Probably Done With 1056

[Terpene]

The problem is that not much of the Calcium from brewing water makes its way to the fermentor.

Really? You got a cite for that?

Precipitation in the mash and kettle takes out a lot of it.

Really? In terms of concentration of Ca2+? You got a cite for that?

The fact is that it's commonly believed... that 40 to 50ppm Calcium in brewing water should be viewed as the minimum.

...which doesn't necessarily make it right...

No, it sure doesn't. And even if it is good practice, it's probably not about flocculation, because as the research clearly shows, flocculation requires Ca2+ concentration a full *four orders of magnitude* less than 40 PPM -- we're talking 10,000x here.

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.

OK, it's your money.

 

[Terpene]

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.

Um, no, sir. Many participants in that thread expressed basically the same thought.

Thread: "How to get a firm, tight, compact.....yeast cake"?

Either use a high flocculating yeast or leave the fermenter in the 30's for a week or two after primary is completely finished.

In my experience, both S04 and nottingham form very compact tight yeast cakes, within 10 days...

Some strains, like S05, seem to not want to clear the beer until it's been cold crashed for a while. But s04 makes a crystal clear beer right away for me, without cold crashing.

YMMV, but I generally primary for 3 weeks, almost always use US-05, and I generally tend to get fairly soupy yeast cakes.

I have the same issue of soupy yeast cake using US-05...

S05 just doesn't really compact as well, and it doesn't clear the beer as well. I will have cloudy beer with S05 long after another strain would have been clear. If you want to have a tightly compacted yeast cake with S05, it may never really happen. You could try putting it in the fridge for a few days before racking, that will help.

s04 makes a really nice tight yeast cake and very quickly I might add!!!

Survey says: You want a tight yeast cake? Don't use S05.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Um, no, sir. Many participants in that thread expressed basically the same thought.

Thread: "How to get a firm, tight, compact.....yeast cake"?

Survey says: You want a tight yeast cake? Don't use S05.

You're missing these comments (very conveniently so it would seem) and taking general comments about US05 as a comparison with other yeasts.

leave the fermenter in the 30's for a week or two after primary is completely finished.

Leave you beer at least another week in primary or more.

I get little if any sediment in my bottles, simply by opting for a long primary. This is my yeastcake for my Sri Lankin Stout that sat in primary for 5 weeks. Notice how tight the yeast cake is? None of that got racked over to my bottling bucket. And the beer is extremely clear.

Note: Revvy is a very experience and highly respected brewer.

The point is, again, the we all know that other yeast strains give a tighter yeast cake. They also give a different beer. There are strategies to help with a tighter US05 yeast cake (not that it will ever match S04).

 

[Terpene]

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.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, never did. But I would point out, what you call "proper handling," I call extra work and extra time. And I would add, after your extra work and extra time, you still have to pour oh so carefully so as not to disturb the yeast.

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.

There are plenty of commercial strains from all the top manufacturers that offer a higher flocculating yeast while offering a very similar flavor profile as 1056/S05/001/Chico. Several have been mentioned by other brewers in this thread.

***

At this point, I feel like we're going around and around. If brewers like 1056, go for it. But many will choose strains like San Diego Super and Pac Man instead, for all the reasons I've been stating in this thread. Brewer's choice, ok?

But as pertains the technical issues, if folks put out misinformation, I'm going to try to correct the record.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Really? In terms of concentration of Ca2+? You got a cite for that?

Are you seriously trying to debate whether Calcium joins with phosphate and oxalate (and then precipitates) in the mash and boil? I don't need a cite, it's common brewing knowledge. It's like asking you for a cite that a Calcium ion has a 2+ charge. What I know is that I started brewing with very low Calcium water (I use rain/tank water). My beers were like soup. Once I started using some brewing salts, I got better efficiency and the beers dropped clear. The pic in my avatar is an amber ale brewed with US05 poured out of a bottle. No issues with cloudiness in that!

 

[Gnomebrewer]

But as pertains the technical issues, if folks put out misinformation, I'm going to try to correct the record.

What misinformation?

 

[Terpene]

Look, Gnomebrewer, I think you made an astute point about calcium ions affecting flocculation. But when I present you with peer-reviewed published science showing that calcium in the parts per *billion* is sufficient for flocculation to proceed, you deny the science in favor of what you call "common knowledge," saying:

I'd take this common knowledge any day over a 44 year old study...

Then you make a statement about calcium not making it to the fermenter that is an exaggeration, at best, saying:

The problem is that *not much* of the Calcium from brewing water makes its way to the fermentor.
(Emphasis added.)

Not much? As in almost all gone? It's not believable. And the fact that you won't back it up with something, makes it even less believable. I call that misinformation.

***

Look, denying science in favor of brewing dogma, or any dogma, is where I part ways. You want to go down that path, buon voyage, my friend. I wish you the best.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

I said that I'd take common knowledge (including my own observations) over a 44 year old study which STUDIED STRONGLY FLOCCULENT YEASTS! That is not relevant to this discussion. Does it apply to 1056? Where's the evidence? Can you cite a study that looks at the effect of Ca++ on 1056 (or any other low floc yeast)? The fact is that Calcium reacts with oxalate and phosphate in the mash and boil. To what degree? The science is poorly known. If you find studies with exact numbers I'd love to read them. I know that using sufficient Ca++ in my water means that US05/WLP001 (I haven't used WY1056) flocs and compacts nicely with sufficient time in primary and sufficient chilling time, and I believe the OP will find the same.

 

[Terpene]

I think the bottom line I hope(d) to bring to this thread is that when it comes to flocculation, the biology dominates. Conditions are far less important.

And honestly, I'm really surprised how this is being received, because for most brewers, especially those brewing American ales, this is really good news. It means that by choosing a more flocculant strain, brewers have less work to do. It also means brewers can cut their grain-to-glass time.

There really is no downside. But by the amount of argument in this thread against these ideas, you'd think I was bringing bad news, like telling folks their first born son didn't make the baseball team.

Go figure.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Here's an article that highlights the difference in Ca++ requirements between high and low floc'ing yeasts

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04897.x

Cations have a central role on S. cerevisiae flocculation. Among them, Ca2+ is generally recognized as the most effective in the promotion of flocculation (Miki et al. 1982a; Stratford 1989). The amount required to induce the flocculation seems to be strain dependent; while for some strains, a trace amount of Ca2+ (10−5–10−8 mol l−1) (Taylor and Orton 1975) is enough to promote flocculation, other strains require a higher amount (5 × 10−4 mol l−1) of Ca2+ (Soares and Seynaeve 2000b). It was shown that more important than the total Ca2+ concentration present in the media is the concentration of the available Ca2+ (i.e. free and labile Ca2+) since this fraction is the only one that is able to induce the correct conformation of the lectins; the available Ca2+ concentration is influenced by the pH of the medium and the presence of complexing compounds in solution (Soares and Seynaeve 2000b).

 

[kh54s10]

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 would be that if you really don't like 1056 don't use it. Maybe use some that have been suggested.

My experience has been that 1056 pours very little differently than any other yeast I have used. In fact I have not experience the same problem as the OP with any yeast.

Question? How much yeast/trub is getting into the bottles? My worst bottles have less than 1/8 inch of sediment in the bottom. When I see debris going into the glass I stop pouring. The beers stay clear. The most I ever leave in the bottle is 1/4 inch.

The other question asked, that I haven't seen answered (it might have been), could it possibly be chill haze and not yeast clouding the beer?