boscobeans
Well-Known Member
If you choose to ignore it or somehow otherwise mistakenly believe it is subjective, that is your prerogative. .
Thank you
bosco
If you choose to ignore it or somehow otherwise mistakenly believe it is subjective, that is your prerogative. .
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.
In wine making, dry yeast is used almost exclusively and I have yet to meet a wine maker that does not rehydrate.
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.
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
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.
That's not exactly true.
What I find most interesting is that YOU'RE doing exactly this.
People over and over again, based on their own experiences (including side by side tests) saying that they could tell no difference either way isn't evidence to the contrary?
Like we've said before, it may be evidence that pitch rate isn't as significant a variable as some people think it is, but it says nothing about a potential drop in cell count due to pitching dry.
Beer tasting will always be subjecting (and non-scientific), and we can (and do) debate that all day. Whether or not rehydrating affects the flavor of your beer is something we can debate. Whether or not rehydrating affects active cell count isn't something we can debate.
Like we've said before, it may be evidence that pitch rate isn't as significant a variable as some people think it is, but it says nothing about a potential drop in cell count due to pitching dry.
Beer tasting will always be subjecting (and non-scientific), and we can (and do) debate that all day. Whether or not rehydrating affects the flavor of your beer is something we can debate. Whether or not rehydrating affects active cell count isn't something we can debate.
Trokair said:Well said. The actual question here is to what degree the science affects the taste, not if the science is in question. Personally I go out of my way to do everything possible to make my brews the best they can be. After all, I am the one drinking them. That being said I could probably spend less time and cut some things out of my process and make a beer that I couldn't tell didn't have the 105% effort in them. I just don't see the reason to chance it. Plus I enjoy brewing so all of the little stuff is fun to me.
hello.
never rehydrate when making wine. And I made wine a lot longer than I've made beer.
I won't call you old-fashioned, I will call you wasteful, inefficient and paranoid. Starsan doesn't need to be rinsed, doing so makes it pointless to even use the product. Since it's just a weak acid, there's nothing bad that happens if a bit (or more than a bit) of Starsan gets mixed with your beer. It dilutes out to phosphate which the yeast will happily eat...
If you don't "believe" the basic science behind that, then I don't know what to say.
Dougie63 said:For a "weak Acid" sure can shine the crap out of copper in a dilluted state..........
Please don't let this thread die. It's a perverse pleasure, but I'm hooked. I can't wait for the next episode.
What the hell. I'll start it for the OPer again: "Nottingham yeast - hydrate or not ?"
Hydrate with Star San
Right! We're not going to let our yeast debate be settled by silly things like "science"!
Remember "Science" now accepts the big bang theory. 20 years ago, they would have laughed in your face. science changes all the time
That's right. If you want absolute and final answers you'd better turn to the only place you can get them. But God isn't talking about reydrating Notty, to my knowledge. So it's tea leaves or science. I'm sticking with science.
grimzella said:Remember "Science" now accepts the big bang theory. 20 years ago, they would have laughed in your face. science changes all the time
Unicellular reproduction is a bit easier to study and experiment with than purely theoretical universal origin astrophysics. So I would say this is a poor analogy, to put it mildly.
This is a basic, well established concept that isn't up for debate. It's mind boggling how difficult it is for some people to accept it.
Huh? What's the big argument? The mfg. instructs to rehydrate. Seems pretty clear cut, eh?
Enter your email address to join: