Add yeast at bottling time?

[ElDuderino]

I've been adding yeast at bottling time to ensure that my beer carbonates in a week. I rehydrate half a pouch of us-05 for ten gallons. I use all different kinds of yeast for primary fermentation but started doing this when I first started brewing a year ago and made an English bitter with london ale yeast that then took three weeks in the bottle to gas up. So adding yeast at bottling was kind of an insurance policy.

Is anyone else doing this regularly? I am going to bottle a California Common on Monday and I was thinking of not adding yeast this time, but I figured may be it would be safer to see what people here think...

I brew all grain. Temperature for bottle conditioning is 68F.

 

[rugman]

i do, but i mostly brew Belgium beers i age & cold condition for a month + in secondary carboys. i have found that the carbonation can be inconsistent without a dose of fresh active yeast & sugar if you are not aging & cold conditionaing before bottling you should be OK with just sugar

 

[lunchbox]

Adding more yeast, from what I understand, really isn't necessary. Amount of sugar, gravity, temperature and other variables can cause carbonation to take less or more time.

Basically, if you have yeast still alive (and you should assuming that you haven't done something crazy), adding more yeast isn't necessary.

 

[passedpawn]

The beers you mention will carb fine without any additional yeast added. I lager beers at 30F then bottle and the yeast still ferments fine.

I do add new yeast to very high alcohol beers ( > 10% ). My experience is that the yeast is just not viable after a month in that much alcohol.

At 68 I'd imagine the beers would be carbed in a week and at their peak in 3 wks. I store my bottles at about 74 and they usually show moderate carbonation in about 4 days.

 

[ElDuderino]

Thanks for all the replies. I will try it again without yeast and just give it time.

 

[Revvy]

You don't need to unless you have been bulk aging a beer for close to a year, or are doing an extremely high gravity beer, like a barleywine where the yeast may be tuckered out.

There is plenty of yeast to do the job normally....All you need is patience and temps above 70 degrees.

Nothing else.

All you need to know about carbing and conditioning can be found here; Of Patience and Bottle Conditioning. With emphasis on the word, "patience."

 

[dvdfnzwbr]

Adding a different Yeast at bottling could be a technique to add a different taste to beer, for the daring.

 

[wonderbread23]

Belgian brewers routinely re-yeast their beer before bottle conditioning. This is typically done on beers that are centrifuged/filtered/cold lagered to remove the strained fermentation yeast. Dry yeast is cheap, so I use it as an insurance policy on beers that are high in alcohol, styles requiring lively carbonation, or beers that have been bulk aged for multiple months. Ideally you can top crop yeast from an active fermentation, but this is rarely a viable option for me, so I like to use US-05 because I want to pick up all of my yeast character from the initial yeast, not the bottle conditioning yeast.

 

[Revvy]

Belgian brewers routinely re-yeast their beer before bottle conditioning. This is typically done on beers that are centrifuged/filtered/cold lagered to remove the strained fermentation yeast. Dry yeast is cheap, so I use it as an insurance policy on beers that are high in alcohol, styles requiring lively carbonation, or beers that have been bulk aged for multiple months. Ideally you can top crop yeast from an active fermentation, but this is rarely a viable option for me, so I like to use US-05 because I want to pick up all of my yeast character from the initial yeast, not the bottle conditioning yeast.

Actually one of the main reasons they often do it, is to hide what they feel is their unique strain from theft. And not all of them do it these days.

There are lots of belgian beers with the primary yeast strain still in the bottles.

There was an interview with David Logsdon of Wyyeast I think on an australian podcast, talking about how White Labs and Wyyeast don't have all the Belgian strains. And can't get them.

And folks have tried to steal them, even from the original breweries. Logsdon was actually quite cagy about how they did acquire some of them.

 

[EvilGnome6]

Actually the main reason they often do it, is to hide what they feel is their unique strain from theft. And not all of them do it these days.

From Brew Like a Monk

Chapter Nine: Bottling

Among Trappists and other breweries that practice refermentation in the bottle, what Westmalle does is fairly standard. Workers centrifuge much of the dead yeast from the wort before bottling begins, then dose it with sugar and fresh yeast before bottling.

As Thiel eloquently described earlier, conditioning takes place in a harsh environment. The yeast left in your beer has already been through a war. It isn't necessary to use the same yeast as in primary. Trappists do that because they always have it ready

Chapter Eleven: Recipes: What works

Bottle-condition, re-yeast when bottle conditioning, and condition to high levels of CO2 in a warm room.

