Nottingham yeast - hydrate or not ?

[oakbarn]

This debate reminds me of the arguments of "fully qualified" compared to "best qualified". Sprinkling may be "fully qualified" while hydration may be "best qualified".

 

[gizmodog51]

always hydrate my dry yeast, warm water. always add oygen to wort prior to pitch.
always make a 2 qt starter.....and shake fermenter after pitching...
always try to pitch at room temps ...too cold will lag out action.

always have action within 30 minutes and many times less that half that.


GD51

 

[m1k3]

I love Nottingham, in fact, if I could only have one yeast I would pick Nottingham.

I rehydrate with Go Ferm, but only out of superstition.

 

[amandabab]

my 30 minute, 60minute and 90 minute microscope slides to not show this "fact" of 50% die off from pitching dry. longer than that is pointless as I'm producing Co2 and krausen in 4 hours anyway.
My many side-by-side timed test don't show rehydrating starts ferments faster.

Fermentis even changed it's packaging in the last couple years to say "sprinkle into wort" and removed "rehydrate". the die off thing is brewlore.

 

[ChessRockwell]

my 30 minute, 60minute and 90 minute microscope slides to not show this "fact" of 50% die off from pitching dry. longer than that is pointless as I'm producing Co2 and krausen in 4 hours anyway.
My many side-by-side timed test don't show rehydrating starts ferments faster.

Fermentis even changed is packaging in the last couple years to say "sprinkle into wort" and removed "rehydrate". the die off thing is brewlore.

Didn't you read? It's indisputable fact. You're not allowed to argue with it. Your research and personal experience is completely meaningless...

 

[pabloj13]

my 30 minute, 60minute and 90 minute microscope slides to not show this "fact" of 50% die off from pitching dry. longer than that is pointless as I'm producing Co2 and krausen in 4 hours anyway.
My many side-by-side timed test don't show rehydrating starts ferments faster.

Fermentis even changed it's packaging in the last couple years to say "sprinkle into wort" and removed "rehydrate". the die off thing is brewlore.

I am not surprised that the cell death hasn't happened by 90 minutes. Stress-induced apoptosis normally takes longer than that.

 

[gizmodog51]

This debate reminds me of the arguments of "fully qualified" compared to "best qualified". Sprinkling may be "fully qualified" while hydration may be "best qualified".

i like your way of thinking.....:rockin:

GD51

 

[oakbarn]

Another fact about this yeast: "It is unnecessary to aerate wort." I am sure that we all follow that as well. It is also Kosher and GMO Free. I love scientific facts. The only problem with them is that there are no "facts" but only theory and sometimes convention. After all, it was once a scientific "fact" that the Earth was flat. Ever read a science book from the 50's? You might get a laugh or two from the "facts".

If you follow the instructions for "best qualified", you would need to add cooled wort three times over a period of 15 minutes to your properly hydrated yeast so as to prevent "petite mutants". So you have your cooled wort sitting around for an extra 15 minutes and have three additional transfers in you sterile garage laboratory.
If is it not broken, do not fix it!

 

[Pilgarlic]

Hell, yeah. And GLOBAL WARMING. Can you believe THAT??? And EVOLUTION?!?! And what about GRAVITY?? Last time I sat under an apple tree no apple fell on my head! Scientists and politicians. Can't believe any of 'em. They're all idiots and liars.

 

[pabloj13]

Another fact about this yeast: "It is unnecessary to aerate wort." I am sure that we all follow that as well. It is also Kosher and GMO Free. I love scientific facts. The only problem with them is that there are no "facts" but only theory and sometimes convention. After all, it was once a scientific "fact" that the Earth was flat. Ever read a science book from the 50's? You might get a laugh or two from the "facts".

If you follow the instructions for "best qualified", you would need to add cooled wort three times over a period of 15 minutes to your properly hydrated yeast so as to prevent "petite mutants". So you have your cooled wort sitting around for an extra 15 minutes and have three additional transfers in you sterile garage laboratory.
If is it not broken, do not fix it!

