you do know that yeast RAPIDLY multiply within a couple hours to 5-10 times what comes in the pouch and alot more than any "viable" yeast starter could ever put out, it would be far MORE better to air-e-ate to re-hy-drate and I seriously doubt and I dont care who or what the "experts" say that you would lose 50 percent of viable cells and not to mention there is "NO" I repeat "NO" difference in the quality and/or taste of the finished product.
Nottingham yeast - hydrate or not ?
- Thread starter BOBTHEukBREWER
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
you do know that yeast RAPIDLY multiply within a couple hours to 5-10 times what comes in the pouch and alot more than any "viable" yeast starter could ever put out, it would be far MORE better to air-e-ate to re-hy-drate and I seriously doubt and I dont care who or what the "experts" say that you would lose 50 percent of viable cells and not to mention there is "NO" I repeat "NO" difference in the quality and/or taste of the finished product.
Does Dr White know anything about brewing beer?????????
Pilgarlic
Well-Known Member
Um, yes.
ok please show us what if anything he has brewed, and please show us where the finished product has changed in flavor ect
Pilgarlic
Well-Known Member
Let's not. If you're interested in Chris White's career, you can find it. Enjoy.
![Craft A Brew - Safale S-04 Dry Yeast - Fermentis - English Ale Dry Yeast - For English and American Ales and Hard Apple Ciders - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [1 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fVGNh6JfL._SL500_.jpg)
Chris White wrote Yeast with Jamil Zainasheff. Considering the book covers every aspect about how yeast affects wort I'd imagine he knows some stuff. And in reality if Nottingham comes with 300 billion yeast cells losing 50% of that you'd still be pitching higher than you would with a smack pack that has under 100 billion cells. All numbers and facts aside, who cares. If you're method is working for you and you like the results then do it. At the end of the day all that matters is that you're happy with your beer.
Just quit before you embarrass yourself any further.
Right! We're not going to let our yeast debate be settled by silly things like "science"!
No, the whole point is that this is a proven scientific fact, and is not debatable. Reminds me of people who deny evolution or global warming b/c it disagrees with some ill-informed pre-conceived notion.
Anyway, it is clearly pointless to argue any further. I'm punching out...enjoy your homebrew.
boscobeans
Well-Known Member
Leaving the "undisputed" scientific facts out of the conversation there is the "undisputed" reality of many people's experiences using Nottingham.
I use it all the time for ales that start out from 1.050 to 1.062.. I start with about 6 - 7 gallons in the fermenter. I pour directly into the fermenter from my kettle and pitch the yeast evenly on the resulting foam. I try to keep it at about 64 for the first week.
Nottingham comes in 11 gram packages.. It has never failed to do what it is supposed to do..FERMENT. It is usually bubbling along in the first 6-8 hours.
My son used it on a 5 gallon batch of brown ale OG 1.058. When pitching he took the pack straight from the fridge, ripped it open and as he was pitching it on the surface about 1/2 the package fell out in one lump and sunk to the bottom.. No stirring or anything was done. He simply covered the fermenter and went on his way.
Result; The full fermentation was delayed by about 4 hours or so. The final product was as usual very good.
I don't know if I would ever need any better results from a yeast or even want them.. Nottingham is noted for blowing airlocks and bucket lids into outer space so why try to supercharge it. Maybe if I was doing 10 gallons at 1.060.
OMO
bosco
I use it all the time for ales that start out from 1.050 to 1.062.. I start with about 6 - 7 gallons in the fermenter. I pour directly into the fermenter from my kettle and pitch the yeast evenly on the resulting foam. I try to keep it at about 64 for the first week.
Nottingham comes in 11 gram packages.. It has never failed to do what it is supposed to do..FERMENT. It is usually bubbling along in the first 6-8 hours.
My son used it on a 5 gallon batch of brown ale OG 1.058. When pitching he took the pack straight from the fridge, ripped it open and as he was pitching it on the surface about 1/2 the package fell out in one lump and sunk to the bottom.. No stirring or anything was done. He simply covered the fermenter and went on his way.
