Dry yeasts identified - your opinions please!

[duncan_disorderly]

reply #280 (link) has some recent discussion on tartness in S-04.

Others have recently mentioned that people taste things differently (so there's not need for me to repeat that here ).


Personally, I'd skip the starter for the 1st batch and see if I actually taste the tartness. So maybe a "split batch" with a different strain of yeast. Or maybe a split batch fermented at different temperatures.

Cheers. Sounds like a plan.

I've tasted the tartness in the past, but maybe S-04 has changed with new processing methods? I have read though that the strain is a lactic acid producer, so the tartness is maybe built-in. From the AHA forum...


Saccharomyces

Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #14 on: 20-11-2020, 06:10:31 »

One should not have to ferment ales at what are effectively high lager temperatures in order to avoid off-flavors. The parent strain for S-04 was not selected for batch fermentation. It was selected for continuous tower fermentation (i.e., a bioreactor for beer). The strain is an acid producer, which is why it has a tart note.

NCYC 1026

Information Flocculent. NewFlo type flocculation. 1:5:4:5:5 O2, DMS 33 µg/l, low acetic, high lactic, diacetyl 0.42ppm only, used commercially in Tower Fermenters (continuous process), non head-forming, no estery flavour. Contains 2µ plasmid.

Depositor British Brewery
Deposit Name Saccharomyces cerevisiae

 

[dmtaylor]

Saccharomyces
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #14 on: 20-11-2020, 06:10:31 »

...used commercially in Tower Fermenters (continuous process), non head-forming, no estery flavour. Contains 2µ plasmid.

"no estery flavour"

Aha!

FWIW, I brew higher pH than most, which might be why I don't notice tartness. Mash pH on my last batch was 5.6. Previous (from 3 years ago) was 5.4 but that one turned out great too.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

"no estery flavour"

Aha!

FWIW, I brew higher pH than most, which might be why I don't notice tartness. Mash pH on my last batch was 5.6. Previous (from 3 years ago) was 5.4 but that one turned out great too.

I dunno if higher mash pH affects lactic acid production, but I doubt it?

 

[Steveruch]

Just to 2nd what you wrote about s04, I really don't like this yeast in a pale beer. But in a stout, it is truly marvelous and has yet to find it's true competitor in my dark beers. I cannot say why, but it does stuff. And this stuff is really good in dark beers.

I brew a 1800s take on porter with S-04 that comes out great.

 

[Miraculix]

I brew a 1800s take on porter with S-04 that comes out great.

Mind sharing the recipe?

 

[Steveruch]

Mind sharing the recipe?

I'll look it up in the morning.

 

[Kold Brygg]

I drank golden ales in England before Summer Lightning, I believe. I've never understood the idea that it was the first golden ale. But it possibly depends on your definition. I think that was just a marketing moment, looking for a way to attract new drinkers to something that already existed. I see golden ale as a pale bitter, rightly or wrongly, and those have been around a long time, certainly here in the north of England. Roger Protz goes back further...

https://protzonbeer.co.uk/features/2014/05/02/golden-ale-beer-style-that-s-a-golden-oldie

I'm not surprised. And I'm not in a position to know anything about it from personal experience since I first was in the UK in the nineties. So I have to rely on what's written. I suppose marketing works on me.

Either way the Summer lightning clone works if anyone wants a light refreshing lawnmover beer.

 

[Miraculix]

I'm not surprised. And I'm not in a position to know anything about it from personal experience since I first was in the UK in the nineties. So I have to rely on what's written. I suppose marketing works on me.

Either way the Summer lightning clone works if anyone wants a light refreshing lawnmover beer.

We have the aks and these go waaaayyy back. These look pretty golden to me

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I drank golden ales in England before Summer Lightning, I believe. I've never understood the idea that it was the first golden ale. But it possibly depends on your definition. I think that was just a marketing moment, looking for a way to attract new drinkers to something that already existed. I see golden ale as a pale bitter, rightly or wrongly, and those have been around a long time, certainly here in the north of England.

Well that's the point - the history has been written by people down south, who weren't seeing Boddies in every other pub and so Exmoor Gold etc seemed like novelties. And the idea of golden ales goes way back - the idea of having differently-kilned malts in your grist only goes back about 200 years, and the fancy stuff going back to ancient times was air-dried or straw-dried, which leaves you with pale malt and pale beer. So in that sense golden ale is the default, it's what happens if you don't add any crystal, black etc.

OTOH some historians like Boak & Bailey argue that part of the definition of a golden ale is that it is marketed on its goldenness, or with a link to summer etc (unlike AKs) - rather than repeat them, read this article :
https://boakandbailey.com/2020/09/a-century-before-summer-lightning-golden-sunlight/
Watkins of Hereford seem to have been marketing a "Golden Sunlight" as early as 1851, and there seems to have been a rash of golden beers marketed from 1887 (Victoria's golden jubilee), in particular in northern cities. Here's a recipe for a Golden Bitter Ale" from Bentleys of Leeds in 1893,and Burts in the Isle of Wight had a golden ale in the mid-20th century :

(pics courtesy of the Brewery History Society and the Labologist's Society)

But it is part of the general mess of British style names that what a golden ale "means" is changing. In the late 20th century, particularly down south, it meant something in the Exmoor Gold/Summer Lightning vein, relatively strong by cask standards at 5%, and hopped with premium English hops like Goldings etc. But aside from the originals that style is kinda dying out - nobody's really producing new ones, and some of the existing ones are eg being reduced to a more cask-normal 4.5%. But then, particularly up north, "golden ale" was applied to Boddies clones - sub-4% ordinary bitters, typically hopped with the cheapest East European hops that could be found. And now we're seeing pale beers typically with fancy US or antipodean hops, which are kinda a whole different thing altogether. It's a mess, and nobody's quite worked out how it all works in terms of "styles" - but in Europe we're less beholden to the idea of "styles" anyway.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Well that's the point - the history has been written by people down south, who weren't seeing Boddies in every other pub and so Exmoor Gold etc seemed like novelties. And the idea of golden ales goes way back - the idea of having differently-kilned malts in your grist only goes back about 200 years, and the fancy stuff going back to ancient times was air-dried or straw-dried, which leaves you with pale malt and pale beer. So in that sense golden ale is the default, it's what happens if you don't add any crystal, black etc.

OTOH some historians like Boak & Bailey argue that part of the definition of a golden ale is that it is marketed on its goldenness, or with a link to summer etc (unlike AKs) - rather than repeat them, read this article :
https://boakandbailey.com/2020/09/a-century-before-summer-lightning-golden-sunlight/
Watkins of Hereford seem to have been marketing a "Golden Sunlight" as early as 1851, and there seems to have been a rash of golden beers marketed from 1887 (Victoria's golden jubilee), in particular in northern cities. Here's a recipe for a Golden Bitter Ale" from Bentleys of Leeds in 1893,and Burts in the Isle of Wight had a golden ale in the mid-20th century :
View attachment 735981View attachment 735982View attachment 735979View attachment 735980View attachment 735983
(pics courtesy of the Brewery History Society and the Labologist's Society)

But it is part of the general mess of British style names that what a golden ale "means" is changing. In the late 20th century, particularly down south, it meant something in the Exmoor Gold/Summer Lightning vein, relatively strong by cask standards at 5%, and hopped with premium English hops like Goldings etc. But aside from the originals that style is kinda dying out - nobody's really producing new ones, and some of the existing ones are eg being reduced to a more cask-normal 4.5%. But then, particularly up north, "golden ale" was applied to Boddies clones - sub-4% ordinary bitters, typically hopped with the cheapest East European hops that could be found. And now we're seeing pale beers typically with fancy US or antipodean hops, which are kinda a whole different thing altogether. It's a mess, and nobody's quite worked out how it all works in terms of "styles" - but in Europe we're less beholden to the idea of "styles" anyway.

Exactly, beers vary, nerds try to group them! At any one single moment in time you'll find a wide variety of beers loosely grouped under a single style umbrella. And each 'style' evolving all the time, and at least some are under debate, in all probability. I guess people want stories, marketing people do stories, and Summer Lightning tells a story.

 

[Steveruch]

Mind sharing the recipe?

This was an attempt to mimic porter at the point where brewers were switching from all brown malt recipes. I liked it so much it is my house porter recipe.
3 gallons, 1.058-1.016, 64 (+-) IBUs, 28 SRM
6 lbs. maris otter pale ale malt
1.5 lbs. British brown malt
Mash at 152f for 55 minutes
4 ozs. black patent malt (cold steeped overnight in pint of water and added at flame out)
1.5 ozs. home grown goldings: 5.7% !(+-) for for 45 minutes
1 oz. home grown goldings for 30 minutes
1 pack S-04

 

[Miraculix]

This was an attempt to mimic porter at the point where brewers were switching from all brown malt recipes. I liked it so much it is my house porter recipe.
3 gallons, 1.058-1.016, 64 (+-) IBUs, 28 SRM
6 lbs. maris otter pale ale malt
1.5 lbs. British brown malt
Mash at 152f for 55 minutes
4 ozs. black patent malt (cold steeped overnight in pint of water and added at flame out)
1.5 ozs. home grown goldings: 5.7% !(+-) for for 45 minutes
1 oz. home grown goldings for 30 minutes
1 pack S-04
View attachment 735988

Nice and simple, that's how I like it.

