New bad lot of Nottingham yeast ???

[brettwasbtd]

I used this lot on saturday (8/21/2010) and Pitched and had full krausen and bubbling within 24 hours. I did notice that a few grains of the yeast seemed to have "stuck" to the inside of the package, which has never happened to me before. But ya, I also used this same batch for my IPA back in June, its delicious

 

[OHIOSTEVE]

Drinking 2 beers fermented with this lot# right now.. got some washed in the fridge and 3 more packets in the fridge.. no issues at all.

 

[RavenChief]

I just bought 24 packages of dry yeast, several of which are Nottingham Lot number 1080961099V exp 12.2011.

Should I avoid this yeast until any potential recall by the manufacturor is settled, or should I use it in my next brew and expect a very slow fermentation?

I've never used this yeast before and I bought it because lots of folks here seem to like it.

I'd rather not take a chance if there is any question about its viablitiy.

If you are going to use the yeast from lot # 1080961099V, I would definatly consider making a starter. That way you will know before you pitch if the yeast is performing as you would expect it to. To me, I only want to pitch yeast that I know will have the properties of the yeast strain that is right for my beer. That's why I buy a specific type of yeast. Under the right conditions Nottingham should start fermenting up a storm in less than 12 hours. I have witnessed my brew actually start bubbling in under 4 hours.
I have another package with that lot number and I am thinking of using it in a starter just to see what it will do...

 

[robertbartsch]

I have read this whole post and from what I gather this yeast performs different from other Nottingham yeasts of the same strain since, in certain applications, it typically takes much longer than usual to begin to ferment.

To me, that is just weird. Is it possible that this batch is a different strain?

 

[jimmypop13]

I just checked my three packets of nottingham and they are all from this lot. One of them doesn't feel like it has powdered yeast in it now. It feels like there's a goo inside. This is bad right? The other feels somewhat gooey around the edges, and the third shakes around like there's all powder in it. I wonder if there's a seal issue with this batch of if myabe mine just got a little puncture in it while sitting in the fridge a few months. I can't find any holes or tears though

 

[RavenChief]

I just checked my three packets of nottingham and they are all from this lot. One of them doesn't feel like it has powdered yeast in it now. It feels like there's a goo inside. This is bad right? The other feels somewhat gooey around the edges, and the third shakes around like there's all powder in it. I wonder if there's a seal issue with this batch of if myabe mine just got a little puncture in it while sitting in the fridge a few months. I can't find any holes or tears though

Dude, yeast is cheap.

Don't take the chance, get some fresh yeast and pitch that stuff in the trash can.

 

[jimmypop13]

Dude, yeast is cheap.

Don't take the chance, get some fresh yeast and pitch that stuff in the trash can.

Oh i wouldnt use it.
Im just wondering if anyone elses packs feel gooey inside.

 

[arturo7]

It is August.

Perhaps some of these packs were exposed to too much heat twixt yon and hither.

 

[SkyHighBrew88]

Whoa, glad this thread is at the top...have 2 packs of Notty in my Centennial Blonde that have both failed miserably! Might as well of thrown a pack of sand in there. What a way to start my first all-grain...

EDIT: Beer is slowly fermenting 48 hrs later...we'll see how this one turns out!

 

[RavenChief]

Whoa, glad this thread is at the top...have 2 packs of Notty in my Centennial Blonde that have both failed miserably! Might as well of thrown a pack of sand in there. What a way to start my first all-grain...

EDIT: Beer is slowly fermenting 48 hrs later...we'll see how this one turns out!

Was it lot number: 1080961099V exp. 12 2011 ?

 

[SkyHighBrew88]

Was it lot number: 1080961099V exp. 12 2011 ?

Can't say for sure. Wasn't expecting fermentation problems since Nottingham has been great in the past. If I had to guess though, I'd say there are good and bad packs in the same lot.

