BRY97 lag time

[Steveruch]

I pitched this yeast into a 1.052 pale ale yesterday at noon and so far at 20 hours all I see is the very slightest hint of foam on top. Is this normal for BRY97? This is my first time using it.
Every other batch that I've ever done has been going better than this at this point, including lagers.

 

[Big Monk]

I pitched this yeast into a 1.052 pale ale yesterday at noon and so far at 20 hours all I see is the very slightest hint of foam on top. Is this normal for BRY97? This is my first time using it.
Every other batch that I've ever done has been going better than this at this point, including lagers.

How much did you pitch? Did you rehydrate? What was your fermenter volume?

 

[couchsending]

That yeast is known to be a slow starter

 

[Big Monk]

That yeast is known to be a slow starter

I've had the opposite experience. Looking forward to seeing the details of the OP's batch.

 

[mediant]

I've had the opposite experience. Looking forward to seeing the details of the OP's batch.

But it is known to be a slow starter - just google for "BRY-97 lag time". Every time I brewed with it made me nervous when there was no activity 48+ hours past pitch. OTOH since I started to add zinc supplement, lag times with dry yeast decreased drastically - to about 5-6 hours (didn't have a chance to brew with BRY-97 again, though).
So, if you're using nutrients that may explain why your experience differs.

 

[Big Monk]

But it is known to be a slow starter - just google for "BRY-97 lag time". Every time I brewed with it made me nervous when there was no activity 48+ hours past pitch. OTOH since I started to add zinc supplement, lag times with dry yeast decreased drastically - to about 5-6 hours (didn't have a chance to brew with BRY-97 again, though).
So, if you're using nutrients that may explain why your experience differs.

I'm going to wait for the OP but I have a nagging suspicion that many people are unknowingly pitching too little dry yeast.

 

[Steveruch]

How much did you pitch? Did you rehydrate? What was your fermenter volume?

The entire pack.
No.
2 gallons.
best by date was 02/18.

 

[Steveruch]

But it is known to be a slow starter - just google for "BRY-97 lag time". Every time I brewed with it made me nervous when there was no activity 48+ hours past pitch. OTOH since I started to add zinc supplement, lag times with dry yeast decreased drastically - to about 5-6 hours (didn't have a chance to brew with BRY-97 again, though).
So, if you're using nutrients that may explain why your experience differs.

No nutrients in any of the batches.

 

[Steveruch]

No nutrients in any of the batches.

I should say no nutrients in recent batches which have all been below 1.060 (sorry Denny). I do use nutrients in high gravity batches.

 

[couchsending]

Entire pack in 2 gallons? Definitely pitched enough...

 

[Steveruch]

Entire pack in 2 gallons? Definitely pitched enough...

Some years ago when I switched down to three gallon batches I didn't want to be bothered using part of a pack and worrying about the saved part being okay to use in another batch so I just tossed in the whole pack. The same reasoning for two gallon batches.

 

[Big Monk]

The entire pack.
No.
2 gallons.
best by date was 02/18.

February 2018 or February 18, 2019?

 

[Steveruch]

February 2018 or February 18, 2019?

2018

 

[Big Monk]

2018

That may be your issue. For 8l of 1.052 wort at normal (0.75) pitching rate, you'd need 77B cells. Ish.

Let's assume 10B cells/g (that's what Lallemand quotes for new yeast. I'm extremely suspicious of the 1 or 2 claims of 20B cells/g) and an 11.5g packet. That's 115B cells in a new pack.

Now let it sit for say a year until it's best by date has past. Then let it site for another year after that. Assume 2% loss per month for dry yeast. That puts you at around 85B cells. In a perfect, conservative world.

Now say you have a mortality rate of 50% of the remaining cells from not rehydrating (I still don't believe that rehydrating dry yeast has no positive benefits) and you have 43B cells.

Not saying all of that is totally true and accurate. Could be better although I think it leans worse.

It may certainly explain the lag.

 

[Steveruch]

That may be your issue. For 8l of 1.052 wort at normal (0.75) pitching rate, you'd need 77B cells. Ish.

Let's assume 10B cells/g (that's what Lallemand quotes for new yeast. I'm extremely suspicious of the 1 or 2 claims of 20B cells/g) and an 11.5g packet. That's 115B cells in a new pack.

Now let it sit for say a year until it's best by date has past. Then let it site for another year after that. Assume 2% loss per month for dry yeast. That puts you at around 85B cells. In a perfect, conservative world.

Now say you have a mortality rate of 50% of the remaining cells from not rehydrating (I still don't believe that rehydrating dry yeast has no positive benefits) and you have 43B cells.

Not saying all of that is totally true and accurate. Could be better although I think it leans worse.

It may certainly explain the lag.

So far this year I've used S-33 with a June 2017 date, nottingham with an April 2018 date, and two S-189s with Dec 2017 dates in similar gravity brews that all started up way sooner.

 

[Big Monk]

So far this year I've used S-33 with a June 2017 date, nottingham with an April 2018 date, and two S-189s with Dec 2017 dates in similar gravity brews that all started up way sooner.

Luck maybe?

Given the details you provided, it’s the only thing that makes sense. Could have been an abused pack before you got it. Maybe it had a higher mortality rate.

There are two simple ways to decrease lag time: Pitch more yeast then you normally would or Pitch very healthy yeast. Seems like you had both working against you.

 

[Steveruch]

Luck maybe?

Given the details you provided, it’s the only thing that makes sense. Could have been an abused pack before you got it. Maybe it had a higher mortality rate.