I might give brown malt a second chance. Last time I used it, my beer was undrinkable for the first three months or so due to strooooong astringency. After half a year it mellowed down and was really nice.

What I also wanted to do is to try out this new Imperial malt, or however it's called. It is often referred to as the modern version of an self converting brown malt.

Have you tried it? I'd probably do a smash first with Goldings or another noble hop.

 

[DBhomebrew]

Simpsons Imperial. Pattinson calls it a diastatic amber and recommends it for anywhere his recipes call for 'high-dried malt'.

I'm interested in trying it as well, but I'm not up for a full 25kg sack which is how I'd get from my LHBS.

 

[Miraculix]

Simpsons Imperial. Pattinson calls it a diastatic amber and recommends it for anywhere his recipes call for 'high-dried malt'.

I'm interested in trying it as well, but I'm not up for a full 25kg sack which is how I'd get from my LHBS.

Yeah... I would also need to figure out how to get it here in Germany...

 

[Steveruch]

Nice and simple, that's how I like it.

I might give brown malt a second chance. Last time I used it, my beer was undrinkable for the first three months or so due to strooooong astringency. After half a year it mellowed down and was really nice.

What I also wanted to do is to try out this new Imperial malt, or however it's called. It is often referred to as the modern version of an self converting brown malt.

Have you tried it? I'd probably do a smash first with Goldings or another noble hop.

No, this is the first I've heard of it. I'm not sure when I'll be brewing this again, but I'd like to try it with chevalier malt when I do.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Yeah... I would also need to figure out how to get it here in Germany...

Or just use amber malt, works well in dark beers. I think brown is a more roasted amber malt.

 

[DBhomebrew]

Or just use amber malt, works well in dark beers. I think brown is a more roasted amber malt.

Yep. Except the Imperial is diastatic.

 

[Steveruch]

This was an attempt to mimic porter at the point where brewers were switching from all brown malt recipes. I liked it so much it is my house porter recipe.
3 gallons, 1.058-1.016, 64 (+-) IBUs, 28 SRM
6 lbs. maris otter pale ale malt
1.5 lbs. British brown malt
Mash at 152f for 55 minutes
4 ozs. black patent malt (cold steeped overnight in pint of water and added at flame out)
1.5 ozs. home grown goldings: 5.7% !(+-) for for 45 minutes
1 oz. home grown goldings for 30 minutes
1 pack S-04
View attachment 735988

I'm not a great note taker and this was done quite a whole ago so I don't actually remember why I cold steeped the black patent. Putting it into the mash would work fine.

 

[dwhite60]

This thread got me thinking. I just did a wheat beer with Mangrove Jack's M21. Stuff started to work again after bottling and I've got gushers. Luckily everything is in PET bottles.

There was a comparison made earlier in this thread of this yeast and WB-06. I made a stout a couple years ago and through poor planning had to use WB-06 in it. Had the exact same problem with it restarting in the bottle and having gushers.

 

[tizoc]

Also I recently made an attempt at a fruity interesting Aussie Spockling Ale, using S-04, again at high temperature, I think it was around 70 F (21 C). BUT IT TURNED OUT CLEAN AS A WHISTLE, like a LAGER. So again.... instead of calling it an ale at all, it tasted like a "lager", so I called it a lager! Not fruity at all. Quite delicious, actually.

Again I say, to anyone who disses S-04.... I implore you to give it another try. And maybe ferment it at 70 F / 21 C.

Well, that is interesting. I hate S-04, and every time I try it again, I end disappointed. I remember that when I searched some info about that horrible flavor, one of the things I found was a bunch of your posts saying how you hated it. I always fermented it at 18C or lower, because that is what I always saw on the internet (higher than that and it will be a mess of flavors, etc).

But now I read what you are saying about fermenting it high and remembered that long ago, a friend who didn't have temperature control used S-04 and his beers didn't have that flavor, so there may be something to it.

