US-05, pale ale and diacetyl. Ring a bell?

[Indyking]

Human nature is amazing, I agree.

Additionally:
If the diacetyl is getting worse over time, it's probably an infection.

You are obviously convinced I did something wrong or have an infection... It was just a miracle that my other 40+ batches turned out fantastic. :sigh: what can I say...

 

[bovineblitz]

You are obviously convinced I did something wrong or have an infection... It was just a miracle that my other 40+ batches turned out fantastic. :sigh: what can I say...

And you are obviously convinced that it has nothing to do with your brewing process/potential infection. You already decided before making the thread. At some point you stopped taking advice in stride and got defensive about it, I'm not really sure why. I've had this issue before and it sucked (got worse over time = probably acetobacter despite my stringent sanitation), I solved it with my very next batch.

5% of your batches have a diacetyl issue with a yeast known for throwing low levels of diacetyl (basically none). You only have a sample size of ~40, so "all my other batches turned out fine" doesn't mean much. The issue is obviously related between the two batches - you think it's an S05 batch issue but it's more likely something in your brewing process (seasonal temperature affecting your temp control, tap water composition fluxuation, perhaps, if not simply not giving it time to finish) or acetobacter/pedio.

Chances are you're not treating the yeast right, or you have some sort of diacetyl-producing microbe in there. All yeast is 'prone' to producing diacetyl. You can google literally any yeast strain + diacetyl and find reports... because? All yeast produces it, and not treating the yeast properly results in it being a problem... plus it can come from non-yeast sources.

I have made wonderful brown ales and stouts using US-05 under this same methodology, no problems with off flavors whatsoever.

How about beers with less caramel/roast character? A moderate amount of diacetyl can seem like a crystal malt in some cases. For all we know, you're getting diacetyl every single time you use S05, you're just not detecting it in other batches. It's slow to flocculate, perhaps 2 weeks isn't correct for this yeast but you're treating it like you would an English strain.

You can claim to be a bulletproof 'best brewer ever', or you can attempt to identify and fix the source of your problem.

In the APA the diacetyl flavor was strong since the beer was green upon kegging all the way to 2 months of cold conditioning. I had to dump it. Some off flavors are tolerable when subtle but diacetyl ruins it for me. I would rather have a bud light honestly.

For this black IPA I just legged it yesterday. Smell was clean but I picked up diacetyl on the green beer. Maybe this one will be ok once carbonated and conditioned. I hope.

You kegged it while it was green then cold conditioned? What temp? If it's serving temperature, that's probably your answer right there.

 

[moti_mo]

Just a thought. You absolutely don't have to use S-05 ever again if you don't want to. But...if you want to explore whether or not time on the yeast cake is one of your main issues, all you need to do is brew up the same recipe you used for your recent APA (try to keep everything about the brewing process the same as last time) and split that batch into two different fermentors. Pitch S-05 at the same pitching rates used before into each fermentor and ferment at the same temperature you did before. Keg one of the batches at the 2 week mark and let the other batch go 4 weeks before kegging. Compare.

And even if you don't want to try this experiment, definitely use some of the suggestions here for your future brews. If you taste diacetyl in a young beer that you're getting ready to keg, DON'T transfer it to a keg for cold conditioning. You know the diacetyl is there, and its well known that yeast will clean up diacetyl at warmer temperatures if given a little bit of time, but they don't stand a chance of cleaning it up at serving temperatures. Hence the reason every lager recipe ever written down includes some variation of the phrase "after the initial fermentation phase at ~50 F, warm up to >64 F for a diacetyl rest for several days". So, regardless of whether or not this is a particular issue with how S-05 works for you or not, that is the one thing you should definitely take from this thread - don't cool down a beer that has noticeable diacetyl; leave it to condition at near-room-temp for a while longer.

 

[ayoungrad]

Indyking, as this thread goes on I was just looking back at your posts. I may have missed something but just to double-check... are these two diacetyl batches the last 2 that you have brewed and tasted? Or were there others in between as well?

Also, I did miss it before my last post but you said you saw diacetyl and 05 all over the place on the net. From my searches, there are mentions here and there but most of those posts from various sites are similar to this thread... they are followed by many people disagreeing with them. As I had mentioned, 05 is so prevalent that you are bound to find comradery with other brewers who got diacetyl but that doesn't mean its a problem with the yeast. If you are talking about the most prevalently used yeast, you are bound to have multiple brewers using processes that inadvertently result in diacetyl.

For me it is both entertaining and frustrating (for reason well stated by recent posts) to read through this thread. The bottom line - why does anyone really care about this? For me, I probably shouldn't. Because, by you convincing yourself and others that it is a bad yeast will only decrease demand and decrease the price. So it's a win for me that way.

 

[moti_mo]

The bottom line - why does anyone really care about this?

That's a good point. I'm choosing to follow the thread and continue posting in the hopes Indyking knows that nobody is trying to criticize him or his technique, we're really just trying to help him.

 

[Indyking]

Just a thought. You absolutely don't have to use S-05 ever again if you don't want to. But...if you want to explore whether or not time on the yeast cake is one of your main issues, all you need to do is brew up the same recipe you used for your recent APA (try to keep everything about the brewing process the same as last time) and split that batch into two different fermentors. Pitch S-05 at the same pitching rates used before into each fermentor and ferment at the same temperature you did before. Keg one of the batches at the 2 week mark and let the other batch go 4 weeks before kegging. Compare.

And even if you don't want to try this experiment, definitely use some of the suggestions here for your future brews. If you taste diacetyl in a young beer that you're getting ready to keg, DON'T transfer it to a keg for cold conditioning. You know the diacetyl is there, and its well known that yeast will clean up diacetyl at warmer temperatures if given a little bit of time, but they don't stand a chance of cleaning it up at serving temperatures. Hence the reason every lager recipe ever written down includes some variation of the phrase "after the initial fermentation phase at ~50 F, warm up to >64 F for a diacetyl rest for several days". So, regardless of whether or not this is a particular issue with how S-05 works for you or not, that is the one thing you should definitely take from this thread - don't cool down a beer that has noticeable diacetyl; leave it to condition at near-room-temp for a while longer.

Yes, absolutely, I knew I should not keg it for cold conditioning if diacetyl was perceived but I tasted the green beer when it was already in the keg. Like I said, it was not too bad and I thought it was evident because it was still green and it would go away with carbonation.

 

[Indyking]

Indyking, as this thread goes on I was just looking back at your posts. I may have missed something but just to double-check... are these two diacetyl batches the last 2 that you have brewed and tasted? Or were there others in between as well?

Also, I did miss it before my last post but you said you saw diacetyl and 05 all over the place on the net. From my searches, there are mentions here and there but most of those posts from various sites are similar to this thread... they are followed by many people disagreeing with them. As I had mentioned, 05 is so prevalent that you are bound to find comradery with other brewers who got diacetyl but that doesn't mean its a problem with the yeast. If you are talking about the most prevalently used yeast, you are bound to have multiple brewers using processes that inadvertently result in diacetyl.

For me it is both entertaining and frustrating (for reason well stated by recent posts) to read through this thread. The bottom line - why does anyone really care about this? For me, I probably shouldn't. Because, by you convincing yourself and others that it is a bad yeast will only decrease demand and decrease the price. So it's a win for me that way.

The other diacetyl problem I had with US-05 was over 1 year ago with an APA. I have had many batches in between without problems including another APA with liquid yeast.

You guys have to realize this a 2 way road. Of course I could have done something wrong to "stress" the yeast as much as I think I got my technique nailed down, but assuming there is absolutely no chance I got a bad lot of the yeast (who knows how it was stored until it get to the store) or that this yeast is particularly prone to produce diacetyl under minor adverse conditions is not very nice, forgive me my honesty.