There are two simple ways to decrease lag time: Pitch more yeast then you normally would or Pitch very healthy yeast. Seems like you had both working against you.

Even out of date dry yeast should be able to handle two gallon batches of 1.052 and lower with little difficulty. Before I went to two gallon batches I had no trouble getting three gallon batches going.

 

[Big Monk]

Even out of date dry yeast should be able to handle two gallon batches of 1.052 and lower with little difficulty. Before I went to two gallon batches I had no trouble getting three gallon batches going.

Well this one is different.

Other than the yeast, did you change anything else? Nutrients? O2?

Past experience aside, this has all the hallmarks of low amounts of unhealthy/inactive yeast.

 

[hopjuice_71]

While I agree an expired sample of dry yeast be the issue here, in my experience Bry-97 is an alarmingly slow starter. I have used it several times. 1 pack, 2 packs direct pitch; rehydrated packs; vitality starters; normal starters; aerated, non-aerated; etc, etc, all with non-expired packs of yeast (I haven't tried re-pitching, though). Every single fermentation was really slow to get going, slower than any other yeast I have used in 25 years. This being said, every single batch with Bry-97 worked out really, really well. Big fan of the yeast.

 

[Steveruch]

Well this one is different.

Other than the yeast, did you change anything else? Nutrients? O2?

Past experience aside, this has all the hallmarks of low amounts of unhealthy/inactive yeast.

Nothing but the yeast.

 

[mediant]

Past experience aside, this has all the hallmarks of low amounts of unhealthy/inactive yeast.

Right. Can this be caused by nutrient/ions deficiency?

 

[Big Monk]

Right. Can this be caused by nutrient/ions deficiency?

Normal brewing ions? I don’t think so.

Lack of a nutrient alone wouldn’t really explain it either. Nutrient is like yeast crack but many people don’t use it and don’t report lag times.

Then again, people report longer than normal starts with this yeast. I’m not one of them but I’m just one person and I usually use brand new yeast and nutrient doses right in the fermenter.

 

[dmtaylor]

It's just a laggy yeast. Dried yeast should last for several years in good storage, so I doubt that's a big player here. This one is strain specific. If lag time worries you, then use a different yeast other than BRY-97. But it's a very good yeast.

 

[Big Monk]

But it's a very good yeast.

I second this. I've used it a number of times (no lag) and even if it was a slow starter for me i'd still use it.

I made a few IPAs with it and it performed well.

 

[Miraculix]

I second this. I've used it a number of times (no lag) and even if it was a slow starter for me i'd still use it.

I made a few IPAs with it and it performed well.

You find the occasional person on the internet having no trouble with lag time with this yeast, but the majority experiences about 48h lag.

I suspect that there is an inconsistency with the cell count of this yeast either due to production or shipping. I cannot explain this otherwise.

 

[Big Monk]

You find the occasional person on the internet having no trouble with lag time with this yeast, but the majority experiences about 48h lag.

I suspect that there is an inconsistency with the cell count of this yeast either due to production or shipping. I cannot explain this otherwise.

Keep in mind I've only used it freshy fresh, pitch at > 1 M/ml/P, rehydrated, used yeast nutrient, etc.

That may be why I am running contrary to the majority.

 

[Miraculix]

Keep in mind I've only used it freshy fresh, pitch at > 1 M/ml/P, rehydrated, used yeast nutrient, etc.

That may be why I am running contrary to the majority.

Unlikely, the people's yeast treatment who are having no issues seems to be as mixed as the ones having issues. Some rehydrate, some don't... Etc. Pp. It really looks like it has something to do with the yeast.

Themaltmiller.co.uk repacks this yeast and sells it for cheaper under their own name and they increased the pack size for this very reason.

 

[mediant]

Normal brewing ions? I don’t think so.

Lack of a nutrient alone wouldn’t really explain it either. Nutrient is like yeast crack but many people don’t use it and don’t report lag times.

Then again, people report longer than normal starts with this yeast. I’m not one of them but I’m just one person and I usually use brand new yeast and nutrient doses right in the fermenter.

My point being that you do not take into account different water profile people are brewing with. Even with normal tap water zinc is deficient in many cases (about 30% of sampled breweries according to one research, if I'm not mistaken), even more so when using RO water (although that's not the OP's case).

As I mentioned already, in my experience zinc supplement cuts the lag time considerably. Here's what Handbook of Brewing (William Hardwick) says about it:

Poor aeration, zinc deficiencies or residuals from previous fermentations may cause an excessive lag phase or incomplete attenuation.

Edit: BTW, Zinc requirement is strain-specific, which may also explain why many perceive BRY-97 as "laggy".

 

[Miraculix]

My point being that you do not take into account different water profile people are brewing with. Even with normal tap water zinc is deficient in many cases (about 30% of sampled breweries according to one research, if I'm not mistaken), even more so when using RO water (although that's not the OP's case).

As I mentioned already, in my experience zinc supplement cuts the lag time considerably. Here's what Handbook of Brewing (William Hardwick) says about it:

Poor aeration, zinc deficiencies or residuals from previous fermentations may cause an excessive lag phase or incomplete attenuation.

Edit: BTW, Zinc requirement is strain-specific, which may also explain why many perceive BRY-97 as "laggy".

That could be a reason as well.

 

[couchsending]

Bry-97 is unique that’s for sure. Especially when you look at the Suregork yeast DNA study. The fact that it produces a relatively clean beer considering it’s origin is kinda nuts.