Yes, science adapts to new information. That's the beauty of it. Currently it is being suggested to rehydrate the yeast. This is not a big enough deal that people need to get all bent out of shape and snarky. If you don't want to, don't. If you want to follow the basic instructions, do.

It is unsurprising that the cell death is not apparent after 90 minutes. This paper that used high concentrations of acetic acid to induce cell death showed it took 200 minutes of treatment and then 2 DAYS to see apoptosis. Now these cells are probably significantly weakened well before that (which would alter their ability to carry out fermentation), but again not surprised one wouldn't see major morphological changes at only 90 minutes. I think to test this you'd really have to look at growth curves for rehydrated and not rehydrated.

There has been evidence that not hydrating yeast causes 50% cell death. If you have contrary evidence, I'd love to see it. If not, we're once again back to arguing about whether underpitching or not makes a difference, which is old news.

 

[grimzella]

i asked everyone at my LHBS how they do it. 7 out of 9 just pitch it. no rehydration.

 

[m1k3]

At my LHBS, Erik Schmid recommends direct pitch without rehydration.

He even stated this heresy on Brad Smith's podcast:

http://beersmith.com/blog/2012/06/14/pilsner-beer-brewing-with-erik-schmid-beersmith-podcast-40/

 

[jeffjjpkiser1]

If its for carbonating bottles, I rehydrated them so the yeast is active and ready to go. Have used dry champagne yeast before for another beer and that worked fine.

 

[Mikethepoolguy]

Its like the grain crush debate. If one university does one experiment in one laboratory it becomes 'real science'. If a thousand homebrewers get a different result we are all ignorant. How is one experiment better than 1000? We are the science! The 'science' is the theory. Counting cells under a microscope doesn't tell you anything about the health of those cells.
Dead yeast is yeast food. So maybe 50 billion fat healthy horny yeast is as good as 100 billion starving weak yeast. The only fact that I have seen here is that nothing is undisputed.

 

[gizmodog51]

has the homebrewer ever considered that all the hype may be in the advantage of all the homebrew vendors to sell stuff ?

as for me i do what i have seen thru experience helps regardless of weird science. the sumarians brewed beer in 5000 bc ......

GD51

 

[oakbarn]

Hopefully you did not think I was snarky.:rockin: I am brewing tommorow and will likely hydrate the yeast but only with cooled water and not follow the instructions to the T. I will also aerate with welding oxygen. And just because, I also add a smak pack of wyeast along with the dry yeast as I like the flavor of the mix.

 

[brooksy]

I have a friend who has been brewing for, well, since before it was legal. The other day he was telling me the ingredients to the last beer he made, it was probably about 1.060. Anyway he direct pitched a pack of coopers he had in his fridge for 7+ years! Imagine the look of horror on my face whe he told me that! I gave him a speach about proper pitching rates and he totally facepalmed... His imortal quote was "then what the hell have I been making all of these years? It cant be beer, because the internet said it wouldnt work!" The beer did taste good, maybe a little more estery then I might have made, but very tastey. Anyway, rant over, and I didnt even reference nottingham (oops!).

 

[g-star]

If one university does one experiment in one laboratory it becomes 'real science'. If a thousand homebrewers get a different result we are all ignorant.

EXACTLY!

Experiments performed under controlled conditions by people who understand how to perform them and interpret the results have validity. 1000 people performing a bad practice doesn't validate that practice.

This is not about whether it will work or not...it's about BEST PRACTICE. And pitching dry yeast without re-hydrating has been proven under laboratory conditions to be less optimal than re-hydrating first. END OF STORY.

