Bad bad notty!

[RavenChief]

Just a newb here, only been brewing since January. Switched to notty (from smack packs) early summer and have loved the notty. Takes off like a rocket, ferments fast & hard & FWIW I really like the character in my IPAs. . .so much so I ordered up and have 9 more packets in the fridge. (not the listed lot but still, you guys have me wondering.)

Anyway, I'm enough of a newb I was totaly oblivious to this whole "the dark side of notty" thing. I've got two batches in the fermenter (one bottles tomorrow morning) and am planning to brew/pitch again tomorrow afternoon. Both the current fermenters went zoom-zoom (like a rocket.) I guess I'll keep pitching the notty I have and keep my fingers crossed. Hoping I don't join the ranks of the fallen!

If you "Proof" your yeast, then you will atleast know that the stuff is alive when you pitch it.

 

[Rover]

If you "Proof" your yeast, then you will atleast know that the stuff is alive when you pitch it.

I don't know if that's good advise.
Yopper brewed a 10 gal. batch, half with Notty and half with another yeast, and had the Notty fermentation take off like normal but it tasted off, so she had to dump it The other yeast was fine and she complained, which is why I think Danstar recalled

 

[ILuvIPA]

If you "Proof" your yeast, then you will atleast know that the stuff is alive when you pitch it.

(slaps forhead) I've just been rehydrating 15 minutes per the packet instructions. Looks like I'll spend the evening researching the forum (proofing & yeast starters.)
Thanks Chief!

Rover, I appreciate your point. But if I do continue to use what's on hand I'm thinking I should step up my learning curve and learn about proofing & starters. (Should probably be doing starters anyway.) Hey, like I said I'm a newb and know it. But I am learning a lot here and at a pretty good clip.

 

[Gropo]

I posted awhile ago defending Nottingham and decrying the rumors as hysteria, but I have to admit that particular batch did me wrong, even though I did everything right w/ rehydration and sanitation........long lag period, and a funky sour (but not a quite a lacto flavor) off flavor. It's turned me off to dry yeast for good. From here on out it's Wyeast with a starter....every time. Probably an over-reaction, but it's the safest, most "fail-safe" option from my point of view.

 

[RavenChief]

I posted awhile ago defending Nottingham and decrying the rumors as hysteria, but I have to admit that particular batch did me wrong, even though I did everything right w/ rehydration and sanitation........long lag period, and a funky sour (but not a quite a lacto flavor) off flavor. It's turned me off to dry yeast for good. From here on out it's Wyeast with a starter....every time. Probably an over-reaction, but it's the safest, most "fail-safe" option from my point of view.

Welcome to the Dark Side...

 

[ILuvIPA]

Well crap! just skimmed the other notty thread (272 posts? geez!)

Anyway, too late to try a starter for tomorrow's brew day. I guess I'll proof with a little DME and as long as it's active hope for the best? (No local HBS here, so no backup yeast available.) I'll see how tomorrow's pitch goes and let that help determine what I do with the rest of my notty.

 

[Rover]

Well crap! just skimmed the other notty thread (272 posts? geez!)

Anyway, too late to try a starter for tomorrow's brew day. I guess I'll proof with a little DME and as long as it's active hope for the best? (No local HBS here, so no backup yeast available.) I'll see how tomorrow's pitch goes and let that help determine what I do with the rest of my notty.

If it makes you feel better,
I tasted a batch I have had fermenting for three weeks now (I'll bottle some time this week) after pitching this batch of Notty and it tastes great.
I bet there are more good packs than bad.
Good luck

 

[pimento]

If you "Proof" your yeast, then you will atleast know that the stuff is alive when you pitch it.

Proofing doesn't seem to be an accurate predictor in my experience.

I've done 4 brews with this lot recently.

1 Proofed fine and 3 didn't, just dropped to the bottom of the cup and didn't mix with the water at all.

2 of the beers are bottled and taste fine 1 graff and 1 cider are on going. All the ferments started normally within 24 hrs.

 

[RavenChief]

Proofing doesn't seem to be an accurate predictor in my experience.

I've done 4 brews with this lot recently.