 

[moti_mo]

Sorry man, I don't think anyone is trying to pick on you or not be nice by any means. Its just a brewing forum where people sometimes come to get insight on what may be causing a particular problem and the best route for solving that problem. Everyone is analyzing your problem using the data that you've given them. The fact is - we don't have, and never will have, any data regarding whether or not you got a "bad lot" of the yeast or whether or not it was mishandled. All we can do is analyze everything else you've told us and give you opinions, and the overwhelming red flag regarding your technique and potential diacetyl problems is time in the primary on the yeast to allow it to clean up diacetyl. So its perfectly fine if you want to conclude that S-05 is a bad yeast, or prone to diacetyl production in minor adverse conditions, or that you got a bad or mishandled lot - its just that you don't have any actual data to back that up, so essentially you're just looking to rant and not looking for insight from any of the board members.

I would caution you against adopting the attitude of "I've done 40+ batches exactly the same way, and only had this problem twice, so it HAS to be this yeast". I've done 100+ batches, and I try to keep everything roughly the same every time, but I've had some batches come out off. It would be awesome to write those off to a "bad lot" of yeast, or something else that I had no control over. But I'm a scientist for my real job, so I'm kind of sensitized to the fact that, given the numerous variables that can affect the biology and chemistry of your fermentation, even when you think you've done EVERYTHING exactly the same, there could be some subtle variable(s) that has changed that you wouldn't normally give much thought to. But it could be that one (or two or three) subtle variable(s) that produces your bad batch that leaves you scratching your head. Sometimes you have to think really hard, and do some research, before you understand why your batch(es) came out bad.

Anyway, just remember to taste your beer BEFORE you keg it, and if you taste diacetyl, let it ride for a while. There's no need to rush your beer that you put a lot of time, effort, and money into if you can give it a little more time to make it perfect.

Again, not trying to criticize here, just looking to help.

 

[Indyking]

Sorry man, I don't think anyone is trying to pick on you or not be nice by any means. Its just a brewing forum where people sometimes come to get insight on what may be causing a particular problem and the best route for solving that problem. Everyone is analyzing your problem using the data that you've given them. The fact is - we don't have, and never will have, any data regarding whether or not you got a "bad lot" of the yeast or whether or not it was mishandled. All we can do is analyze everything else you've told us and give you opinions, and the overwhelming red flag regarding your technique and potential diacetyl problems is time in the primary on the yeast to allow it to clean up diacetyl. So its perfectly fine if you want to conclude that S-05 is a bad yeast, or prone to diacetyl production in minor adverse conditions, or that you got a bad or mishandled lot - its just that you don't have any actual data to back that up, so essentially you're just looking to rant and not looking for insight from any of the board members.

I would caution you against adopting the attitude of "I've done 40+ batches exactly the same way, and only had this problem twice, so it HAS to be this yeast". I've done 100+ batches, and I try to keep everything roughly the same every time, but I've had some batches come out off. It would be awesome to write those off to a "bad lot" of yeast, or something else that I had no control over. But I'm a scientist for my real job, so I'm kind of sensitized to the fact that, given the numerous variables that can affect the biology and chemistry of your fermentation, even when you think you've done EVERYTHING exactly the same, there could be some subtle variable(s) that has changed that you wouldn't normally give much thought to. But it could be that one (or two or three) subtle variable(s) that produces your bad batch that leaves you scratching your head. Sometimes you have to think really hard, and do some research, before you understand why your batch(es) came out bad.

Anyway, just remember to taste your beer BEFORE you keg it, and if you taste diacetyl, let it ride for a while. There's no need to rush your beer that you put a lot of time, effort, and money into if you can give it a little more time to make it perfect.

Again, not trying to criticize here, just looking to help.

