yeah
i wrote about the shut-down in the Mecca Grade thread (didn't want to clog up this thread with regional malting biz chatter...)
Warm Fermented Lager Thread
- Thread starter applescrap
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
i wrote about the shut-down in the Mecca Grade thread (didn't want to clog up this thread with regional malting biz chatter...)
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Hey all, just had a go at a pilsner with 34/70, pitched at 16c then freerise to 21 after day 5. Let it mature till day 10 then proceeded to start cold crashing.
I'm 1 day post cold crashing now and took a sample. The sample smells like cider or wheat beer.
Was curious to know if this is cause the sample is still yeasty?
How many days does 34/70 usually need to clear up? I've got it sitting at -1 currently.
Cheers
I'm 1 day post cold crashing now and took a sample. The sample smells like cider or wheat beer.
Was curious to know if this is cause the sample is still yeasty?
How many days does 34/70 usually need to clear up? I've got it sitting at -1 currently.
Cheers
thehaze
Well-Known Member
Batch size and pitch rate? It sounds like you underpitched and coupled with the warmer fermentation, resulted in acetaldehyde, which is the smell you got from the sample. 34/70 is pretty fast on all fronts, but I wouldn't taste a lager before 30 days ( includes fermentation time ).
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
5 gallons 2 packs plus added nutrient, should be more then enough given it's fermented warm you get more growth.
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
I'm pretty sure it's acetyldehyde, green apple cider comes to mind. Guess 9 days is not enough for 34/70 to ferment and clean up completely, will see how this develop from here while it's crashing.
If it's still 30 days from grain to glass with the warm ferment, im not sure what the benefits are from fermenting warmer.
If it's still 30 days from grain to glass with the warm ferment, im not sure what the benefits are from fermenting warmer.
i don't see the main benefit of WF lagers as being speed of grain-to-glass, but i could see it being important for some and if that's the case i'd expect you to be able to shave a few days off. 28 vs. 30 days isn't going to make or break my brewing, but YMMV (besides, i tend to lager much longer, so it would be 54 vs. 56 days or more...)
for me, benefit = you don't need to keep it cold, and everything that comes with that: easier/faster chilling, don't need to buy a dedicated fridge, lower electricity consumption, space not taken up by fridge, etc.
i have a cool basement, so for ales and WF lagers i only need heating. i don't have a fermentation fridge. if you ferment all your beers in a fridge, then yeah - not a whole lot of benefit, other than requiring less electricity.
also, "don't drink for at least 30 days" is one person's opinion which will be very dependent on that person's process. using things like gelatin can greatly decrease that, IMO.
That's why it is great having about 5-6 kegs in the pipeline............! Let it lager..............!
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2021
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 575
I read this as you saying you held it at 16C until day 5 and then let it freerise to 21C starting on day 5. Is that right? If so, from my experience I wouldn't see an issue with those times and temps. When following a similar schedule with 34/70 the beer is usually drinking pretty clean with just the normal bready/yeastyness by day 7-10. We may not be able to diagnose what happened here, but I'd give it at least another try before discounting WF lagers.
What you're describing does sound more like acetaldehyde than esters to me. It's impossible to diagnose from afar, of course. If I am reading this wrong and you let it freerise from day 1 then it could be esters, though. I've never done that so it's a guess. If you can share it with some friends that might help you confirm. Just one thought to consider. Otherwise, maybe it's something else in your process and this was just the unlucky batch
Agreed with Sweetcell here. You'll have a faster ferment and cleanup with a WF lager but otherwise I wouldn't see it speeding up the grain to glass much more than that. Opinions on how long to lager can vary pretty widely (I lager on the long side too) but I would simply say to lager a WF pilsner just as long as you would lager any other pilsner you brew. I would at least start there if you want a similar end result.
I also agree that not touching a lager for 30 days is going to depend on that person's process and palate. @thehaze, for the record I am not disagreeing with you
I don't touch my lagers for 8 weeks, but I know some people here drink them as soon as they're clear and they love them. I would think the OP can get a clean ferment from 34/70 and use finings to get it clear in maybe two weeks total from brew day. If they love the taste and are happy with that then who am I to argue 
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Yes that was exactly my process, Im quiet sure it's acetyldehyde, the first thing that hits me when smelling it is apple cider.I read this as you saying you held it at 16C until day 5 and then let it freerise to 21C starting on day 5. Is that right? If so, from my experience I wouldn't see an issue with those times and temps. When following a similar schedule with 34/70 the beer is usually drinking pretty clean with just the normal bready/yeastyness by day 7-10. We may not be able to diagnose what happened here, but I'd give it at least another try before discounting WF lagers.
What you're describing does sound more like acetaldehyde than esters to me. It's impossible to diagnose from afar, of course. If I am reading this wrong and you let it freerise from day 1 then it could be esters, though. I've never done that so it's a guess. If you can share it with some friends that might help you confirm. Just one thought to consider. Otherwise, maybe it's something else in your process and this was just the unlucky batch
Agreed with Sweetcell here. You'll have a faster ferment and cleanup with a WF lager but otherwise I wouldn't see it speeding up the grain to glass much more than that. Opinions on how long to lager can vary pretty widely (I lager on the long side too) but I would simply say to lager a WF pilsner just as long as you would lager any other pilsner you brew. I would at least start there if you want a similar end result.
I also agree that not touching a lager for 30 days is going to depend on that person's process and palate. @thehaze, for the record I am not disagreeing with you
Also the batch was calculated to finish at 1.008fg with 77% attenuation. I only got down to 1.012 which seems pretty high.
I did spund from day 3 when bubbles started to slow, so perhaps the spunding has keps some of the unwanted aroma's in the beer? Slowed down the fermentation process?
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
I'm on a production schedule here and i'm aiming to package my beers in 14 days so I can free fermenter space for the next batch.
I will test the gelatin fining out of curiosity to see how much of the character i'm getting is yeast.
Shenanigans
Well-Known Member
I haven't done any WF lagers yet but my next brew I want to do a warm fermented bockbier with WLP833.
However, I'm guessing another advantage of WF is you don't need as much yeast to start off with so you can have a starter ready quicker with the required amount of yeast.
However, I'm guessing another advantage of WF is you don't need as much yeast to start off with so you can have a starter ready quicker with the required amount of yeast.
Last edited:
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
So I got 4 kegs sitting with acetyldehyde warm lager currently crashing.
I've added gelatin to 1 keg and I've raised the temperature to 4c, perhaps a bit higher?
I will give these beers a week to see how they develop.
I've added gelatin to 1 keg and I've raised the temperature to 4c, perhaps a bit higher?
I will give these beers a week to see how they develop.
I seriously doubt you have acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde comes from an underpitch of very unhealthy unhappy yeast. This off-flavor is rare and over-hyped IMO. More likely with a warm lager fermentation you have an apple ester. Apple, or pear, esters, are fairly common in lagers, believe it or not, though it is usually at a very low level so as not to distract. In any case, acetaldehyde doesn’t resemble apple so much as it does raw pumpkin or latex paint. Taste again and see if you can detect one of those things instead. If not, it's probably an ester.
If you really have acetaldehyde, then be aware that this is a chemical that evaporates at 21C. So conditioning much warmer might improve it over time.
However, as I said above, I really don’t think this is your issue.
If you have an apple or pear ester, it’s permanent. No amount of conditioning will get rid of it. But you could attempt to cover it up with more hops or something like that. Or consider adding apple juice or concentrate on purpose to turn this batch into a graf (which ain't such a terrible thing).
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Ok thanks good to know, will keep track and report back whats going on here.
Its quiet a strong ester then
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2021
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 575
Okay, crap. Now I have a question. Not trying to stray off topic. I think this could help beervoid be sure of what they are dealing with here.
I'm pretty familiar with what I think is an ester profile that I can pick up to a varying degree in some lagers. I always get that as more of a prominent fruity apple/pear flavor and then rose flavor in the background. I have picked that flavor up and discussed it with others that seem to agree that it's esters. It's usually faint and not unpleasant at those low levels. Not saying I'm correct, but there you go. It's different than what I have always thought of as acetaldehyde, though.