1 Proofed fine and 3 didn't, just dropped to the bottom of the cup and didn't mix with the water at all.

2 of the beers are bottled and taste fine 1 graff and 1 cider are on going. All the ferments started normally within 24 hrs.

OK, I guess I don't understand. The 3 of 4 sachets of yeast that didn't proof normally, you went ahead and used them anyway?

 

[pimento]

OK, I guess I don't understand. The 3 of 4 sachets of yeast that didn't proof normally, you went ahead and used them anyway?

Yup, I've only been brewing for about 9 months and hadn't heard the term proofing until recently, so I haven't had all that much experience with how different kinds of yeast react during rehydration/proofing and I'd only used nottingham once before these last 4 batches.

The 2 batches of beer were 1-2 months ago, before I'd read much about the nottingham issues. I didn't pay much attention when the one batch didn't proof, just dumped it in anyway.

The second 2 were a small batch of graff and 2 gallons of regular cider, so I didn't have much to lose.

Apparently I got lucky.

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I'm maybe a little more objective to all this.

I saw that there were numerous references to a bad smell from many posters, and the statement by Yoop suggesting a possibility of contamination was the only one I recall. Most experiencing poor results just stated that the yeast appeared to be largely dead.

I also saw a couple references to the datestamp issue of pinholes, but have been disappointed that no one has shown pics of the package's datestamp, flashlight testing, or examined the possibility of pinholes due to excessive stamping pressure or heat. Pics of these packages from the affected lot are really important towards solving this mystery.

The thing about Notty is it's always been reliable and has been bullet proof for many years and many millions of brewers-that is the allure, the whole reason it was so successful. But when it ceases to be worry free and creates unreliable results, it's value as a 'go to' yeast is diminished. The lack of responses to emails is also troubling, and as a PR faux pas, creates a negative stigma of manufacturer ambivalence, even if unwarranted. Thing is, Notty is not the only dry yeast readily available, and they have admitted an earlier issue, two big reasons to be on top of this or any new controversy. But there was a very long period of refusal or denial or something, with the first go round on this pinhole recall deal, and there does not seem to have been any noticeable change in character of the latest response. Surely a formal notice to look for this pinhole issue from them would have gone a long ways towards at least appearing to care.

Here's a shot with the holes illuminated from behind by a flashlight. This is the second problem child batch:

[/url][/IMG]

This is a picture I sent to Lallemand. They were apologetic, but their response was

"[This batch] had been testing fine to date unlike the recalled batch from a few months ago, but things can happen along the way to you that could have damaged the yeast...I made also this test with a flashlight [sic], and indeed the sachet looks damaged with several tiny holes, but there are not holes, air is not coming inside as I investigated further."

Obviously not every packet was bad. If you got one without any holes or the holes were small enough that air wasn't getting in quickly enough to do it in by the time you pitched it, you're fine. I'd guess that since it is a plastic lined foil pouch, that in some cases the foil was punctured, but not the lining.

Also, the arrow on the right: It looked like there was a small fold in the seal around the edge causing another pathway for air to get in.

They did send me a bunch of packages of replacement yeast... I've used one of the packs of Windsor they sent, but while it was rehydrating I carefully inspected it for holes, and it seems to be fine.

 

[Rover]

Hmmm,

That's not the batch# most are having trouble with.

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

Hmmm,

That's not the batch# most are having trouble with.

Nope. That's the second problem batch. There have been three...

 

[Rover]

I just checked my remaining packs of the 1080961099V and the batch# isn't stamped onto the package. It is printed with no indentations. I don't think that was the issue with this batch.

 

[Rover]

Nope. That's the second problem batch. There have been three...

OIC I thought there was only two.

 

[CvilleKevin]

Its a bummer to hear this about Notty. I dont use it as much as I used to, but if it werent for Notty, I'd probably still be making mediocre cider.

I've never got a bad batch with Notty, but I've noticed its a little slower than S04 and US05, coming out of the gate. I always thought this was because of the yeast strain, but now I am wondering if their drying and packaging process does not preserve as many viable yeast.