So, no real indication from Hieronymus that Belgian brewers are pitching fresh yeast at bottling time to hide the original strain. I'm not saying that never happens, but it doesn't seem to be the general practice. There are also some notes about pitching strains at bottling time that work better at lower temperatures (like a lager strain) if you don't have a warm room for conditioning.

I brew nothing but Belgians and I've had inconsistent results relying on the yeast left after fermentation for carbonation. The majority were fine but I had too many flat batches (even after 3-6 months of waiting for them to condition).

Currently my practice is to bottle with a dose of Nottingham. It has a forgiving temperature range and flocculates nicely. I just make a 500 mL starter, let it settle, decant 200 mL, pitch 100 mL in the bottling bucket and save the remaining 200 mL in two jelly jars to make future starters. It's easy, cheap and I don't have to wonder whether or not it will carb up or how long it will take. 2-3 weeks and it's done. Period.

 

[Revvy]

So, no real indication from Hieronymus that Belgian brewers are pitching fresh yeast at bottling time to hide the original strain.

Well you know there ARE other people besides Stan, you know....Just because HE didn't state it doesn't mean what he wrote is gospel.

There are other EXPERTS in the brewing field, like the guy actually selling yeast to brewers, and trying to acquire said yeast strains dontja know.

What someone might have said in a book, may only have been part of the story...or simply the limit of the author's understanding of something, at the time he wrote it.

Think John Palmer still believes what he wrote in how to brew about IBUs??? Nope.

Here's a good example John Palmer basically admits that what he wrote about IBU's in How to brew, was essentially "wrong" or at least outdated in light of new science...

Basic Brewing Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:30 PM
John Palmer, author of How to Brew, shares information from a conference that challenged his concept of what defines an International Bitterness Unit (IBU). Click to listen, MP-3

A book is a snapshot of the author's body of knowledge and the "common wisdom" at the time the author wrote the book, which may mean 3 years before it was even published. Even Papazian's book is 30+ years old. The basic knowlege is good, but brewing science and experience has progressed to where some things an author believes or says at that time may no-longer be valid...even to the author...

Hell, Papazian just discovered the joys of rice hulls about 3 years ago. So who says an old dog, can't learn something new?

Knowledge is made up of several puzzle pieces, not everyone has a monopoly on every bit of information on a particular topic, even if they are considered "experts."

Maybe Hieronymus hadn't talked to David Lodgson when he was writing his book, and never heard this part of the story? He may have added that little tidbit to his work.....

Nor did I say it was the only reason they did it. But it is one of the reasons it is done.

 

[jtlawlor]

From Kaisers Alt Recipe: Krauesening

Keep about 2L of the wort, post-boil (freeze in soda bottle)

One day before bottling, defrost the wort you kept, boil it, chill it and pitch a highly flocculant yeast. If you don't have a lager going at this time (like I usually have) use Wyeast 1056 or Nottingham Ale yeast. Let this start fermenting and gently add the fermenting starter w/o its sediment or Kraeusen to the bottling bucket. Add the beer and bottle.

(for 17L (4.5 gal) beer, you should need about 1.5 L (1.5 qt) Kraeusen for bottling. This assumes that the gravity of the Krauesen has not dropped below 9*P (1.040 SG) yet)

Keep the bottles at fermentation temp for about a week and the beer should be ready for drinking.

 

[Buffman]

OP, you may want to follow your regular procedure. I brewed an AG Cali Common, primed without adding yeast, and it has yet to carb up after a whole month in bottles (at room temp). I am considering following your method on my next batch. I will definitely be adding yeast to my barleywine after its long rest in the secondary. Just my $.02.

 

[EvilGnome6]

Well you know there ARE other people besides Stan, you know....Just because HE didn't state it doesn't mean what he wrote is gospel.

There are other EXPERTS in the brewing field, like the guy actually selling yeast to brewers, and trying to acquire said yeast strains dontja know.

Of course I know there are others besides Stan. I never questioned the suggestion that some brewers are repitching with a different strain to hide the original.

Maybe Hieronymus hadn't talked to David Lodgson when he was writing his book, and never heard this part of the story? He may have added that little tidbit to his work.....

Perhaps.

Nor did I say it was the only reason they did it. But it is one of the reasons it is done.

No. You said, "the main reason they often do it". If that was indeed the main reason, I would expect to find some mention of it in BLAM. He says that the reason brewers do it is because the yeast are beat up after fermentation and they want to ensure that it carbonates properly. He even recommends it to the homebrewer.

From personal experience, I have found that Belgian yeasts tend to be inconsistent if you rely on what's left over from fermentation to carbonate. Even you have said that one of your Belgians took six months to carb up.

