3 gallon.

 

[bighorn_brew]

Ten years agov I used champagne yeast in a barley wine, the one and only yeast I pitched on that particular beer.
Initially after full carbing and for about six months after it was winey and resembled vicks cough syrup (overstatement but you get the idea), put it away for a few more months and it transformed into a magical elixer. And after a year was amazing amazing stuff. If only I still had some....in fact I am planning on trying another secondary ferment with champagne yeast in the near future with ALOT more brewing background under my belt.....I would say pitch it, but start it off or proof the champagne yeast in a small starter otherwise it may stall or not take off.

 

[ImperialAlchemist]

Another question: once fermentation ends if your target fg is way off is it ok to pitch more yeast for a second fermentation or would the alcohol just kill it?