A group I'm in just did an off flavor sensory a couple weeks ago and the acetaldehyde flavor came across to me as oxidized cider. Maybe a touch acetic. We also sampled some competition entries recently and multiple people brought up acetaldehyde for a couple different beers. Those two beers had a very similar flavor to me as the acetaldehyde off flavor sample. Not everybody tasting the entries was at the off flavor sensory but there was some cross-pollination. I also know some people described the acetaldehyde off flavor sample as pumpkin guts. I kept my mouth shut and let others talk first when tasting the competition entries. Acetaldehyde came up and was matched with the oxidized apples descriptor.
So, now I'm wondering... Could this be a difference in palates?
Acetaldehyde is not a regular flavor I come across and so I'm not as confident with it. I've never got pumpkin, but I hear that pretty often. @dmtaylor, you seem to have more experience here. I am curious what you and others have to say. @beervoid, sorry if I'm muddying the waters. Not trying to say it's acetaldehyde or lead you astray. Just trying to think it out.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2021
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 575
Yeah, I would say that's another advantage. I still run my WFs colder than the typical ale ferment so I pitch a little heavier than I would an ale. Still pretty short of what I'm pitching at 45-50F, though...
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
I've never had this off flavor before in any beer.
What I can say is that I always ferment 4 kegs at the time so it would very strange if it was an infections, I had 4 kegs with the same "problem".
I would be curiois to know what it actually is.
On the nose is green apple/pear and smells sourish as well but ph is in range 4.3.
Its def not bad to drink, but its got way too much fruity things going on to be a clean beer.
What stands out to me is the low attenuation 1.012, og of the beer was 1.046, so somehow I got a sluggish ferment even though at day 3 there where almost no bubbles anymore and I let it freerise to finish off.
Having said that, I was wondering if anyone else tasted their lagers on day 10, perhaps its just the yeast in suspension? I hope so.
I will know more in a day or so when one keg which was gelatin fined will be sampled.
It's been so long since I have noted acetaldehyde in any beer. It is probably easier for me to specify what it does NOT taste like, than what it does taste like. I'm pretty sure I know what esters taste like -- somewhere between red apple and pear is a common one. If I can think to myself: "does this maybe taste like pear?" and the answer is "yes" (which it always has been in the past few years), then I know it's an ester. Pear is a very common one, mostly in Belgians, but really in a lot of beers. If the answer to that same question is instead a definite "no", then the next question I would ask is: "does it taste like RED apple? or is it closer to latex paint?". That's how I split these up. It's been a long time since I tasted anything close to latex or pumpkin in any beer, but it HAS happened.
Rose character is something else entirely. Personally I might describe rose character as "perfumy" or "toilet-paper scent", which for me is a major turn-off. It's an ester, but it's not the same as apple or pear. I don't associate these together usually.
Overall, my thinking is that 9 times out of 10, when judges accuse a beer of containing acetaldehyde, they've actually probably been misled by the common "green apple" descriptor.... the beer might indeed taste like apple, but is it really "green" apple? or "red" apple? or something else entirely?? Based on good healthy pitching rates being most common these days, versus how we might have brewed ~20 years ago, what we're picking up today is actually much more likely an ester than acetaldehyde. You really have to treat your yeast in a pretty rotten fashion for it to not clean up the acetaldehyde below detectable taste threshold. I got a terrible acetaldehyde in one of my homebrews one time, this was more than 20 years ago. I was pretty sure that it was due to my major underpitch of nearly dead yeast without a starter, so it was my own fault. From then on, I pitched at a higher rate, and never experienced a similar problem again, as far as I know.
As for "oxidized cider", I think I know from experience what that tastes like... somewhere between caramel and Cheerios. Those problems are not the same as what I would expect from acetaldehyde.
And "oxidized apples"... to me that just means "rotten apples". I know what those are like as well. That ain't a good descriptor for acetaldehyde either. Rotten apples would however likely contain acetic acid, among other nasty solventy compounds including acetone. If picking up vinegar at all, consider that... it might really be vinegar, but would not necessarily have anything to do with apples or acetaldehyde.
There may be differences in palates. But more importantly, I think there are major differences in experience and education. Get 20 different judges to define acetaldehyde, and you might only get 4 or 5 different answers... but consider the possibility that maybe none of these descriptors are quite right for most of us or even all of us! Even for those who've been through an off-flavor tasting panel (I have been, about a decade ago), it's just been too long for many of us, I think, to know for sure what acetaldehyde really smells & tastes like, it's too uncommon today, or it's just not THAT off-putting of a flavor that many of us might notice?! I should get me a sample of the actual chemical again sometime to imprint it more firmly into my taste memory, because it's been probably 20 years since I've picked it up to where I would actually document it on somebody's score sheet. And I think anyone who documents this might be mistaking ester for it, I truly believe this. It was a bigger problem, but this was a long long time ago. We pitch better yeast at better rates now, generally.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 7,752
- Reaction score
- 14,856
Let me just jump in here to say “wow”.
Carry on
Carry on
Slow day at work.
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
The floral scents tend to be terpenols not esters - geraniol is the classic one - which generally come from hops and spices, but you may get yeast biotransforming one into another.
I have had a classic appley acetaldehyde from a commercial cask which had been rushed to a beer festival, but by day 3 it was fine.
A good place to find small-chain esters showing up as a sign of immaturity is in Beaujolais Nouveau when it is first released - I still remember one I had decades ago that was just pure pear drop (ie ethyl acetate, about as small an ester as you can get). Beaujolais Nouveau is an interesting example as it's rushed out in November, it's then considered to "go to sleep" for a few months and then gets much better in the spring.
I stand corrected, thank you.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2021
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 575
Yeah, I suppose I asked for that...
I feel like it's appropriate that I read through this whole thing once, then a second time, then found myself at the bottom of the message reading your signature that says...
"The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots."
I'd like to think I didn't just realize I'm an idiot, but it's good to be reminded from time to time...
Truly, thanks for the descriptions! I think I'm on board with those same ester flavors. Pear and red apple. I probably need to try harder to think about the kind of apple and I now also realize I haven't eaten a pear in a good while. Still thrown off by the latex paint and pumpkin description because I never got that at all with the off-flavor panel. The best I can give is that same oxidized cider, which you described both weirdly but also very accurately. I'm going to redo that panel when I get a chance and spend more time with that acetaldehyde flavor to see if I can distinguish and describe it better.
I'm going to leave the "oxidized apples" descriptor alone because that one is coming from other people, and the specific wording is also subject to my crappy memory.
I definitely assume whatever I am getting here is something separate/different from the typical apple/pear. It hits separate and later and muuuuch fainter. Often I don't get it and rarely does anyone else agree. If it's not a figment of my imagination then maybe it's my shortcomings in describing it, because "perfumy" or "toilet-paper scent" make sense but are not what I would use to describe what I am getting. I'm thinking something more like the floral notes you get in some apples, like Envy or Ambrosia. More appealing than toilet paper, at least. @Northern_Brewer, thanks for the extra info. These beers aren't spiced or heavily hopped. I've gotten what I assume is strong geraniol with certain hops but I don't know if this is the same. I'll be paying more attention in the future to see if I can connect them.
Yeah..very, very fair. All the more reason to work on my specific training/education with the one palate I've got. Again, I appreciate the input!
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 7,752
- Reaction score
- 14,856
The Beaujolais Nouveau example is a really good one; my brother in law would always have some for Thanksgiving and some years were straight pear juice. By Christmas time it mellowed considerably.
Anti-Hoppist
Active Member
I'd like to try a warm fermented lager, yeast options right now are S23 (but sounds too ester-y from what I read), classic 34/70, MJ'S M76 (which some claim is 34/70, some swear It's not) and the new Novalager (which Is kinda expensive I must say).
Which one would you choose for a malt-forward beer?
Also, in summer here fermentation temperatures may very well get "Belgian"...
Which one would you choose for a malt-forward beer?
Also, in summer here fermentation temperatures may very well get "Belgian"...
I you can get it, use Mangrove Jack California Lager. If not, use 3470, that is the one that always works, hard to go wrong with that one.
Red over White
Well-Known Member
Kunze (4.4.3.1) talks about bunging pressure balancing out an increase in temperature (0.16 bar balances out a 1K increase in average temperature). I have found that this works quite well. If you ferment in a keg or other pressure capable vessel you can use any of those yeasts for a really clean lager fermented in the 60s and possibly 70s (I have not gone that high). S-23 really is a very balanced yeast under these conditions, has no fruity esters and produces fantastic light lagers.
Anti-Hoppist
Active Member
I read various reports online about MJ CL and It seems not very reliable, have you used It consinstently?
Sometimes I did and someone's I did not.I guess the answer would be no then. I think you have to be very aware of the amount of yeast you pitch with this one. One pack might be not enough for a standard gravity standard batch size. Better use two packs.
.... Or just go with 3470.
TomSellers
Active Member
If you only had one pack of MJ Lager Yeast, but wanted some more, I wonder what would happen if you added a few grams of SAF-05 instead?
You mean us05? You probably loose the lager characteristic.
TomSellers
Active Member
Sorry, my bad, should have said Safale T-58.
I guess the question boils down to, if you mix a bottom fermenting yeast, with a top fermenting yeast with a respective ratio of 5:2 under pressure, will a conflict result with one outcompeting the other, or will they work synergistically. I posed this question to AI and it suggested that the influence of fermenting under pressure may help equalize the synergy of the two.
Red over White
Well-Known Member
I have pitched 50/50 S23 and Nottingham a number of times and nobody could tell the difference between the S23 only beer made from identical wort. While certainly not close to your example, maybe another reference point about mixing lager and ale yeast.
Pressure inhibits yeast expression so both would be rather clean anyway. My guess is, at the given ratio, you probably couldn't tell that there's some us05 inside.
However, t58 seems to be phenolic so you could probably taste that one.
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
Quick update, as the 34/70 beer is clearing up the strong esters are subsiding, but the beer has a definite wheat beer note to it.
Even gelatin fining did take a while to get this to clear, 34/70 is not a great flocculator. Anyone know if Novalager fares better?
The previous brew I did in these kegs was a wheat beer. I clean it with oxyclean and sanitize after, I find it hard to believe there was any flavor/aroma transfer, but perhaps people here have a different view?
Next up I will try out the novalager and throw some more oldschool hops in there to see if I get better results.
Even gelatin fining did take a while to get this to clear, 34/70 is not a great flocculator. Anyone know if Novalager fares better?
The previous brew I did in these kegs was a wheat beer. I clean it with oxyclean and sanitize after, I find it hard to believe there was any flavor/aroma transfer, but perhaps people here have a different view?
Next up I will try out the novalager and throw some more oldschool hops in there to see if I get better results.
Last edited:
3470 is clean and doesn't show any phenolic character. So if you got clove, your got an infection. Either a wild one or from the yeast of your previous beer.
Novalager is a great WF lager yeast; their major selling point is absolutely NO sulfur production, and low esters on either end of the temperature range. However, the flocculation isn't terrific. Lallemand lists the flocculation as moderate. I've kegged two batches using it so far; the first had gelatin added at kegging, the second did not (because I forgot). The first one didn't become what I would call clear for at least 12 days in the keg. The second one was kegged on 4/1, has been lagering ever since, and is still hazy. Unless a beer is going to competition, I don't really care if I can read a phone book through it, but I do like to see a bright clear pretty beer in my glass.
beervoid
Hophead & Pellet Rubber
I found that the moment it cleared up it also tasted much better, the yeast in suspension doesnt do the beer a favor imho.
InspectorJon
Well-Known Member
What is this thing you call a phone book? Perhaps it is like a catalog showing all the thousands of different phones available...
