White Labs Edinburgh Yeast - Help

[kskm497]

Hey Guys,


I was wondering, what is the best way to confirm that the fermentation process is happening?


I have been using safale US 04/05 and White Labs 001 for my first six batches and they all were very active yeasts. (or what I would consider as active)


Left overnight after brewing and the next morning there would be lots of krausen...a couple inches on 5 Gallon batches. Typical yeast cake with the really fine white sediment and trub at the bottom.



However, I just brewed a Christmas ale and it called for edinburgh yeast from White labs...I didn't think anything was happening for 48 hrs...(brewed Friday night and pitched around 8pm) I let it go and no krausen was visible or sitting on the top like all my other batches. I checked it yesterday and still the same issue. I was thinking the yeast might be old, too cold (69ºF), etc...I let it go, until lunch today.


Then I pulled it out and there is tons of trub sitting at the bottom. I assume everything is fine?

I just thought it was weird that there wasn't really much CO2 given off, bubbler is not active at all, and that there is the thinnest film of krausen across the top like when all the trub has fallen.


Anyone else have this experience with this particular yeast? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as it is my Christmas brew and I would like to gift some of these.


Cheers,

 

[phendog]

65 - 70degs is optimal for that yeast per White Labs. That said, I've yet to see a White Labs yeast that wouldn't work efficiently a couple degrees under or above the range.

If you are used to dry yeast, did you make a starter. If not, you may be experiencing a very long lag time.

Remember, air lock activity is not the best way to judge the fermentation process. When in doubt use a hydrometer or a refractometer and see if it's dropping from your pre-boil OG. Oh, if using a refractometer, just remember to calculate for the presence of alcohol as someone wiser than me one said.

 

[Kent88]

What @phendog said: hydrometer or refractometer is the best way to find out. If that isn't an option, foam presence and airlock activity. If you haven't noticed a vigorous fermentation yet, you can give it a little shake or swirl that will help get the foam out of solution.

By the way, do you know what the gravity was when you added yeast?

Not sure if I am reading this wrong, but I'll just say that trub presence is not an indicator of whether fermentation has started. That stuff is going to develop after you've let your beer sit undisturbed for a few hours whether you've added yeast or not, unless you have some great filtering method or you way overshot your volume and you didn't disturb the sediment at all when you transferred from your kettle to the primary fermenter.

 

[kskm497]

Hey Guys,

Thanks for the replies! I actually gave it a gentle swirl yesterday at lunch and viola it came to life!

It was just a really really slow starter.


OG was 1.054...recipe called for 1.045

I just ordered my refractometer last night as I have been borrowing a friends and it wastes much less beer than my hydrometer.

Phendog, thank you for the advice...I will be sure to account for alcohol content once fermentation starts!


Anyways, thanks again guys! Ill let you know how this batch turns out...it is smelling pretty Christmasy already!


Cheers!

 

[CustomBeerTapDOTcom]

A refractometer is only intended for OG measurements. After fermentation begins, you will need to use a hydrometer for an accurate measurement.

 

[Kent88]

A new user resurrecting a thread after almost four weeks with bad information... anyone know if this website/company is legit?

In case a user pokes around here while searching and reads through this, as long as a gravity reading was recorded before fermentation takes place a refractometer can still be used to find the post-fermentation gravity. Just check out this calculator.

 

[kskm497]

Awesome thank you kent!!!

 

[kskm497]

Update: This was was a sloow starter...but it finally got going. All the spices mellowed out quite a bit before bottling, but it smells great. Tastes good, but almost too muted...we will see how it turns out after a month or two in the bottles:

View attachment 1474215446077.jpg

 

[kskm497]

Also just sampled the second Christmas Ale...this was is amber based and has a much fresher spice bill. I literally grew my beard within 5 minutes of sampling this...cant wait for this one to be conditioned amd bottled!!!

View attachment 1474215670844.jpg

 

[jerbrew]

@kent88 although you can use those calculators, you're really putting your vital stats in the hands of others. Will that calculator give you a number? Yes. But the accuracy of those calculators is questionable to me unless they give me the data describing how well their curve fits real life. That being said, you can use it but nothing beats a calibrated bottling hydrometer for at home use. Unless you have access to a density meter at work . Accuracy is the goal not ease of use. That's why I and others point towards hydrometers as an alternative. No false info being spread. Just caution.

