I quite using those yeasts( us05, 1056, 001) for just that reason. I am super happy with BRY-97, Notty(my fav) and Pacman. All are flocculant and they stay put in my kegs. My house yeast is 2565 and very fluffy,when I need a Kolsch and a quick one I split a 10 gal batch between 2565 and Notty,when the Notty kicks, the Kolsch is ready and they are totally different beers. I love a 2-fer.
Probably Done With 1056
- Thread starter smata67
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
I made the experience that us05 needs quite a long time to drop clear but if its clear it actually sticks to the bottom of the bottle like glue. But I never used it in a keg as I just bottle.
But the champ of flocculation and compaction from all yeasts that I used is imperial yeast pub. If you, however you did it, managed to swirl up some yeast while pouring, just let the beer stand for ten minutes, it will clear in the glass.
In colloid chemistry, flocculation refers to the process by which fine particulates are caused to clump together into a floc. The floc may then float to the top of the liquid (creaming), settle to the bottom of the liquid (sedimentation), or be readily filtered from the liquid.
compaction. [kəm-păk′shən] The process by which the porosity of a given form of sediment is decreased as a result of its mineral grains being squeezed together by the weight of overlying sediment or by mechanical means.
From these two definitions I would say that flocculation is just the yeast falling out of solution. Less cloudy beer.
And that compaction is what keeps the yeast in the bottom of the bottle.
I use US-05 a lot. In fact any yeast I have used does not give the problem stated by the OP. I think the problem encountered was that not enough time had passed. Just pour carefully and stop when you see the sediment getting into your glass. It has always been less than 1/4 inch in the bottom of my bottles.
compaction. [kəm-păk′shən] The process by which the porosity of a given form of sediment is decreased as a result of its mineral grains being squeezed together by the weight of overlying sediment or by mechanical means.
From these two definitions I would say that flocculation is just the yeast falling out of solution. Less cloudy beer.
And that compaction is what keeps the yeast in the bottom of the bottle.
I use US-05 a lot. In fact any yeast I have used does not give the problem stated by the OP. I think the problem encountered was that not enough time had passed. Just pour carefully and stop when you see the sediment getting into your glass. It has always been less than 1/4 inch in the bottom of my bottles.
Im not a bottler, so no personal experience, but friends who bottle barrel aged beers always use cbc or f1. They not only compact hard but they seem to keep the primary yeasts locked down with them at the bottom.
And i also second the notion that imperial pub is basically brick-forming. Took quite a bit of hot water and swirling to break up that cake. No joke.
And i also second the notion that imperial pub is basically brick-forming. Took quite a bit of hot water and swirling to break up that cake. No joke.
BitterSweetBrews
Tim Trabold
I know a lot of time has been spent on talking Yeast and it has more or less been a good discussion. But, I have another possibility and point of view. It could be chill haze. Your symptoms seem to mirror this. It is clear in the bottle before you put it in the freezer and once cooled, no matter how careful you are, you pour and it is hazy. Lagering can help this, but it is proteins, not yeast. I have seen a number of beers that look great in the bottle at room temp, but once cooled and poured they haze up. Here is a good article from the AHA discussing all types of haze: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/how-to-brew/beer-haze-cloudy-homebrew/
BitterSweetBrews
Tim Trabold
As I mentioned in my previous post I believe it may be proteins, not yeast. As an experiment, do your careful pour as before but try only pouring a half a bottle into your glass next time. If it stays as clear as it was in the bottle, it is probably the yeast. If it hazes up it is chill haze from proteins/polyphenols/break.
Last edited:
BitterSweetBrews
Tim Trabold
I don't really agree. Unless you are a super taster, the small amount of yeast ending up in the bottle after a careful pour is not noticable, even if it was "powdery". The OP was concerned about clearness and never mentioned yeast flavor.
OP
OP
smata67
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure at this point, that for some reason (possibly the dry hopping), this particular batch of yeast is just refusing to cake. I just checked the dregs of a bottle I poured yesterday, there is 1/2" of beer there and when the bottle was gently tilted to see if the yeast cake was runny, it was in fact, not even there, but dissolved in the small amount of remaining beer. I know how to pour to keep the yeast down, but there is just no way to keep the yeast from coming out on this batch. I tallied up my usage of 1056, it has been my most utilized yeast, 10 of my 36 batches. I have used S05 2 times and WLP001 3. My next used yeast has been S04 for 6 batches. If anything, this has gotten me looking at alternatives to spice up my yeast usage. I have to say that in the past I have always refrigerated for longer periods, but I moved and left several refrigerators behind, which was a poor decision in retrospect.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
Sure, OK, if you put layer upon layer of enough stuff on top of anything, the forces eventually become so great that almost anything will compact. And with large conical fermenters, you have forces concentrated due to the conical fermenter geometry, so, yes, I can see how the bottom layer of yeast and debris at the bottom of a conical could get compacted to a higher density than the debris at the top.
But this isn't unique to yeast or an inherent property of yeast. And by this definition, the top layer of yeast is free to go back into suspension when disturbed, for example, by pouring. The only thing preventing the top layer of yeast from going back into suspension are the forces of flocculation.
No. This is really the fundamental misunderstanding I'm arguing against here. Flocculation is not yeast falling out of solution or the clarifying of beer.
The important point, and I cannot stress this enough, is that flocculation is yeast cells and flocs joining together by *receptor-ligand* interactions. I urge you to go back to the picture I posted earlier in the thread. The adhesive forces between cell-surface receptors and ligands dominate in terms of the yeast cells and flocs sticking together.
I know this gets into the molecular biology and most folks here aren't molecular biologists -- I get that. But if you're arguing aginst what I'm saying, you have to at least try to understand what I'm saying.
I'll say it again for emphasis -- the adhesive forces between cell-surface receptors and ligands dominate in terms of the yeast cells and flocs sticking together.
When the flocs settle to the bottom of a fermenter, the flocs themselves begin to flocculate with other flocs, forming a larger structure of cells stuck together due to a whole bunch of receptor-ligand interactions.
It's important to distinguish between flocculation (cells and flocs coming together due to receptor-ligand interactions) and flocs and cells settling to the bottom due to gravity. The settling process *isn't* flocculation. Just because you have super clear beer, doesn't mean you have super-flocculating yeast. Even individual yeast cells will eventually settle out. Yeast settling out is not flocculation.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
Here's a nice intro to receptor-ligand interactions:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...hanisms-of-cell-signaling/a/signal-perception
And it's interesting, because earlier in the thread (before SanPancho came in and started insulting me), smata67 and I were discussing yeast holding hands:
And once you start to understand yeast flocculation in terms of receptor-ligand interactions, you can see that smata67's metaphor of yeast holding hands, is the perfect one! That's exactly the way to think about it. The number of interactions and the strength of the interactions will, in large part, determine the difference between low and high flocculating yeast.
Now, yeast flocculation is, by all accounts, very complex, and a full understanding can't be boiled down to simply receptor-ligand interactions. But a good understanding must include this concept, as it's fundamental to yeast flocculation.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...hanisms-of-cell-signaling/a/signal-perception
And it's interesting, because earlier in the thread (before SanPancho came in and started insulting me), smata67 and I were discussing yeast holding hands:
And once you start to understand yeast flocculation in terms of receptor-ligand interactions, you can see that smata67's metaphor of yeast holding hands, is the perfect one! That's exactly the way to think about it. The number of interactions and the strength of the interactions will, in large part, determine the difference between low and high flocculating yeast.
Now, yeast flocculation is, by all accounts, very complex, and a full understanding can't be boiled down to simply receptor-ligand interactions. But a good understanding must include this concept, as it's fundamental to yeast flocculation.
Ok so the cells bind together and fall to the bottom, or in some other chemistry float to the top. I see that it will help keep the yeast cake bound together on the bottom of the bottle. Compaction also contributes. And you will get some compaction even without layer after layer being sediment-ed on top. I have noticed the difference in the first bottle that I open and the last.