Result; The full fermentation was delayed by about 4 hours or so. The final product was as usual very good.
I don't know if I would ever need any better results from a yeast or even want them.. Nottingham is noted for blowing airlocks and bucket lids into outer space so why try to supercharge it. Maybe if I was doing 10 gallons at 1.060.
OMO
bosco
Right, and that gets into the debate of underpitching and whether or not it makes a difference. Rather than rehash the hundreds of threads about that topic, we can just say that if you need (based on the volume and OG of your wort) 1 entire packet of yeast and you direct sprinkle the yeast, you are underpitching. Period. Does that make a difference? That's up to your tastes I suppose, but the experts say it does. If you are happy with your process, that's great. But that doesn't make it correct.
Cold water freezes faster than warm water and warm water boils faster than cold water. Yet everyday people bring cold water to a boil and warm water to freezing. See, the facts haven't changed but similar results were achieved through different processes. This happens all the time in the world of science. It doesn't mean the facts have been debunked, it just means you can manipulate the variables and get similar results. So, everyone's right!
No, the whole point is that this is a proven scientific fact, and is not debatable. Reminds me of people who deny evolution or global warming b/c it disagrees with some ill-informed pre-conceived notion.
Anyway, it is clearly pointless to argue any further. I'm punching out...enjoy your homebrew.
The results (taste, apperance ect) ARE debateable no matter what the science says. The so called facts are found doing research right? which is exactly what we do every time we brew. So does our research not matter? are you saying beer taste better because you rehydrated? That IS the topic remember?
zachattack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 2,808
- Reaction score
- 325
To agree with the point that pabloj13 is trying to make: it's fact that not rehydrating lowers your cell count. Which makes this a debate about how important proper pitch rate is. And that's been done so, so many times on this forum already. We aren't getting into new territory here. If you're comfortable underpitching and you're happy with your beer, fine. I prefer to follow Jamil's advice and use his calculated pitch rates. No big deal.
Nobody's shooting down your "research."
<Facepalm>
There should be a selection on MrMalty and other pitching calculators for whether you're a "by the books" person or a "good enough" person. Literature says pitching rates are important. How important, and for what types of beers, and for what volumes, and personal taste, makes all the difference. And those things can't be adequately addressed here.
You can learn from the books or learn from experience. Most of the wisdom on this forum comes from other peoples' experience. Most of the time, that's good enough for me.
You can learn from the books or learn from experience. Most of the wisdom on this forum comes from other peoples' experience. Most of the time, that's good enough for me.
zachattack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 2,808
- Reaction score
- 325
Pilgarlic
Well-Known Member
I have no objection to people choosing to ignore certain techniques or information. That's perfectly legit. What's wrong, and annoying, is to take a position that is absolutely counter to that which has been well established and say "prove I'm wrong". Here's what's been established: i) the failure to (properly) rehydrate dry yeast results in a loss of viability (of about 50%). ii) different pitching rates alter yeast growth and fermentation in ways that change the beer that results. Now, you can say "I don't care, I like my beer and I sprinkle." Or you can say "I'm willing to ignore all that because I just don't see the reason to take all that trouble." That's fine with everyone. Those are your opinions. You're entitled to them. But, as the saw goes, you're not entitled to your own facts, so, although you can say "rehydration doesn't make any difference that I care about" you can't say "rehydration doesn't make any difference". It does. Rehydration results in a higher pitching rate and higher pitching rates change beers.
That having been said, when I'm brewing a 1.050 beer with dry yeast, I sprinkle because a 50% viability gives me a good pitching rate and I don't want the contamination risk inherent in rehydrating. With a larger beer, I'll generally rehydrate.
That having been said, when I'm brewing a 1.050 beer with dry yeast, I sprinkle because a 50% viability gives me a good pitching rate and I don't want the contamination risk inherent in rehydrating. With a larger beer, I'll generally rehydrate.