 

[Kent88]

@jerbrew we all take certain information on faith. Brewing software is available all over the place, BeerSmith, BrewTarget, and online tools like brewersfriend. We count on those to give us a prediction on things like OG, IBU, and how many cells of yeast we should pitch. If you use this software, do you know exactly how your it calculates those things? Have you looked at any data to confirm that those algorithms work?

If yes, I'd be willing to bet you're in the minority.

I have heard from sources I consider to be reliable that hydrometers are the most accurate way to get a gravity reading. But I have also heard from sources I believe to be reliable that readings from a properly calibrated refractometer can be used to determine the gravity of fermenting wort, provided that there was an original gravity reading. You've prompted me to look some of this stuff up and in the future I will do some double-checking, but if I were a betting man, I'd say that the calculators are right, or *very* close (at least within the tolerance level that I am concerned about). I guess I'll find out. Maybe I'll even order a lab grade hydrometer like this one, because "regular" hydrometers aren't really good enough, either.

Most of my criticism there was that a new user, apparently connected to a website (and company?) that I don't recognize is going around and making questionable claims. You caught me over-correcting, implying that calculators like that can be considered completely, totally, 100% accurate. But within context of this thread, a refractometer should show that fermentation has at least started.

Thanks for keeping me honest, too.

 

[jerbrew]

@kent88 fair points. I didn't see that users response and I agree with you fully that it seems like a shameless sales plug. Which is one evil of public forums.

In response to software. We as Brewers take a lot on faith. Many times too much. As for brewing software, they use equations generated from data published by people who have done the leg work. And that data and equations are easy to find with some looking. That's why brewers friend (which I use because I like their app/web platforms) give you options such as rager vs tinseth for IBU or Mosher vs morey for SRM and they rarely give equal values. That being said these are predicted values based off of published data and can only be predictive. All the more reason to use calibrated equipment at home so you know whether or not these predictions work for you. I guess it's a personal thing to calculate things as little as possible in order to reduce the error in my results (that's comes from work I figure) taking a direct measurement is my thing if possible.

Thanks for the intelligent response. I think those calculators work well enough I just like to cover the whole story. Usually I point out those calculators and give a link to a bottling hydrometer as an alternative. Everyone deserves to decide for themselves what they like best.

 

[kskm497]

Well I appreciate both arguments. To be honest, I have actually been using both to record readings and am filling a spreadsheet out. I would like to know my refractometers error of correction.

For the last six batches I have been quite surprised as to the difference the hydrometer reads vs the refractometer.

I took your advice and have been using a calculator, which seems to get really close to my hydrometer readings.

Thanks again for all the help guys!

 

[rjolin01]

What is it with refractometers that make them unreliable? I have a temp correcting one that I calibrate with distilled water and has bit a brix and SG.

 

[kskm497]

It is not the refractometet that is the problem...although I am very new to this, my understanding is that the alcohol that is produced in the fermenter throws the readings off. Im talking 4.5 brix with a hydrometer...9-11 brix with refractometer.
So, I have been documenting the differences for different recipes between the two measuring devices on a spreadsheet. This should help me in the future to know if I take a refratomter reading and it says 10.5 on a smash, that is really 4.5 on a hydrometer.

I hope that makes since....again, I am new at this, hince the reason for thw original post.

 

[jerbrew]

What is it with refractometers that make them unreliable? I have a temp correcting one that I calibrate with distilled water and has bit a brix and SG.

Your refractometer is calibrated to measure the refractive index of an essentially binary system, sugar and water. When yeast start creating alcohol you now have a tertiary system with water,alcohol, and sugar. The tertiary mixture is going to change in refractive index differently with the creation of alcohol and reduction of sugar than if you were to just be adding in or taking away sugar.

Essentially, your refractometer scale is no longer valid and that's what the calculators are adjusting as kong as you have an OG reading.