I understand and I'm not upset with anybody, relax. I think this thread can actually be very useful to someone troubleshooting diacetyl but honestly nothing suggested was new to me. The attitude problem some folks have at hbt is that they assume people with off flavors in their beer don't know what they are doing. Not always the case. Yes I have done 2 APAs and 1 cream ale with liquid yeasts fermenting for "just" 2 weeks with no diacetyl. Professional brewers in fact dump their yeast out of the way as soon as its fermented, I have been to many brewery tours and I always ask the question: no way they let the yeast cake I contact for more than 2 weeks. Granted they have a fine automated control of their brewing, but still, we all know that hbt is full of supporters that think that wort/beer should sit in the fermenter for weeks, months! There is even jokes about it at some brewing clubs if you have not heard. Anything that goes wrong, the first thing people bring out here is, oh well did you ferment for a minimum of 3-4 weeks? Sorry I did not because I found 2 weeks to work for me. Oh we'll, then you are doing everything wrong.

 

[Brulosopher]

The attitude problem some folks have at hbt is that they assume people with off flavors in their beer don't know what they are doing.

Perhaps this assumption of yours impacted how you perceived the responses of others? Regardless, no one is questioning your brewing prowess, just trying to help. This is one of the few hobbies where a little humility, on everyone's part, can actually have a positive effect on the outcome. No?

Cheers, pal! I hope your diacetyl problems gets fixed soon. Ugh!

 

[ayoungrad]

I am totally with you on fermentation times. I now average about 2 weeks before bottling. But if I were to get on off-flavor, my first, second and third bets would be on something I unknowingly did wrong. And I think that's all people are saying. I hope I didn't come across as harsh. I was just trying to be funny.

On another note, professional brewers usually ferment in tall conicals. From things I've read, that is why they would never leave the beer on the yeast for extended periods - so they can avoid the risk of autolysis. The pressure on the yeast from a filled, tall conical is much greater that we see with buckets or carboys. And that pressure significantly increases the risk of autolysis. Again, this is only something I have read and I have no idea if it is true.

 

[moti_mo]

I understand and I'm not upset with anybody, relax. I think this thread can actually be very useful to someone troubleshooting diacetyl but honestly nothing suggested was new to me. The attitude problem some folks have at hbt is that they assume people with off flavors in their beer don't know what they are doing.

Not sure why you're telling me to relax, I was specifically responding to a post where you stated that people were not being nice to you. But it sounds like you're good to go. Sorry nobody could provide any insight that was helpful to you. Good luck in your brewing.

 

[Indyking]

Not sure why you're telling me to relax, I was specifically responding to a post where you stated that people were not being nice to you. But it sounds like you're good to go. Sorry nobody could provide any insight that was helpful to you. Good luck in your brewing.

Did not mean relax in a sense I thought you were upset. The relax was for everybody and it meant I'm not stressed or frustrated with this diacetyl thing, it happened, and if it does happen again with another yeast, then I will certainly reconsider my technique but for now, I will just eliminate US-05 out of my inventory. Fortunately there are plenty of replacement options for it. I did contact Fermentis explaining the issue but have not heard back yet.

For the record I kegged a Belgian dubbel yesterday fermented with wyeast for just 12 days because I do not want the yeast to get rid of the esters that make it so typical of the style. The green beer tasted awesome! RDWHAHB!

 

[Croat]

Don't want to tell you again but I think you're a bit too fast with your fermentation schedule. I mean, If you're happy with it its OK ,but you should wait a bit more, especially with such "heavier" beers. I used to bottle ales in range of 1,040 to 1,050 after two weeks and it seems to work fine. But above that OG beer needs time to get to its final taste which is usually fenomenal. I've recently drank an Imperial Stout brewed by one of my friends and bottled in 2007. Man! that's poetry not just a beer.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

On another note, professional brewers usually ferment in tall conicals. From things I've read, that is why they would never leave the beer on the yeast for extended periods - so they can avoid the risk of autolysis. The pressure on the yeast from a filled, tall conical is much greater that we see with buckets or carboys. And that pressure significantly increases the risk of autolysis. Again, this is only something I have read and I have no idea if it is true.

