Sulfur with 34/70

[Dgallo]

Im doing my first true lager, a NZ Pilsner fermenting with 1 pack of 34/70, og 1.051. It’s on the 8 day of fermentation and has been steady at 56. Fermentation has slowed, Krausen gone, and noticing a strong sulfur smell from the blow off. Is this typical for this strain?

 

[goodolarchie]

For sure, I have it happen sometimes (including a few weeks ago), but I generally use Imperials Global strain (also Weihenstephaner).

It cleans up though, you're smelling it leaving the beer with the CO^2 offgassing. Just let it do it's thing, 8 days isn't so long into the fermentation.

Some strains it seems to hang around a little bit longer, but in my experience this one cleans up quite well.

 

[Dgallo]

For sure, I have it happen sometimes (including a few weeks ago), but I generally use Imperials Global strain (also Weihenstephaner).

It cleans up though, you're smelling it leaving the beer with the CO^2 offgassing. Just let it do it's thing, 8 days isn't so long into the fermentation.

Some strains it seems to hang around a little bit longer, but in my experience this one cleans up quite well.

Should I warm it to 60 or just let it be

 

[Dland]

I warm it up at the end to help it clean up. It might not be necessary but I don't see a downside.

 

[goodolarchie]

Agreed, it doesn't hurt to rise to low 60's... even though in my experience the strain doesn't really need a Diacetyl rest (and you can VDK test this with the microwave method if you're concerned). I generally only do this when primary fermentation is down to a slow bubble every 5-6 seconds cold or the yeast is within a few points of target FG, and it will speed up a bit as it warms.

 

[thehaze]

I've used W-34/70 a few times, and had sulfur only once, and that time was when I fermented lower. W-34/70 works well at ale temperatures, and produces " clean " tasting beer. I usually go anything between 61 and 65F and don't experience sulfur. The diacetyl rest is usually at around 68F and maybe above just to be sure.

 

[dmtaylor]

Most lager strains produce a good amount of sulfur. Not a concern. It will totally disappear with time, typically within about 3 weeks plus or minus.

 

[jswillbrewforbeer]

Definitely normal. What size batch? Unless you're doing about a 2 gallon or smaller batch that's a pretty drastically low pitch rate which will greatly increase sulfur with this strain. Not that it's really a huge problem, I've under-pitched that yeast and turned out a great beer. FWIW, with this strain I've found it to be helpful to do at least 3 weeks in primary before racking to secondary which should completely clean up the sulfur.

 

[Dgallo]

Definitely normal. What size batch? Unless you're doing about a 2 gallon or smaller batch that's a pretty drastically low pitch rate which will greatly increase sulfur with this strain. Not that it's really a huge problem, I've under-pitched that yeast and turned out a great beer. FWIW, with this strain I've found it to be helpful to do at least 3 weeks in primary before racking to secondary which should completely clean up the sulfur.

Should have mentioned I made 1l starter to target .8mc/ml/*p

 

[dmtaylor]

One pack should be enough for 5 gallons. Most brewers and calculators overpitch by about double IMO. If he made a starter... well... like I said... overpitch.

 

[Genuine]

I've noticed that 34/70 will throw sulfur aroma around the tail end of fermentation so I let it go a couple extra days afterwards to let the yeast clean anything up that they need to. I've always used pack of 34/70 for all of the lagers I've done and haven't noticed any negative outcomes. I didn't know that a lot of brewers use 2 packs of it till I saw a video on youtube. I've harvested and have repitched it so far 4 times and they've all been great.

 

[J_Flint]

I've used W-34/70 a few times, and had sulfur only once, and that time was when I fermented lower. W-34/70 works well at ale temperatures, and produces " clean " tasting beer. I usually go anything between 61 and 65F and don't experience sulfur. The diacetyl rest is usually at around 68F and maybe above just to be sure.

I almost never ferment this strain below 60. It does such a great job at higher temps and this speeds up fermentation time quite a bit for my "lagers." I do get quite a bit of sulfur but it fades rapidly to an almost non existent amount. Leaves just a subtle hint which I welcome in most lagers.

 

[Dgallo]

I almost never ferment this strain below 60. It does such a great job at higher temps and this speeds up fermentation time quite a bit for my "lagers." I do get quite a bit of sulfur but it fades rapidly to an almost non existent amount. Leaves just a subtle hint which I welcome in most lagers.

