Another Nottingham thread

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

stevedasleeve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
88
Location
Betelgeuse
Hello all. Why another thread on dud Nottingham packets? The other one in here is closed and I really believe it is useful to let other brewers know of the problems as well as keep a public record of this. One reason Lallemand is taking steps to fix this is due to this, and I think that is a good thing.

My short history is that I had problems with on batch of Nottingham yeast, contacted Lallemand, and after quite a bit of back and forth got sent replacement packets.

I have used 2 of these, last week and yesterday - I brew once a week or so generally. Both exhibited the exact same issues I, and many others, have experienced in other batches: After warming the yeast to room temperature and hydrating with boiled water at the appropriate temperature, the yeast quickly sank and stayed there - no creaming, no signs of activity, looking very much like pond water with mud on the bottom!

Having seen this before I hydrated some S-04 and after it creamed up and smelled good, like healthy yeast, I pitched that. The dud Nottingham I made a starter with to see what would happen. 3 days and a little bubbling, no active fermentation, no krausen. I tossed it. IMHO 3 days is too long, there are too many possibilities for contamination if I let my beer sit for that long.

Yesterday I had the same experience. I was half hoping I'd get Nottingham to do its thing, I added a little cooled wort to coax it along. 60 mins later, no change, pond water again so I prepared my S-04 and pitched it.

Someone asked why bother with Nottingham at all after so many bad experiences. Well actually I have had many many *great* experiences! Just not the last 4 of 5 times! Prior to this 90% of my beer was fermented with Nottingham. It is a great yeast! For the beer I make it is ideal: it ferments well at a wide temperature range - around 63-64 it is very clean, you don't need to aerate it, you can brew on a whim without making a starter, it attenuates all the way down if you mash at lower temps - up to 89% in my experience. It is also really flocculant so it is easier to get clear beer. It is inexpensive and just super convenient. S-04 is good, my second choice but it is more fruity and so for some beers I don't like it. Then I go to S-05 but it is less flocculant. Both S-04 and S-05 are, now, twice as expensive as Nottingham.

These are some of reasons I want Lallemand to fix this rather than just throw my hands up and switch to something else.

I suspect, like in the other thread, that there will be a bunch of posts from brewers who think people who had problems are just not doing things right. If you sift through the threads though and you'll find that it is not the case for the vast majority. I bet there will also be some nastiness.

It is still worth keeping the discussion going though IMO. I think Lallemand will figure it out and we can go back to using that yeast and making good beer, but for that to happen they need to know, to be aware at how many people are suddenly experiencing problems with Nottingham yeast when their process has not changed.

The last two packets that were bad I used were both:

Lot 1080472V, Exp. 07 2012

I have, I think 14 more of these (!) so for the next 14 brew days I will try one and have some backup yeast ready. I got a bunch of S-04 and S-05 also right after I heard there was to be a big price increase so I am good to go for most of next year brewing around 3 times a month.

So so far for me that is a 100% fail rate for Lot 1080472V.

Cheers!
Steve
 

RavenChief

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
108
Reaction score
2
Location
Dover
So the bad yeast issue extends beyond the December 2011 lot...
 

LagerLover24

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Location
Tacoma
Same issues here, and I know it's not my process because I have zero problems with any other yeast. I'm done with nottingham.
 

bja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
186
Location
Pittsburgh
I have used 2 of these, last week and yesterday - I brew once a week or so generally. Both exhibited the exact same issues I, and many others, have experienced in other batches: After warming the yeast to room temperature and hydrating with boiled water at the appropriate temperature, the yeast quickly sank and stayed there - no creaming, no signs of activity, looking very much like pond water with mud on the bottom!
Steve
Are you saying that the replacements they sent you are bad?

Did you contact them and let them know you're still having problems? Or are you hoping they'll somehow see this post?
 

Clann

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
18
Location
Edmonton Ky
I must be a lucky one. brewed a bitter with notty and had active fermentation in 12 hours. I got it from lhbs. BTW it ripped thru my bitter and it went down to 1.008 :D I was so pleased that I went ahead and washed the yeast. Now I have liquid notty that I know is good yeast. :ban:
Just thought I would share a good notty story for once.