A completely different environment than a five gallon batch in a bucket. That's why just because a pro does or does not do something it doesn't always work the same way on our level. The pro brewers are very precise with pitching rate and aeration for each beer. They aren't just dropping in a sachet of dry yeast regardless or the beer and hoping for the best.

 

[blacksquid]

Happened when I made my first 10 gal batch. After 40 minutes of trying to chill it with an IC, it was at around 75F... so I decided to quit wasting water and threw the 2 packages in.

First few hydrometer samples (at around 1-2 weeks) were diacetyl bombs... tasted very buttery, slick and overall quite disgusting. Left it on the cake for at least a month and it was alright at bottling time. It was an IPA that still tastes a bit too "round" to me, even though it finished at 1.008! It may have been an infection too but I doubt it.

 

[TriggerFingers]

The only time I have ever had "off flavors" with S-05 is when I pitched the yeast when the wort was still a tad warm (came out almost like a Belgian with pepper and clove flavors). Not very desirable in an IPA.

 

[ubenumber2]

I used this yeast for the first time in an APA , just checked the gravity after 3 weeks in the Primary , and it went from 1.055 to 1.006 so Im good with that , Im also very happy with the aroma and taste , if it gets better from this point I will be very happy , just a little cloudy because I forgot to add my Irish Moss ,but all in all Im happy with it , I also didnt add the yeast nutrient , so I will be using this yeast again

 

[Indyking]

This is a just a follow-up to my OP. It usually takes a while until you are able to find answers in homebrewing but I think I may have discovered what the issue was with the diacetyl and S-05.

I thought I had every detail taken care of to prevent diacetyl in my beers fermented with S-05 (pitching rate, sanitation, temperature, time of fermentation) but the only thing I did not keep track of was the fermenter I used for each batch. So, since I have a mixture plastic buckets and glass carboys, I made the decision to use glass only starting a couple of months ago and the supposedly diacetyl flavor completely vanished from my S-05 fermented beers.

My theory was that sanitation was not working on my old plastic buckets (5 years) anymore and I probably had the issue with diacetyl only with S-05 because I used it in the buckets. So, I believe the reason I was not having the same issue with other yeasts was just that I coincidentally have those fermented on glass or they were darker, more complex beers fermented on plastic that would hide the diacetyl flavor. Again, I can't prove it because I don't keep records of what is fermented in what, but it seems reasonable.

Also, I'm not quite sure the off flavor I was getting with S-05 was really diacetyl because it is fading away as the beers age my chilled kegs. It is taking months but it is fading and I was told diacetyl never goes away, not sure. But it surely tasted like diacetyl and I had other homebrewers tasting them too and they agreed.

 

[tre9er]

Just made a simple pale ale with PA malt, dash of C40 for color, and all Nugget hops. US-05 repitch. Ferm temp-controlled, and hit stable FG in just 4 days, so I let it sit at room temp 2 days, then crashed and kegged it. Had a party and decided that I'd serve the beer even though young. Tasted fine, but there was a slight flavor to it. My wife said it tasted a little like popcorn, but liked it and everyone drank most of the keg that night. I started thinking that while I wouldn't call it buttery, there was a popcorn-like taste to it. That got me thinking of this thread. This beer was fermented in an ale pail, and as much as I defend them, I'm starting to wish I had all stainless in my brewery, although I can't pin it on the pail, solely.

Just my completely anecdotal evidence.

 

[winvarin]

If you're saying popcorn but not butter, do you mean cooked corn maybe? Could be DMS. Did you get a good hot break and a solid boil throughout? Did you boil uncovered?

 

[tre9er]

If you're saying popcorn but not butter, do you mean cooked corn maybe? Could be DMS. Did you get a good hot break and a solid boil throughout? Did you boil uncovered?

The boil could have been better, but it was very full, went over volume trying to throw together a 5g BIAB stove-top at the last minute (when I haven't done a 5g batch on the stove in about a year)