I now rehydrate because I have found that it usually results in a shorter lag times ON MY SYSTEM. Safale has different protocols for the home brewer, printed on the 11g sachet (ie. "do not rehydrate or baby Jesus will harm a puppy!"), than on the 500g bricks that they sell to commercial brewers, which includes instructions for rehydrating.
Still, there are a lot of hazy information surrounding dry yeast. Danstar states that 1g = 5 billion cells on their packets, and THEY DO include instructions for rehydration, while, on the other hand, White and Jamil state that when they contacted dry yeast manufacturers, the consensus was around 20 billion cells by gram. Is that figure for rehydrated yeast or not ? And what about viability ? MrMalty calculates viability from production date, yet, the last tiem I looked, there was only a best by date on most dry yeast. While MrMalty says that to ge the production date, you have to substract a year to the best by date, I must come from the future because all of the dry yeast in my fridge expires somewhere in 2014...
There's also the fact that the vast majority of us do not have the equipment for precise cell counts (which are precise in the sense that they are vastly more precise approximations of the real pitch rate): we go by what calculators and formulas tell us, programs and formulas that often do not take into account many variables or who will approximate such variables (I'm looking at you slurry thickness slidebar on the MrMalty website).
All that long winded novel to tell people to take a chill pill. If sprinkling works for you fine, there is still science that proves that rehydrating is better to preserve cell viability. If rehydrating works for you and you feel it is better, fine, but be aware that you might not be pitching as much viable yeast as you think you are (rehydrating protocols are pretty precise and I'd wager a good number of us don't follow them to the letter) and that it might not make a night or day difference to only sprinkle.
Still, there are a lot of hazy information surrounding dry yeast. Danstar states that 1g = 5 billion cells on their packets, and THEY DO include instructions for rehydration, while, on the other hand, White and Jamil state that when they contacted dry yeast manufacturers, the consensus was around 20 billion cells by gram. Is that figure for rehydrated yeast or not ? And what about viability ? MrMalty calculates viability from production date, yet, the last tiem I looked, there was only a best by date on most dry yeast. While MrMalty says that to ge the production date, you have to substract a year to the best by date, I must come from the future because all of the dry yeast in my fridge expires somewhere in 2014...
There's also the fact that the vast majority of us do not have the equipment for precise cell counts (which are precise in the sense that they are vastly more precise approximations of the real pitch rate): we go by what calculators and formulas tell us, programs and formulas that often do not take into account many variables or who will approximate such variables (I'm looking at you slurry thickness slidebar on the MrMalty website).
All that long winded novel to tell people to take a chill pill. If sprinkling works for you fine, there is still science that proves that rehydrating is better to preserve cell viability. If rehydrating works for you and you feel it is better, fine, but be aware that you might not be pitching as much viable yeast as you think you are (rehydrating protocols are pretty precise and I'd wager a good number of us don't follow them to the letter) and that it might not make a night or day difference to only sprinkle.
y2jrock60
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 5
I always rehydrate dry yeast. It helps kill sometime while the beer is cooling. It doesn't look right dumping little tiny balls into the beer. I like to dump a slurry of yeast into my beer. It probably doesn't matter if it's re-hydrated or not though.
BOBTHEukBREWER
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 7
As the OP of this thread, many thanks one and all, but before we drop it, what about yeast slants where we have very few cells that we have to grow up to a colony with billions of cells before we pitch, which is why I asked why not use 1/10 of a packet of dry yeast for each brew and hydrate, then grow on with sterilised 1.020 wort.
There's no reason you couldn't do that. I think the reason most people don't is that dry yeast is so cheap to begin with.
Dry yeast will spoil (viability loss + contamination) very rapidly once the packet has been opened, which is why I don't get how some lhbs get away with buying 500g bricks and repackaging. For 10 brews in the same week, it might work, but you'll be spending so much time on starters and DME that it's really not worth the costs imho.