Since this is my first run, I needed a true base of this beer style to have a point of reference in the future

 

[Mer-man]

Should have mentioned I made 1l starter to target .8mc/ml/*p

That’s a really Low pitch rate, even for 56F. So you’re likely seeing exaggeration of normal sulfur production.

 

[Robert65]

^^^^This.

0.8 is a typical pitch rate for British ales. Lager brewers aim for 2.0-2.5. Homebrewers generally massively underpitch all styles, but in lagers the effects will be most profound.

 

[Dgallo]

That’s a really Low pitch rate, even for 56F. So you’re likely seeing exaggeration of normal sulfur production.

From this experience I can’t imagine that to be true. I hit final gravity at 56* after day 8. Today is day 12 and the sulfur smell is already gone and is holding at 1.008. I tend to believe people notoriously over pitch than what is truly needed

 

[Soulshine2]

Im doing my first true lager, a NZ Pilsner fermenting with 1 pack of 34/70, og 1.051. It’s on the 8 day of fermentation and has been steady at 56. Fermentation has slowed, Krausen gone, and noticing a strong sulfur smell from the blow off. Is this typical for this strain?

not sure. Ive not used it much but my last brew I used 34/70 in what I classed as a Premium American Lager. I let it ferment a full 2 weeks and bottle conditioned it a full 10 days. Tastes fine . nice body, malty and smooth . No sulphur anywhere.

 

[Soulshine2]

Should I warm it to 60 or just let it be

try 62

 

[Genuine]

I've done a few lagers at ale temps now with 34/70 and have brought them all to my homebrew club. Not a single person mentioned anything about any sort of off flavors. One was a lawn mower beer, an american light lager, Saaz to bitter to 12 IBU. It was everything I wanted it to be and more.

 

[Dgallo]

I've done a few lagers at ale temps now with 34/70 and have brought them all to my homebrew club. Not a single person mentioned anything about any sort of off flavors. One was a lawn mower beer, an american light lager, Saaz to bitter to 12 IBU. It was everything I wanted it to be and more.

I’ve heard it works at ale temps and Brülosophy did a side by side with fermenting at low 50 and then one at 70 and very few correctly identified the experimental brew. However my goal was trying to be as true to style as possible

 

[Mer-man]

From this experience I can’t imagine that to be true. I hit final gravity at 56* after day 8. Today is day 12 and the sulfur smell is already gone and is holding at 1.008. I tend to believe people notoriously over pitch than what is truly needed

I forgot to add "IMHO". I was contrasting my recent experience with 2206 (a sulfur producer of note), where I pitched over 2M/P/ml and it fermented out in 8 days, spunded it, and sulfur was only evident in the pleasant background note way. And it dropped clear within a month.
Since it's new for you, maybe you do an identical batch and double the pitch, to try it?

 

[Loud Brewing]

Yo gallo, for what's it's worth I have a lager goin with 34-70 right now and noticed no sulfur from the blowoff.
However its apples to oranges, as I have been room temp fermenting under pressure to reduce esters. Reached terminal after day 4 at 70f and 12psi

 

[SanPancho]

Grain bill, yeast, and hops are gonna peg you to style.

On lagers its best to either pitch stupid amounts of yeast at “traditional” cold temps or pick yeasts that like it warm. This guy likes 62 and finishing around 64 to 66. No d rest needed.

Undecided on whether lagering is needed in hoppy lagers. Some have come out amazingly (comet) while others just faded away (motueka/pacifica). I guess it also depends if you’re dumping hops before you lager or not. Some folks swear by extended cold rests, im not convinced yet. Doesn’t seem like consistent results that way. Ymmv.

 

[applescrap]

Yes it's normal with this yeast. That said it doesn't always produce sulfur, but often does.

Wow, to hear people chime right in with warm fermented information. There was a time when you would have been shamed/insulted out of this world.

 

[Loud Brewing]

Yes it's normal with this yeast. That said it doesn't always produce sulfur, but often does.

Wow, to hear people chime right in with warm fermented information. There was a time when you would have been shamed/insulted out of this world.

