stevedasleeve
Well-Known Member
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
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