Too bad Danstar is making me reconsider their products now. Clearly there are multiple cases involving this yeast around the same time frame.

 

[Ricand]

Whoa, glad this thread is at the top...have 2 packs of Notty in my Centennial Blonde that have both failed miserably! Might as well of thrown a pack of sand in there. What a way to start my first all-grain...

EDIT: Beer is slowly fermenting 48 hrs later...we'll see how this one turns out!

Don't be too discouraged if it doesn't taste all that great. I did the same thing with Notty and BMs Centennial Blonde. Yeast ended up fermenting, but left a bunch of acetylaldehyde. Had a real sour green apple finish. I DID drink most of it, but wasn't my best effort.

 

[lalnx]

lalnx what happened to your brew? Did the smell persist, did fermentation complete appropriately? I got an email from Danstar and I emailed back my last findings and asked them for an address so I could send back a packet I have, same lot same exp + the empty one I used. I am not sure I want to risk this batch to find out if all is OK but might just pitch some S-04 I have. Depends on lalnx's experience maybe?

Well I finally put this one in the keg yesterday, straight from primary, 3 maybe 4 weeks. I can't exactly remember. Anyhow, I pulled the lid off the bucket, it had a little yeasty stuff floating on top, and the rest was covered with thin white waxy looking layer. Mold? It smelled fine, but the look had me worried. I pulled a sample; gravity was 1.004, it tasted fine, maybe not exactly what I was expecting from my previous notty usage, but will be drinkable. After racking down, (I left more in the bucket than usual as not to pull any of the waxy layer through) I found the yeast in the bottom to be very "snotty" in consistancy. Notty usually gives me a firm yeast cake that I practically have to scoop out. Bottom line, end result, the yeast did ferment my beer, although not as quickly as it should have, and the charecteristics are not what is to be expected. It does appear to be a hit or miss with this lot #. I have one more pack of this, I may try it with a starter before I use it, and have an us-05 on hand for brew day if it acts like the previous batch.

BTW what was that waxy layer? I drank my sample, and am still here to type this, so it apperently won't kill me.....:cross:

 

[RavenChief]

Well I finally put this one in the keg yesterday, straight from primary, 3 maybe 4 weeks. I can't exactly remember. Anyhow, I pulled the lid off the bucket, it had a little yeasty stuff floating on top, and the rest was covered with thin white waxy looking layer. Mold? It smelled fine, but the look had me worried. I pulled a sample; gravity was 1.004, it tasted fine, maybe not exactly what I was expecting from my previous notty usage, but will be drinkable. After racking down, (I left more in the bucket than usual as not to pull any of the waxy layer through) I found the yeast in the bottom to be very "snotty" in consistancy. Notty usually gives me a firm yeast cake that I practically have to scoop out. Bottom line, end result, the yeast did ferment my beer, although not as quickly as it should have, and the charecteristics are not what is to be expected. It does appear to be a hit or miss with this lot #. I have one more pack of this, I may try it with a starter before I use it, and have an us-05 on hand for brew day if it acts like the previous batch.

BTW what was that waxy layer? I drank my sample, and am still here to type this, so it apperently won't kill me.....:cross:

My experience was very similiar. Very slow to start--thin runny yeast cake. Not at all what you might expect from Nottingham yeast. I wish Danstar would address this issue...

 

[tagz]

Third run with this lot. Like the first two batches I had signs of fermentation in less than 12 hours.

 

[300RUM]

Third run with this lot. Like the first two batches I had signs of fermentation in less than 12 hours.

Are you implying that it's a brewer's technique?

I only ask because you have made a couple of posts and have had no problems with this lot of Notty, however more than a couple of brewers have.

 

[mullenite]

Are you implying that it's a brewer's technique?

I only ask because you have made a couple of posts and have had no problems with this lot of Notty, however more than a couple of brewers have.

I did two batches without an issue and would happily use this lot again for a third batch, and a 4th, and a 5th.

Don't know if its technique oe bad luck but pitching at 70 and aerating properly I had the same characteristics I have always had.

 

[tagz]

Are you implying that it's a brewer's technique?

I only ask because you have made a couple of posts and have had no problems with this lot of Notty, however more than a couple of brewers have.

I'm just adding to the anecdotal data. I have used this lot three times and had no problems when I rehydrated, aerated, and pitched at proper temp. If we are discussing our experience with this lot number, I don't see any reason to not share mine. Boogie men don't tend to help make beer better.

 

[Rover]

I've switched to US-05 for the last three batches with no problems with no change in technique. Before that I brewed two batches with the bad lot# of Notty. If you're using this lot# you're playing Russian roulette.

 

[SkyHighBrew88]

My wort took 48 hrs to begin fermentation using the Notty yeast. When I did come home from my trip, it now looks like there was a decent krauesen that had formed while I was away. I also have noticed the odd yeast floating on top (they do kind of look a slimy & brownish-grey).

Hopefully my luck will like the previous posters & no weird flavors will come through!

 

[RavenChief]

Third run with this lot. Like the first two batches I had signs of fermentation in less than 12 hours.

Good to know that not everyone is having issues with this lot of Nottingham yeast. However, some people obviously are having problems. I think it is helpful for everyone to share their experiences. Maybe that way we can possibly figure out what is really going on to cause the problem.

Is it true that the previous "bad lot" of Notty yeast had defective packaging? That may also be the case here but I have not heard of anyone who thought their packs of yeast had holes in them. I would like to hear if there are other theories on what is causing the slow yeast starts and unusual yeast properties...

 

[Fletch78]

I picked up that lot number this afternoon for a brew I'm doing this weekend. I'm about to make a starter, taking hydro readings, and pictures, and I'll report back.

Austria, 12-2011, same lot number.

I'll be back.

 

[Fletch78]

Experiment, with pics.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/bad-nottingham-experiment-pics-193622/

 

[DannyG]

I pitched five gallons of apple juice for a cider a few days ago with a pack from the bad batch (from Austria, same expiration date, everything) and it's working just fine. Bubbling started after about twelve hours, and was going strong (every few seconds) at 24. I rehydrated the yeast according to package directions, but didn't make a starter. I had checked the pack before I pitched it using the flashlight trick and found no punctures - so that might have something to do with it.

EDIT: In the interest of more info, the OG was at 1.050 and I'm fermenting at around 80 degrees (it being August and me not having AC, that's the coldest I could get it...)

 

[bsdx]

Sorry if this has been considered or done already, but has anyone tried leaving a packet of Nottingham open for a week or more and then used it in a wort? Better yet, use half of it fresh in one batch and leave the package open until another week. If the first one is normal and the second sucks then it could be air exposure?

 

[RavenChief]

Experiment, with pics.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/bad-nottingham-experiment-pics-193622/

Fletch78 you rock! Thanks for the pics.

 

[RavenChief]

Sorry if this has been considered or done already, but has anyone tried leaving a packet of Nottingham open for a week or more and then used it in a wort? Better yet, use half of it fresh in one batch and leave the package open until another week. If the first one is normal and the second sucks then it could be air exposure?

I know that pinholes in the packaging was said to be the cause last time. But I am not sure I really buy that. Also, no one has reported finding any pinholes this time... Need to find the "smoking gun".

 

[mullenite]

I know that pinholes in the packaging was said to be the cause last time. But I am not sure I really buy that. Also, no one has reported finding any pinholes this time... Need to find the "smoking gun".

Probably package handling between the factory and the people who had bad batches of it.

 

[300RUM]

Probably package handling between the factory and the people who had bad batches of it.

Yeah and only Notty has a sensitivity to "the people with bad batches"

 

[mullenite]

Yeah and only Notty has a sensitivity to "the people with bad batches"

I don't get what you're trying to imply... sorry.