Regardless of the chemistry, the problem is not truly the result of 1056. The OP chilled the bottle for only 30 minutes. No real description on how the bottle was handled. Was it turned upside down on the way to the fridge? Was the bottle shaken? Way the beer poured out to the bottle in 2 seconds?
I have used 1056 and it's equivalents from other labs and not had any problem. In fact I have not had the problem described with ANY yeast.
Pour carefully and stop when you see sediment entering the glass and stop. The most I have ever had to leave in the bottom of the glass is 1/4 inch.
I has also been questioned whether the problem was not yeast at all, but rather chill haze.
Regardless of the chemistry, the problem is not truly the result of 1056. The OP chilled the bottle for only 30 minutes. No real description on how the bottle was handled. Was it turned upside down on the way to the fridge? Was the bottle shaken? Way the beer poured out to the bottle in 2 seconds?
I have used 1056 and it's equivalents from other labs and not had any problem. In fact I have not had the problem described with ANY yeast.
Pour carefully and stop when you see sediment entering the glass and stop. The most I have ever had to leave in the bottom of the glass is 1/4 inch.
I has also been questioned whether the problem was not yeast at all, but rather chill haze.
BitterSweetBrews
Tim Trabold
Here is another pretty old thread on the same subject of firm yeast cakes with some comments from some more very experienced brewers.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/how-to-get-a-firm-tight-compact-yeast-cake.251796/
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/how-to-get-a-firm-tight-compact-yeast-cake.251796/
There was talk of different yeasts and that is probably valid.
The talk of long primaries? I wonder if that is still what they would say?
I bag my hops in any beer that has over 4 ounces. The hops make a loose cake even looser. I siphon with an autosiphon. I let the fermenter sit for a while. Then I just use care siphoning. I hold the siphon out of the trub, though in most cases it is not deep enough to rise above the cap on the end of the autosiphon. I tip the fermenter to get the beer deeper along the bottom edge. As soon as I see debris coming out I stop the siphon. I don't really care too much about how hard the yeast cake/trub is..
The OP is about the cake in the bottom of bottles though. I find that is not a problem either if you don't transfer a lot of trub to the bottles.
catdaddy66
Well-Known Member
Exactly my process and experience...
Like I stated before- I don’t bottle so I’m not super familiar. But most homebrew bottles I’ve been handed have some yeast in them. I definitely tasted it. Some more than others. And I’m not a super taster by any means.
If somebody is used to tasting a bit of yeast in their bottles, then they might not think that it could be related to the hazy issue. And we’re all talking about yeast and settling so I think it’s relevant. Both problems can exist at the same time- chill haze AND yeast not compacting.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
Agreed. There's nothing wrong with 1056. It's a great strain. But it's not a high flocculator and that limits its appeal and usefulness to some brewers.
No. Go back and re-read the OP. He bottle conditioned for 5 weeks, then moved to the fridge. When he poured it 30 minutes later, the beer was "clear as day" in the bottle -- which means he moved it carefully. He poured the beer with "tenderness." (He wrote: "No amount of tenderness on the pour can keep the beer from ending up cloudy after pouring.")
Exactly.
OK, fine, but there is very little to compact the topmost layer of yeast at the bottom -- it's just gravity and the column of beer on top. That's not nothing, but it's not much.
So you advocate waiting lots of time and chilling for days or weeks and waiting for the thin layer of yeast to compact slowly from gravity.
I advocate using a higher flocculating yeast and not having to add any extra time or work to the OP's process.
We have different approaches, that's all.
Gnomebrewer
Well-Known Member
Just another thought for the OP......I have also not had this problem with US05/WLP001 (similar strain to 1056 - I've never actually used 1056) and am wondering if it could be a water chemistry thing. What is the Calcium content of your water? Are you meeting the 50ppm (or thereabouts) Calcium minimum? Calcium is known to be needed for yeast to flocculate.
Edit: With all the flocculation vs compaction 'debate', I'll clarify that Calcium is needed to help yeast drop to the bottom and stay there after they flocc together.