No shame in my game

 

[monkeymath]

I’ve heard it works at ale temps and Brülosophy did a side by side with fermenting at low 50 and then one at 70 and very few correctly identified the experimental brew. However my goal was trying to be as true to style as possible

A short side note about that xbmt (found here http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/08/fermentation-temperature-pt-4-lager-yeast-saflager-3470-exbeeriment-results/):

12 of 26 participants chose correctly. This is just shy of statistical significance. One more would have sufficed and we could have concluded - within the statistical accuracy of 5% - that the beers were perceptibly different. But 12 out of 26 is still a suspiciously high ratio.
As the number of correct guesses fell short, we cannot conclude they were different. But we also cannot conclude the converse.

The "cold" batch got the "quick lager treatment", where the temperature is raised once 50% attenuation is reached:

"With the cool ferment beer was sitting at 1.032 SG, slightly over 50% to my target FG, I moved it into the chamber holding the warm ferment batch"

Now, the xbmt on the quick lager method (http://brulosophy.com/2016/09/19/la...al-vs-quick-fermentation-exbeeriment-results/) *did* show a significant difference between cool fermentation and the "quick lager method".
Although a different yeast was used in that xbmt, it seems plausible that the "quick lager" method produces a beer closer to the one made when fermenting at warmer temperatures".

 

[dmtaylor]

A short side note about that xbmt (found here http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/08/fermentation-temperature-pt-4-lager-yeast-saflager-3470-exbeeriment-results/):

12 of 26 participants chose correctly. This is just shy of statistical significance. One more would have sufficed and we could have concluded - within the statistical accuracy of 5% - that the beers were perceptibly different. But 12 out of 26 is still a suspiciously high ratio.
As the number of correct guesses fell short, we cannot conclude they were different. But we also cannot conclude the converse...

Ugh..... I love Marshall & Co., but in my view, none of their results are conclusive or "reach statistical significance" because their sample size is always too small. Give me results from 40 or 50 tasters and then we can begin to think about whether there are any somewhat conclusive results. Until then, it's all just a "maybe, maybe not" kind of pseudo-"conclusion", at best.

On the other side of the coin, I agree with you @monkeymath that 12 of 26 choosing correctly seems pretty dang telling. To me this just means that instead of 95% confidence we have closer to 90% confidence (or however it calculates out) of *maybe* there being some difference. In my view, 90% confidence is more reasonable and not at all bad or unreasonable for a bunch of goofs drinking beer in somebody’s garage or whatever (always what I envision for this kind of stuff).

But again... show me results from at least 40-50 tasters. Then I'm far more likely to believe any of it.

Just playing devil's advocate. In my own personal experience and edumacated opinion... I do believe there is a difference between the two samples. Not that I can say for sure as I haven't run experiments like this myself. But I'm pretty damn sure. Call it my untested hypothesis. Now, go ahead, prove me wrong.

[/soapbox]

Cheers all.

 

[monkeymath]

I love Marshall & Co., but in my view, none of their results are conclusive or "reach statistical significance" because their sample size is always too small.

I'm sorry, I spent like 5 minutes trying to get this point across without sounding like a smug ******, I know that I have failed at that, so I just kindly ask you to believe me I'm not trying to be an ass **:
That statement is in and of itself entirely wrong and expresses a deep misconception of hypothesis testing and statistical significance.

"Statistical significance" at a certain confidence level (say 95%) always means the same thing, regardless of sample size: There is a less than 5% chance to observe the data at hand under the assumption of the null-hypothesis. This so-called frequentist approach has its very own set of problems (again, the marvelous Randall Munroe kind of nails it https://xkcd.com/1132/). But it is, by its very nature, independent of sample size.

Take the experiment we just discussed: 12 out of 26 people made the right guess, which is 46%. Assuming the null hypothesis - that the beers were indeed absolutely indistinguishable - everyone has only a 33% chance to guess the right cup. If we had a sample size of 100 people and 46 out of them would have picked the right cup, this would absolutely be statistically significant. The low sample size is reflected in the high percentage of correct guesses that we need in order to reach statistical significance.

Now, as I said in the - doubtlessly charming - foreword to this explanation, I do not mean to call you out for "being wrong in the internet" (https://xkcd.com/386/) or anything of the kind, but I feel like I'm repeating these things more often than I'd like to and I just want to get the point across as clearly as possible, hence the unforgivingly technical tone. I'm actually thinking of putting together a thread with some basic info about this stuff for future reference when somebody tries to turn "we cannot refute the null hypothesis" into "we therefore prove the null hypothesis" (https://xkcd.com/843/), but I know that'll just bury me even deeper in the rabbit hole of educated *****ebaggery.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to hijack this thread. Please forward all personal insults directly to me, so other people can enjoy their sulphury beer in peace.