Sorry about the hijack.
 
OP
stevedasleeve

stevedasleeve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
88
Location
Betelgeuse
Are you saying that the replacements they sent you are bad?

Did you contact them and let them know you're still having problems? Or are you hoping they'll somehow see this post?
Yes the replacements were bad - I received 10, I have used two. Yes I am in communication with Lallemand in Canada. I have been sent some #1089001V to try.

My contact suggested that the long time it took for the yeast to arrive (3-4 weeks IIRC) may have effected them. I am not so sure but I'll try the new ones when they arrive and have some S-04 or S-05 handy.

Steve
 

CrookedTail

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
580
Reaction score
39
Location
Patchogue
Am I the only one whose never had a problem with Nottingham? It's one of my favorite strains.
 

kgfitz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
133
Reaction score
1
Location
levittown, pa
where do you find the lot number and experation date? i have a nottingham pack as a back up ( if my starter is not up to par ) and i just looked at it. there is a place on the back near the bar code that says batch and exp. date but both are blank. i would like to use the yeast tomarrow to see if it changes the tast of the beer should i be worried and buy differnt yeast or make a starter?
 

Jawbox0

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
475
Reaction score
31
Location
Debary
I've started to wash Nottingham as well from any good batch. I love this yeast, and now I'm just paranoid about it from the packet. So far though, I've not had a bad one.
 

ILuvIPA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
243
Reaction score
6
Location
O-hi-O
Am I the only one whose never had a problem with Nottingham? It's one of my favorite strains.
Nope. I'm brewing every weekend and no problems here. I'm currently on the lot mentioned in this thread (Lot 1080472V, Exp. 07 2012) Three packs have all been good, 4 more in the fridge. I've used a lot of Notty this year and have been lucky so far.
 

Walker

I use secondaries. :p
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
10,982
Reaction score
114
Location
Cary
seriously? we are discussing this again?

Some people have had problems and some people have not. There are too many people who HAVE had problems to deny there is a problem. This has happened with multiple lots of the stuff.

What more could we possibly have to discuss on this matter?
 

wildwest450

Banned
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
8,978
Reaction score
189
seriously? we are discussing this again?

Some people have had problems and some people have not. There are too many people who HAVE had problems to deny there is a problem. This has happened with multiple lots of the stuff.

What more could we possibly have to discuss on this matter?
+1, old and tired
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
14,614
Reaction score
3,599
I think the post is helpful. I'm a big notty fan too, it's been my favorite. I ended up with some really slow (48hr+) starts on the last few packets, so I was waiting to get more from a new batch. Seeing that there is a problem with the new batch, I now know to hold off on it as well.
 

Conehead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
250
Reaction score
67
Location
Cavan
I just received 6 packets of Nottingham in the mail. The packets are different from previous ones. I already used some and the fermentation started normally. I didn't rehydrate, just tossed it in. Lag time was usual for me 8 - 10 hours. The retailer said he had to wait longer than usual for a supply to come in.
 

SteveM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
15
Location
Philadelphia area
My LHBS isn't selling any. He expects it back in stock eventually but he said that everything was recalled.
 
OP
stevedasleeve

stevedasleeve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
88
Location
Betelgeuse
So Brewdouche-RuBrew, jaba, Newbeerguy, wildwest450, and Walker, what is your point? And why are you even bothering to read this? If it is a waste of your time surely you are seriously wasting your time writing a response? And mine, and others who are genuinely interested.

For brewers who use Nottingham this can be a useful source of lot numbers that don't work. If you you use Nottingham and have not had any problems then I suspect you will go back and search for the very information this and other similar threads expose when you do have problems.

If you don't use Nottingham then why on earth are you polluting this thread?

Steve da sleeve
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
34,909
Reaction score
14,232
Location
☀️ Clearwater, FL ☀️
So Brewdouche-RuBrew, jaba, Newbeerguy, wildwest450, and Walker, what is your point? And why are you even bothering to read this? If it is a waste of your time surely you are seriously wasting your time writing a response? And mine, and others who are genuinely interested.

For brewers who use Nottingham this can be a useful source of lot numbers that don't work. If you you use Nottingham and have not had any problems then I suspect you will go back and search for the very information this and other similar threads expose when you do have problems.

If you don't use Nottingham then why on earth are you polluting this thread?

Steve da sleeve
I agree. If there is a problem with a new lot number, it would be useful to post here.

I will never touch the stuff again, so I don't have a (dead) horse in the race.
 

Beer604

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Location
vancouver
This is an important subject, as many new brewers start with this yeast.
I wish I had read this discussion before I dumped a batch because this yeast.
I brew in the evening and had no way to get yeast in the following days,
so i pitched it anyways. I also learned the importance of having a backup
pack of yeast ready! :(
I went back to the HBS store and the guy just shrugged it off and said
that I killed the yeast by pitching it at too high temperature (following instructions on packet !!!).
That is wasted $30 + my time.
If I knew two months ago what I know now, I would have not let it go that easy.

Thanks for bringing up this issue again.
 

superG

New Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Winnipeg Manitoba
I've also had problems with the Nottingham yeast - but I wonder if mistreatment of the yeast during transport is the problem or part of the problem. Some homebrewers have problems with notty, some don't, even with yeast packets with the same lot number, which indicates something is causing the yeast to become inactive, or die completely.
I know my LHBS does not always treat yeast and clarifying agents properly; and I'm sure the truck driver carrying the homebrew supplies from the distributor to the LHBS doesn't care if the load gets cooked in the hot summer sun or frozen during the winter (I'm in Canada and it gets COLD) so that could contribute to the dead notty packets we've used.

I just pitched 2 packets and had the dead yeast on the bottom of the re-hydrating cup, as stevedasleeve noted in the first post, but DID get fermentation after 3 whole days of no activity - will ferment to completion to see how it turns out though, as an experiment, if nothing else - don't want my $30 to go for nothing!
But I did ferment a batch or two during the summer with both Nottingham and Windsor with great success, so it can't just be Lallemand's problem with dead yeast packets, unless they really are having intermittent trouble with quality control.

I'm half-convinced transportation stress is killing our notty yeast before it hits the LHBS fridge and I will continue to use Nottingham, but will test in 1-gallon batches to monitor ongoing behaviour and talk to the LBHS owner to inquire about transportation and storage.

Let's help each other figure this out, so we can continue to use the Nottingham yeast - it really is great (when it works :p)

superG
 

Beer604

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Location
vancouver
I just pitched 2 packets and had the dead yeast on the bottom of the re-hydrating cup, as stevedasleeve noted in the first post, but DID get fermentation after 3 whole days of no activity - will ferment to completion to see how it turns out though, as an experiment, if nothing else - don't want my $30 to go for nothing!
superG
I did the same thing as you but dumped after finishing fermenting, the yeast just didn't look healthy.

But I did ferment a batch or two during the summer with both Nottingham and Windsor with great success, so it can't just be Lallemand's problem with dead yeast packets, unless they really are having intermittent trouble with quality control.superG
That is exactly the point, people using this yeast for a long time without any problems. Now all of the sudden many experienced brewers having the same problem.superG[/QUOTE]

I'm half-convinced transportation stress is killing our notty yeast before it hits the LHBS fridge and I will continue to use Nottingham, but will test in 1-gallon batches to monitor ongoing behaviour and talk to the LBHS owner to inquire about transportation and storage.
superG
Unless they dramatically changed they shipping methods, and the HBS all over the continent changed they storage methods, I can't see that being the problem.
The only logical conclusion to me is that there is some sort of problem at the production site.
 

Brewdouche-RuBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
576
Reaction score
7
Location
California, Pennsylvania
So Brewdouche-RuBrew, ...
what is your point?
And why are you even bothering to read this?
If it is a waste of your time surely you are seriously wasting your time writing a response? ...If you don't use Nottingham then why on earth are you polluting this thread?
Steve da sleeve
BLA BLA BLABIDY BLA:ban: wa wa wa:fro:

I was just joining in on the fun Mr. SeriousPants:mad:

I am reading this to see if folks are still having problems.