Edit: With all the flocculation vs compaction 'debate', I'll clarify that Calcium is needed to help yeast drop to the bottom and stay there after they flocc together.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
Yes, most definitely probably so.
Bottle conditioning involves adding some sugar to feed the yeast in suspension. Some new yeast growth will occur in the bottle, creating new cells. And then all those cells will settle to the bottom. A yeast cake is pretty much unavoidable. We're not talking about fermenter trub transferred to the bottles.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
That's a great point. Flocculation is a Ca2+ dependent process.
But very little calcium is actually needed. I think that unless the OP is using distilled or RO water, it's very likely there's enough calcium for flocculation to proceed normally.
If you're in a hurry to drink the beer, I would suggest that you use a highly flocculent yeast. Otherwise, patience works well. When I used 1056 0r US-05, I found that it took longer than I wanted to wait for the sediment to compact and become stable.
The solution was using BRY-97 or Mangrove Jack's M44. More flocculent yeasts stabilize faster after dropping out IMO.
The solution was using BRY-97 or Mangrove Jack's M44. More flocculent yeasts stabilize faster after dropping out IMO.
BitterSweetBrews
Tim Trabold
Agreed.
Although I did mis-state (type) my comment.
I should have said yeast ending up in the glass, not in the bottle.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
Yes, sir, they sure do.
And earlier in the thread we were discussing some of the molecular mechanisms behind that.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
Yes, we disagree, and that's ok.
My advice to OP, switch to a more flocculant strain with a similar flavor profile.
Your advice to OP would be what exactly, kh54s10?
My advice to OP, switch to a more flocculant strain with a similar flavor profile.
Your advice to OP would be what exactly, kh54s10?
Gnomebrewer
Well-Known Member
I just had a look at Atlanta's water profile - it has 4 to 6ppm Calcium - that's virtually RO water! If the OP (lives in North Georgia according to their profile) has similar water (which is likely) and isn't adding salts, then this could well be the cause of the issue. Try adding half a teaspoon each of Calcium chloride and Gypsum per gallon of brewing water for APA's and IPA's (halve that for less hoppy styles) and see if that helps the yeast drop.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
It's a great thought. But the problem is that research shows the concentration of Ca2+ required for flocculation is 10^-8 M, which is something like 4 parts per *billion*. So even Atlanta water has 1000x the required concentration.
Gnomebrewer
Well-Known Member
The problem is that not much of the Calcium from brewing water makes its way to the fermentor. Precipitation in the mash and kettle takes out a lot of it. Malt also adds some, so it's a complex and not fully understood science. The fact is that it's commonly believed (which doesn't necessarily make it right) that 40 to 50ppm Calcium in brewing water should be viewed as the minimum (many brewers of ales aim for at least 100 to 150ppm). I'd take this common knowledge any day over a 44 year old study that focused on 'strongly flocculent' yeast (which 1056 isn't). I'd be willing to bet that if the OP tries boosting the Calcium, they'll see an improvement in flocculation.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2019
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 74
Right, thank you.
And that thread can be summed up with:
"S04 flocs great; S05 not so much."
Which essentially makes my point.
Gnomebrewer
Well-Known Member
There are a few opinions in that thread: leave the beer longer in primary; cold crash before racking; S04 floccs better than US05. One person (Yooper - a highly repected and knowledgeable HBT staff member) is the only one who comments that S04 flocs better than US05, so it's not the summary of the thread. Now, S04 does floc WAY better than US05, no doubting that, but it also tastes completely different. Notty is closer to US05, but still tastes different.
The point that others (including myself) are trying to make is that, with proper handling, US05 can still give a good enough pour out of the bottle. As good as WY1968? Not even close. That sucker sticks to the bottom like a rubber sheet. But, if you like hop forward IPA and APA (which I don't particularly), 1056 or its equivalent is going to give the flavour profile many brewers are looking for.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Factors affecting Water Chemistry Calculations (Oh no, not again!)- Latest: BrewnWKopperKat
-
-
-
-