This is a very broad generalization, but it really comes down to there being 2 camps of homebrewers out there. The first group consists of those who just want to make drinkable beer, and don't really get caught up in all the nuances of making the best beer possible. These people don't care about re-hydrating b/c sprinkling it on the wort has always just "worked". The 2nd group include those who want to take every step under his/her power to make the best beer possible, and to optimize conditions every step of the way. These people care about the objective, proven science behind brewing and thus will follow all established best brewing practices...like re-hydrating dry yeast.

 

[boscobeans]

EXACTLY!

Experiments performed under controlled conditions by people who understand how to perform them and interpret the results have validity.

And pitching dry yeast without re-hydrating has been proven under laboratory conditions to be less optimal than re-hydrating first. END OF STORY.

Controlled conditions that have no differences whatsoever are extremely difficult to attain especially when dealing with an organic, living product like yeast.

Did the scientists do a study on every dry yeast?
How old was the yeast?
What temperature was it stored at?
Did they rehydrate at every temperature in the yeast's range?

Then to determine if it was better than just pitching on wort:

What was the determining factor as to the better method? Cell count? Activity?...
Did they test each different type of yeast with wort at each different temperature, specific gravity, O2 level, hop level, amount and type of fermentables, adjuncts and every other variable there can between batches?

Yes they can make generalized conclusions and predictions but as far as it being scientific fact, unless they show that it is true in ALL cases under ALL conditions that are normal to us brewers that is all they are, generalized conclusions or predictions, which may be accurate for most but not all situations.

That's just how I see it. Everyone has their own thoughts on the subject and are perfectly entitled to them. That's what makes everyday a little different and worth living.

bosco

 

[g-star]

Sorry bosco, its really not that complicated. High density wort increases the osmotic pressure on the yeast cell membrane relative to pure water. Increased osmotic pressure leads to yeast stress and increased levels of cell death, again relative to hydration in a 1.000 gm/cm3 solution. Here's just one of many peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

At its core, this is a simple principle, along the lines of something elementary - like helium is less dense than air. It is not up for debate. If you choose to ignore it or somehow otherwise mistakenly believe it is subjective, that is your prerogative. But it doesn't change the facts.

 

[boscobeans]

If you choose to ignore it or somehow otherwise mistakenly believe it is subjective, that is your prerogative. .

Thank you

bosco

 

[ajf]

Sorry bosco, its really not that complicated. High density wort increases the osmotic pressure on the yeast cell membrane relative to pure water. Increased osmotic pressure leads to yeast stress and increased levels of cell death, again relative to hydration in a 1.000 gm/cm3 solution. Here's just one of many peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

At its core, this is a simple principle, along the lines of something elementary - like helium is less dense than air. It is not up for debate. If you choose to ignore it or somehow otherwise mistakenly believe it is subjective, that is your prerogative. But it doesn't change the facts.

You "punched out" on post 42.
How can anybody believe anything you say?

However, I wonder what the "science" will say in 20 - 30 years time. I suspect that it will be very different to what is believed (by some) to be accurate now.

-a.

 

[helibrewer]

I am familiar with Lallemand and Scott and both recommend rehydration for optimum yeast health. Rehydration is done with fairly warm water, 106F, and provides the necessary heat and moisture to rehydrate and "unfold" the dehydrated cell membrane. Without this procedure, the yeast cell membrane can remain in a deformed state (which is permanent) making the cell unable to function properly. In wine making, dry yeast is used almost exclusively and I have yet to meet a wine maker that does not rehydrate.

 

[amandabab]

In wine making, dry yeast is used almost exclusively and I have yet to meet a wine maker that does not rehydrate.

hello.
never rehydrate when making wine. And I made wine a lot longer than I've made beer.

 

[g-star]

You "punched out" on post 42.
How can anybody believe anything you say?

However, I wonder what the "science" will say in 20 - 30 years time. I suspect that it will be very different to what is believed (by some) to be accurate now.

-a.

You're right, I should stay away, but the willful ignorance is really maddening.