 

[Protos]

WB-06 is a Diastaticus, unlike M21. And it's well more acidic than M21, so they are definitely unrelated.
But yeah, in my experience M21 is particularly prone to producing gushers. Being aware of this, I kept my last M21 beer in primary for a full month. Gusher, anyway! I guess this yeast probably requires some non-standard calculation of priming sugar. My next M21 beer, I'm priming it with ¾ of what calculator recommends.

 

[Reneauj62]

I

I didn't find it tart at all, or bready or doughy or anything like that. I was just as shocked as anybody. I suggest trying to make/duplicate a Bohemian "lager" with it. Do NOT need to make a starter, just sprinkle it in (I never make a starter with dry yeast). But ferment warm, 70-72 F (21-22 C). If I'm wrong, call it an Aussie Spockling Ale or British Golden Ale. But what if I'm right? I'd be very curious to hear results back if you or anybody else tries this. I'm intrigued, because the last two beers I made with S-04 both turned out like this -- clean and malty.

I belong to a group that likes to make experiments and prove theories either right or wrong. I have ALWAYS make a starter for dry yeast and have had great success. All methods (direct pitch, rehydrate, and adding to a starter) all work fine. I am not sure how it got started that it was somehow a faux pas to use a starter for dry yeast. So called experts have been wrong about this for decades which I call the Dr. Fauci effect (experts being wrong about everything) and is probably just a sales tactic. What is odd to me that experts say that the reason you should not add the yeast to a starter is that it would immediately uptake the sugary water and somehow cause a shock ending in instant death to some percentage of cells or some believe it sends cells into autolysis or self destruction. So, the yeast cannot be put into a starter YET it is ok to pitch directly into a MORE sugary wort. That is what is called crazy talk. Others believe that if you rehydrate the yeast prior to pitching the yeast have the opportunity to uptake water and fully reform thus better preparing it for the work ahead. I prefer to use a starter because it gives my wort an enormous head start in the fermentation process especially if you are using a sloth yeast like US-05 that takes a while to get started.

My process is that I add dry yeast to warm water for 20-30 minutes. Then, after the yeast becomes active and frothy I place it into the yeast starter for at least 24-36 hours. I overbuild the yeast and place about a quarter of the yeast into my yeast bank. Simple.

 

[Miraculix]

I

I belong to a group that likes to make experiments and prove theories either right or wrong. I have ALWAYS make a starter for dry yeast and have had great success. All methods (direct pitch, rehydrate, and adding to a starter) all work fine. I am not sure how it got started that it was somehow a faux pas to use a starter for dry yeast. So called experts have been wrong about this for decades which I call the Dr. Fauci effect (experts being wrong about everything) and is probably just a sales tactic. What is odd to me that experts say that the reason you should not add the yeast to a starter is that it would immediately uptake the sugary water and somehow cause a shock ending in instant death to some percentage of cells or some believe it sends cells into autolysis or self destruction. So, the yeast cannot be put into a starter YET it is ok to pitch directly into a MORE sugary wort. That is what is called crazy talk. Others believe that if you rehydrate the yeast prior to pitching the yeast have the opportunity to uptake water and fully reform thus better preparing it for the work ahead. I prefer to use a starter because it gives my wort an enormous head start in the fermentation process especially if you are using a sloth yeast like US-05 that takes a while to get started.

My process is that I add dry yeast to warm water for 20-30 minutes. Then, after the yeast becomes active and frothy I place it into the yeast starter for at least 24-36 hours. I overbuild the yeast and place about a quarter of the yeast into my yeast bank. Simple.

The actual reason why fermentis is saying that at least THEIR dry yeast does not benefit from a starter, is that the dry yeast is loaded with sterols, which is needed to reproduce. Sterols can only be build in the presence of oxygen, so once fermentation is going on, no extra sterols are being build up within the cell and reproduction numbers decrease till reproduction stops. This is why starters must be big enough and/or sufficient oxygenation of the wort is being taken care of, of non-dried yeast is being used.

So a starter does two things with dry yeast, multiplies the yeast, which is usually not necessary, as the cell count in a dry pack is mostly big enough for a normal batch size, und depletes the yeast of it's sterols. And also might be a source of contamination.

Long storry short, as sterols are already present, the cells will still multiply for quite some time in an anaerobic environment so the multiplication will take place in the wort or in the starter anyway. The starter just makes it more complicated and can be a source of infections.