Oh, by the way: had quite a bit of sulphur during fermentation of my last three brews using W34/70, in spite of plenty of yeast, yeast nutrient, protein rest, what have you. Turned out great in the end nontheless, so nothing to fret about. Raising the temperature is also unneccessary, it will clean up just fine at low temperatures within just a few days.

** (but I was born that way)

 

[dmtaylor]

@monkeymath, my insistence upon at least 40 sample size is based on in-depth review of ASTM E1885, "Standard Test Method for Sensory Analysis—Triangle Test". It has been a topic of fascination to me. It does require some subjective selection of alpha, beta, and Pd. In a nutshell, basically assuming that most people subjected to triangles are pretty unqualified and likely to be completely guessing, a sample size around the 40+ mark seems to iron this out, to some extent. Meanwhile a sample size of roughly 20 or fewer tasters is rendered essentially bogus as the odds are far fewer of having enough people who aren't completely guessing, or conversely, the odds are far greater of having a ton of people who are totally just guessing. And they'll even freely admit it in a lot of cases. It's like the statistics of statistics.

I respect you. Cheers. And, sorry to everybody else for the

 

[applescrap]

Ime the strong sulfur smell happens when the yeast are stressed. Notably pitched to hot, and or big temp difference between yeast and wort at pitch.

 

[monkeymath]

my insistence upon at least 40 sample size is based on in-depth review of ASTM E1885, "Standard Test Method for Sensory Analysis—Triangle Test".

Thanks for the clarification and sorry for wrongfully putting you in the "it failed to prove X so it proves not-X" camp.
What you seem to be getting at - a 50$ paywall is blocking me off - here is different from the statement from above, which I criticized.
You initially wrote that you considered none of their results statistically significant, due to the low sample size. And here I insist to disagree: the actual statistically significant results that they do produce *are* sound, as I tried to explain above.

The problem is that in a lot of cases, the design of the experiment seems to be orthogonal to the intention or, at least, the general reception and discussion surrounding it:
Typically, the experiment sets out to *prove* a conventional homebrew wisdom, whereas it often seems they actually want to *disprove* them. And when the experiment fails to produce sound proof of "pitch healthy yeast", it is often taken as "MYTH BUSTED: yeast health is irrelevant".

Now, although absence of proof is not proof of absence, it is a natural, healthy and even intelligent reaction to wonder why it had not been possible to prove it: this is the approach most people take to evaluate the question on the existence of unicorns or vampires or the effect of homeopathy (sorry, I couldn't resist).
And here the point that you, @dmtaylor, make in your last post becomes critical: I don't believe in unicorns because it is quite unlikely there wouldn't be any well-documented reports of them if they existed. If we had a triangle test where only 3'333 of 10'000 people identified the odd beer out, I'd say it's rather unlikely the beers were drastically different.
But an xbmt with 12 out of 26 ... ? I'd be more inclined to chalk this one up to small sample size, for if we had observed the same percentage of 46% in a larger sample size, we would certainly be convinced the beers were different.

That said, it wouldn't be too hard to set up the experiment to actually try and "prove the two beers equal" - there are some arbitrary parameters to be picked, sampling becomes an issue, but it can all be done to a certain degree of "homebrew science".
If you're interested in doing a little collaborative write-up - so people can be less wrong on the internet - hit me up.

 

[Immocles]

Im doing my first true lager, a NZ Pilsner fermenting with 1 pack of 34/70, og 1.051. It’s on the 8 day of fermentation and has been steady at 56. Fermentation has slowed, Krausen gone, and noticing a strong sulfur smell from the blow off. Is this typical for this strain?

How did this turn out for you? I’m about 9 days into a Vienna lager with 34/70 slurry and noticing some sulfur from the airlock as well. I plan on letting it do it’s thing for at least two weeks due to life.

I don’t recall it during the first pitch of this yeast, but I could have forgotten or it was less noticeable.

 

[Dgallo]

How did this turn out for you? I’m about 9 days into a Vienna lager with 34/80 slurry and noticing some sulfur from the airlock as well. I plan on letting it do it’s thing for at least two weeks due to life.

I don’t recall it during the first pitch of this yeast, but I could have forgotten or it was less noticeable.

Turned out great. Took gold with this beer actually

 

[Immocles]

Excellent! Congrats!
That helps ease my mind haha.