I use Notty as my house yeast, but I acid wash and reuse 7 generations so I havnt had the same problems... Only because I havn't had to use new packs yet, but when I do I'll perform a starter.

So nany nany phoo phoo on you:rolleyes:
 

superG

New Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Winnipeg Manitoba
@Beer604
I have to concur with your conclusion: problem must be with production, cuz there's no way everyone would have the same transport problem at the same time.
Hadn't thought it like that! d'oh! :(
 

Beer604

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Location
vancouver
In a few days I will be brewing NCBeernuts Deception Stout.
I will be picking up a few extra packs of This yeast and do a small
test just to see if I get the problem again.
 

smata67

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
960
Reaction score
358
Location
North Georgia-- Squidbilly Country!
I just pitched Notty into a Bee Cave Haus Pale Ale today. It is same lot, 1080472V dated 07 2012. I rehydrated as described. Yeast fell to the bottom, no foaming. It smelled ok. I pitched the cloudy solution anyway. I had the same behavior at the same time the other batch (12/2011) caused a stir about 3 months ago, though it appears I may have gotten some foaming then. On that batch, I saw a bit of bubbling in my trap after 36 hours and then nothing. Batch fermented fine and I'm finishing it off. I'll keep an eye on this one, but I'm not worried. This yeast acts a bit different than others, but seems to do the job.
 

Conehead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
250
Reaction score
67
Location
Cavan
I have the same lot number. 1080472V 07 2012. Let us know how it turns out. I am going to use US-05 for my next batch. I did read that Danstar says to use 100 grams of yeast to 100 litres of wort. That is twice what Safale says to use with US-05. That tells me that Notty doesn't work as good as it used to.
 

Brewdouche-RuBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
576
Reaction score
7
Location
California, Pennsylvania
I have notty in my fridge.

I have notty in the pot.

I like Nottingham a lot.

I have had problems none.

No, No, Not a single one.

Do you? Did you? Yes or no?

Can you take a joke? No! Go blow!

I did not, do not have a problem.

If I did Im sure HBTcan help solve'em

Now please move on.

Please be done.

Gone now surely is the fun.
 
OP
stevedasleeve

stevedasleeve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
88
Location
Betelgeuse
I have notty in my fridge.
What an irritant. Don't you have something else to do?

I contacted Lallemand about the last bad lot number above and received replacement sachets of Lot 1089001V, Exp 10/2012. I brewed today and hydrated one of these and it creamed up nicely and smelled good so I pitched it. I am somewhat relieved, seems like this bunch might be back to normal. I will post back in 3 weeks or so when this is done but I suspect it is a good lot.

Cheers!
Steve da sleeve
 
OP
stevedasleeve

stevedasleeve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
88
Location
Betelgeuse
Quick update: Lot 1089001V, Exp 10/2012 is fine. Normal (quick start/vigorous) fermentation for Nottingham.
 

Brewdouche-RuBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
576
Reaction score
7
Location
California, Pennsylvania
What an irritant. Don't you have something else to do?:ban:

I contacted Lallemand :mad:about the last bad lot number :mad:above and received replacement sachets of Lot 1089001V:confused:, Exp 10/2012. I brewed today and hydrated one of these and it creamed:cross: up nicely and smelled good so I pitched it. I am somewhat relieved, seems like this bunch might be back to normal. I will post back in 3 :mad:weeks or so when this is done:mad: but I suspect it is a good lot:eek:.

Cheers!<<:rockin:
Steve da sleeve
No. I dont have anything better to do. Thanks for asking.

Dude!!! Relax the issue is serious. Your being heard, and taken seriously. Chill.

I'm just stuck at work waiting to go home and brew while your wherever having a Mr.Seriouspants fit. I wont post in here again unless I have a problem with some naughty notty....
...and then you can laugh in my face.

Cheers!
to you too Steve.
BrewDouche'
 
Top