Pitching fresh yeast at bottling time is easy and cheap insurance against a batch of flat beer. I'm not recommending that everyone needs to start doing it, but I certainly wouldn't discourage someone from doing it, either.

 

[Revvy]

Of course I know there are others besides Stan. I never questioned the suggestion that some brewers are repitching with a different strain to hide the original.



Perhaps.



No. You said, "the main reason they often do it". If that was indeed the main reason, I would expect to find some mention of it in BLAM. He says that the reason brewers do it is because the yeast are beat up after fermentation and they want to ensure that it carbonates properly. He even recommends it to the homebrewer.

From personal experience, I have found that Belgian yeasts tend to be inconsistent if you rely on what's left over from fermentation to carbonate. Even you have said that one of your Belgians took six months to carb up.

Pitching fresh yeast at bottling time is easy and cheap insurance against a batch of flat beer. I'm not recommending that everyone needs to start doing it, but I certainly wouldn't discourage someone from doing it, either.

So I didn't phrase it right, therefore I am wrong???? Semantics, Jeez, I only type a few hundred things on here a day, sometimes my brain and my fingers aren't always in sync....... I left of "one of the, before main...ok I'll go fix it .

Is this better?

Actually one of the main reasons they often do it, is to hide what they feel is their unique strain from theft. And not all of them do it these days.

Or how bout,

Another reason they often do it, is to hide what they feel is their unique strain from theft. And not all of them do it these days.

Feel better?

I mean the words, "Not every brewer does it these days" wasn't good enough for you?

 

[wonderbread23]

While a few breweries pick a second yeast to hide their strain, I'm guessing it is by far minority. Simply put when bottle conditioning on a commercial scale, consistency is your #1 priority. Using a bunch of strung out tired yeast is hardly a means to achieve this. They're most likely going to want to pitch a second yeast with high alcohol tolerance and good flocculation attributes to ensure a consistent product heading to market.

 

[ElDuderino]

OP, you may want to follow your regular procedure. I brewed an AG Cali Common, primed without adding yeast, and it has yet to carb up after a whole month in bottles (at room temp). I am considering following your method on my next batch. I will definitely be adding yeast to my barleywine after its long rest in the secondary. Just my $.02.

Thanks for your post. I was planning on trying bottling without a little dose of yeast, but from what I've been reading I don't really see the point in taking a chance. If I had to wait four weeks I might cry.

 

[ElDuderino]

Currently my practice is to bottle with a dose of Nottingham. It has a forgiving temperature range and flocculates nicely. I just make a 500 mL starter, let it settle, decant 200 mL, pitch 100 mL in the bottling bucket and save the remaining 200 mL in two jelly jars to make future starters. It's easy, cheap and I don't have to wonder whether or not it will carb up or how long it will take. 2-3 weeks and it's done. Period.

I like this method.

 

[Buffman]

Currently my practice is to bottle with a dose of Nottingham. It has a forgiving temperature range and flocculates nicely. I just make a 500 mL starter, let it settle, decant 200 mL, pitch 100 mL in the bottling bucket and save the remaining 200 mL in two jelly jars to make future starters. It's easy, cheap and I don't have to wonder whether or not it will carb up or how long it will take. 2-3 weeks and it's done. Period.

I like this too, but aren't starters detrimental to dry yeast?

 

[EvilGnome6]

I like this too, but aren't starters detrimental to dry yeast?

I make the starter mostly for the sake of propagating it. It's not a dry yeast once it gets wet.

 

[rugman]

Westvleteren pitches fresh yeast

 

[EvilGnome6]

I ran across this article on BYO. Looks like Unibroue and Ommegang also pitch fresh yeast at bottling.

On the Yeast: Guide to Bottle Conditioning

Yeast for bottle conditioning is your next concern, says Randy Thiel, the head brewer at Ommegang. Thiel explains that the yeast used during primary fermentation of strong Belgian brews —above 15° Plato or 1.060 original gravity — gets beat up during fermentation and will be of little value during bottle conditioning. If you condition your beer at least two weeks before bottling, most of this old yeast will drop out of suspension. Then you can add new yeast.

Next, add fresh yeast to your beer. Two notes: First, this step is entirely optional, since the remaining yeast in suspension should do a satisfactory job for bottle conditioning under most circumstances (especially for lower gravity Belgian ales between 1.048 to 1.056 original gravity; these should be fine without new yeast, says Thiel). Stronger, higher-gravity beers will benefit most from new yeast.

At least that gives us a bit of a guideline of when it is appropriate to pitch fresh yeast.