I appreciate that Notty didnt jack their prices a couple years ago like Fermentis did, although as others have mentioned, the cost of yeast is still cheap in the larger scheme of things. I probably wouldnt mind spending a little more for better quality control.

For those of you who are looking to replace Notty, and want an alternative to S04 and US05, there are some good dry yeasts that are only distributed in the UK, but you can get a UK internet shop to mail them to you for a couple bucks. I've had great results with Brupaks Ale, Gervin English Ale, Ritchies Real Ale and Lager and Youngs Ale and Lager for ciders. These are all inexpensive, so with a few dollars postage its still cheaper than buying Fermentis from LHBS if you get a few packs

 

[XtremeBrew]

Yeah all 3 batches I made a few weeks ago were made with this batch number. Two were bad, and the other one is ok so far. I will be using White Labs Notty from now on I think.

 

[trubled]

Finally an explanation. Eureka

I am relatively new to brewing and after 25 batches going without a hitch experienced 4 out of the following 6 going off fast producing horrible medicinal phenolics of varying intensities. Basically ranging between bad to really repulsive which increased with time and rendered it all undrinkable.

Having a background in professional winemaking I figured improper sanitation was the culprit and:
(a) brought all our water in from a town that had passed through a treatment plant. We are on the side of a mountain and truly awesome water comes directly from a creek to the house and suspected that this was the source of the contamination (used to rinse and top)
(b) went hyper-clean on all fronts
(c) sterilized and boiled everything involved in my yeast starter (except the yeast)

None of this was effective and serious frustration was beginning to set in. Tosssing away that much work and 80 liters of what should be golden elixir aint fun.

In retrospect I did notice that my starters were not performing as they had in the past. Instead of rich frothy cultures things appeared rather placid and I chalked this up to the reduced oxygen in the the sterilized wort as the reason. I alo will add that in the past I would take one packet and build a robust culture to divide amongst 3 carboys and now was going with one packet into one carboy. The clarity of retrospect.

Having worked with lallemand yeasts in a number of wineries I am shocked and disappointed to realize this seems to be the guilty party. I have serious reservations as to their honesty as to the product testing.

I would be interested to hear more comments about this particular contamination as it sounds as if the packet themselves are the source of the problem as opposed to ambient infection populations in our respective brewing settings.

I would describe it as:
medicinal
band-aid
sour
sulferous
plastic
rubbery

The infection could present quite early in the fermentation -- less than 12 hours after pitching.

Thanks for this it has been driving me mental.

 

[passedpawn]

Finally an explanation. Eureka

For your sake I hope the problem was the yeast. You should quick use another yeast (say, from Fermentis) and test your theory. Declaring success now might be premature. Good luck.

 

[trubled]

For your sake I hope the problem was the yeast. You should quick use another yeast (say, from Fermentis) and test your theory. Declaring success now might be premature. Good luck.

These four failures were realized over a couple of weeks. One of the more recent ones, which was successful, I dumped a Munich on top of when I realized the ferment was struggling and was concerned because of the previous botches.

There are a number of other reasons besides my earlier post pointing at this being the perp but i dont want to write a book.

 

[ILuvIPA]

I chimed in as a newb (post #60 - 9 packs of notty on-hand, no backup, no local HBS, and was heading into brew day.)

Just reporting back: I proofed per forum advice (thanks RavenChief!) 30 minutes later the 4oz slurry had foamed to almost 8oz in the graduated pyrex (& had that nice bread/yeasty smell.) Pitched last night about 9:45 and 14 hrs later the krausen is starting to rise in the bucket.

This is only my 5th batch using notty (moved from smack packs) but I like the taste in my IPAs. Don't think I'm ready to give up on notty. Will use the remaining 8 packs - proofing as I go and order a few SA-5 both for backup and to compare. Thanks for the guidance all!

 

[OHIOSTEVE]

I have been using this batch with no issues.. however the fact that YOOP has had some issues tells me that this is a real deal and not noob paranoia. I just pitched a barleywine onto a yeast cake of this batch PLUS have two starters going from washed yeast from this lot right now...so far so good. The barleywine required a blowoff tube after only about 6-7 hours.