 

[Reneauj62]

The actual reason why fermentis is saying that at least THEIR dry yeast does not benefit from a starter, is that the dry yeast is loaded with sterols, which is needed to reproduce. Sterols can only be build in the presence of oxygen, so once fermentation is going on, no extra sterols are being build up within the cell and reproduction numbers decrease till reproduction stops. This is why starters must be big enough and/or sufficient oxygenation of the wort is being taken care of, of non-dried yeast is being used.

So a starter does two things with dry yeast, multiplies the yeast, which is usually not necessary, as the cell count in a dry pack is mostly big enough for a normal batch size, und depletes the yeast of it's sterols. And also might be a source of contamination.

Long storry short, as sterols are already present, the cells will still multiply for quite some time in an anaerobic environment so the multiplication will take place in the wort or in the starter anyway. The starter just makes it more complicated and can be a source of infections.

Like I said, all processes work. Some work better than other under different situations. If you looked at books, magazines, videos, and online you can find opposing views on every single subject and if yo look hard enough you will find that some expert somewhere has written something that will support your view. That is why, in my group, we experiment all the time .But, after 35 years of brewing I have never had an unplanned infection. How could an infection be more prominent in a dry yeast starter opposed to a liquid yeast starter? seriously? In fact, there is virtually no difference in what effects yeast between a 2.4l starter vs a 6 gallon starter. Why would the sterols act differently simply because of the use of a starter? Sorry, not buying it. I have had way too much success in my process than to look at dated information.

 

[Protos]

the dry yeast is loaded with sterols

Just my guess: could that be the reason behind the perceived tartness in some of Fermentis yeasts, dry-pitched? Could that be just the flavour of sterols and other secret additives rather than that the of the yeasts themselves?

Apparently, not all sterol additives are the same across different producers - and probably even across different packers. That might explain why MJ yeasts (even those sourced from Fermentis) never have that hallmark tartness, and why Fermetis yeasts loose the twang after the first generation...

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

@Reneauj62 : When I re-read #324, it looks like a couple of people were trying to understand each others process (nothing more, nothing less): one was thinking of making a starter with S-04 to maybe reduce tartness, the reply in #324 suggested to sprinkle and ferment around 72F.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Just my guess: could that be the reason behind the perceived tartness in some of Fermentis yeasts, dry-pitched? Could that be just the flavour of sterols and other secret additives rather than that the of the yeasts themselves?

Could be nothing more complicated than "people taste things differently"...

 

[Reneauj62]

Just my guess: could that be the reason behind the perceived tartness in some of Fermentis yeasts, dry-pitched? Could that be just the flavour of sterols and other secret additives rather than that the of the yeasts themselves?

Apparently, not all sterol additives are the same across different producers - and probably even across different packers. That might explain why MJ yeasts (even those sourced from Fermentis) never have that hallmark tartness, and why Fermetis yeasts loose the twang after the first generation...

It could be.... Do your own experiment with your preferred dry yeast. See which methods work best for the beer you want.... Dry pitched, Rehydrated, or in a starter and see if you can tell the difference. That sounds like my next experiment... Maybe I prefer the starter method because I don't like tart beers. I like smooth beers that not tart or extremely hopped....

 

[Miraculix]

Like I said, all processes work. Some work better than other under different situations. If you looked at books, magazines, videos, and online you can find opposing views on every single subject and if yo look hard enough you will find that some expert somewhere has written something that will support your view. That is why, in my group, we experiment all the time .But, after 35 years of brewing I have never had an unplanned infection. How could an infection be more prominent in a dry yeast starter opposed to a liquid yeast starter? seriously? In fact, there is virtually no difference in what effects yeast between a 2.4l starter vs a 6 gallon starter. Why would the sterols act differently simply because of the use of a starter? Sorry, not buying it. I have had way too much success in my process than to look at dated information.

You are just reading the written parts that you want to read while ignoring the rest. No problem mate. Believe what you want to.

 

[Reneauj62]

You are just reading the written parts that you want to read while ignoring the rest. No problem mate. Believe what you want to.

I have not just reading about it for 35 years, I have been doing it for 35 years. I hate it when someone reads a book from the 1970's or 1980's and thinks that no changes or discoveries have been made since. It's the Gospel. Read some well known books from famous brewers form the early days and then read what they are saying today in which a lot of cases that author now has completely different views or ideas nowadays. It is bewildering. Conventional wisdom is just that, until someone prove it wrong. Different people have different processes with failures and successes. I think people should do their own experiments and see for themselves.