It is actually an interesting observation of human behavior...people will sometimes believe what they want to believe to suit an internal bias, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Just a sampling of the nonsense in this thread (paraphrasing):

"The science must be wrong".
"It hasn't been tested by every person under every imaginable condition, therefore it may not be true'".
"My shortcuts work, so there's nothing to discuss".
"The science will be different in 20 years".
"You continued a discussion when you said you wouldn't, therefore you have no credibility".

The whole thing is really kind of laughable to the objective observer.

 

[boscobeans]

You're right, I should stay away, but the willful ignorance is really maddening.

The whole thing is really kind of laughable to the objective observer.

I think most folks are not ignorant of the "science", however they seem to have differing opinions on how important it really is when brewing.

As an objective observer I don't care how you or anyone else pitches their yeast. Rehydrate, dry, starter or not, I don't care if you throw the packet in the wort unopened for that matter.

My objective experience over the last several decades, although contrary to what was considered fact and the only way to do things, has shown me that a secondary is not essential for a good beer. I have skipped that step throughout all my brewing years and although my experiences and beers were good (excellent for the most part...Sorry but that is a subjective opinion) I have never claimed my method was as good as or better than another, even though the science of the times frowned on my method.

As far as the OP. I have never had a problem with Nottingham. No slow starts, stalls or any of the other varied fermentation problems. I pitch dry on the foam caused by pouring from the kettle to the fermenter. I do not stir it in or aerate the wort in any other fashion.. I brew all brown ales with original gravities from 1.050 to 1.065. 11 grams of yeast has always served me well when pitched at around 70 degrees and then brought down to the mid 60's. Nottingham from 65 up can get wild so I like to keep it controlled at <65. It is fast, clean and the trub if given enough time lays on the bottom like a wet blanket.

bosco

 

[pabloj13]

I think most folks are not ignorant of the "science", however they seem to have differing opinions on how important it really is when brewing.

As an objective observer I don't care how you or anyone else pitches their yeast. Rehydrate, dry, starter or not, I don't care if you throw the packet in the wort unopened for that matter.

My objective experience over the last several decades, although contrary to what was considered fact and the only way to do things, has shown me that a secondary is not essential for a good beer. I have skipped that step throughout all my brewing years and although my experiences and beers were good (excellent for the most part...Sorry but that is a subjective opinion) I have never claimed my method was as good as or better than another, even though the science of the times frowned on my method.

As far as the OP. I have never had a problem with Nottingham. No slow starts, stalls or any of the other varied fermentation problems. I pitch dry on the foam caused by pouring from the kettle to the fermenter. I do not stir it in or aerate the wort in any other fashion.. I brew all brown ales with original gravities from 1.050 to 1.065. 11 grams of yeast has always served me well when pitched at around 70 degrees and then brought down to the mid 60's. Nottingham from 65 up can get wild so I like to keep it controlled at <65. It is fast, clean and the trub if given enough time lays on the bottom like a wet blanket.

bosco

And again you, like so many others, are debating whether or not underpitching makes a difference or not. "Science" didn't say to use a secondary. That was common brewing practice based on people's experience. Science is saying that not rehydrating yeast causes cell death. Now some people's brewing practice may find that unnecessary. Maybe 20 years from now they'll think that pitching 200 billion cells for a 1.060 wort was silly. Maybe it doesn't really make a difference. But what it does do is cut down on the number of yeast. If you're the type of person that is trying to pitch what professional brewers have determined as the "proper" amount of yeast, and you're using dry yeast, you should probably rehydrate (assuming your recipe calls for an entire packet). If you're not, carry on.

 

[ChessRockwell]

It is actually an interesting observation of human behavior...people will sometimes believe what they want to believe to suit an internal bias, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What I find most interesting is that YOU'RE doing exactly this.

 

[pabloj13]

What I find most interesting is that YOU'RE doing exactly this.

That's not exactly true.

 

[boscobeans]

I just added a third subject to my list of things not to debate in a bar..

1. Religion
2. Politics
3. Pitching yeast

To each his own

bosco