# New research on dry yeast



## nosco

Basically the new research mentioned in this vid says that putting dry yeast directly in to your wort works just as well as re hydrating it. It also says that aerating your wort (no mention of 02) is bad for the yeast. Its basically says its like giving it a sugar hit. It works well while on the sugar but comes down after the sugar hit affecting its health.

I like this some of his vids but I am a little skeptical at times. He seems really lax on some points but very over the top on other simple points (like stiring your mash well when doughing in for better efficiency).

Any way does any one have any info on who or where this research came from?


----------



## MHB

I would be a lot more interested if he gave the name of the "Trade Event" and the yeast company, as its a bit like "I heard from a mate at the pub..."
I's been pretty common practice to pitch dry yeast directly into the fermenter, if you pitch enough the need to aerate is and has been questioned for a long time.
What it comes down to is if you want the yeast to reproduce (without getting stressed/mutating/sick...) Oxygen is vital, strangely sometimes less so in the present brew but certainly for further generations if you want to reuse the yeast (pretty standard in commercial brewing).
Will follow with interest - if anyone sees instructions on any of the dry yeast packets changing - please let us know.
Mark


----------



## Yuz

MHB said:


> What it comes down to is if you want the yeast to reproduce (without getting stressed/mutating/sick...) Oxygen is vital, strangely sometimes less so in the present brew but certainly for further generations if you want to reuse the yeast (pretty standard in commercial brewing).Mark


Interesting and helpful info Mark, as like many others I tend to re-use the yeast... I typically get 2-4 batches from one 15g pack of W-34/70. I do try to look after it - avoiding massive temp and pressure changes and also pitching into the next batch ASAP. I don't actually "wash" it, tending to agree with the theory that its naturally formed environment (current batch produced with some alcohol and CO2 on top) serves as its protective "home".


----------



## MHB

Actually storing yeast under beer is about the worst way to store it.
Good that you are taking care of temp and pressure, good to use it ASAP.
Much better to wash it with sterile water, if you are going multi generation acid washing is also a good idea otherwise the amount of bacteria will grow and you can be fairly confidant that most home brew has plenty of unplanned bugs onboard.
Mark


----------



## fungrel

MHB said:


> I would be a lot more interested if he gave the name of the "Trade Event" and the yeast company, as its a bit like "I heard from a mate at the pub..."
> I's been pretty common practice to pitch dry yeast directly into the fermenter, if you pitch enough the need to aerate is and has been questioned for a long time.
> What it comes down to is if you want the yeast to reproduce (without getting stressed/mutating/sick...) Oxygen is vital, strangely sometimes less so in the present brew but certainly for further generations if you want to reuse the yeast (pretty standard in commercial brewing).
> Will follow with interest - if anyone sees instructions on any of the dry yeast packets changing - please let us know.
> Mark


----------



## theSeekerr

I heard the same thing from a different source yesterday (attributed as something a brewer friend heard from a Fermentis rep), but it's still all hearsay.


----------



## hoppy2B

MHB said:


> Actually storing yeast under beer is about the worst way to store it.
> Good that you are taking care of temp and pressure, good to use it ASAP.
> Much better to wash it with sterile water, if you are going multi generation acid washing is also a good idea otherwise the amount of bacteria will grow and you can be fairly confidant that most home brew has plenty of unplanned bugs onboard.
> Mark


I believe I have read the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. I think it is actually stated on one of the liquid yeast companies website that the best place to store yeast is in beer.


----------



## Uyllii

hoppy2B said:


> I believe I have read the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. I think it is actually stated on one of the liquid yeast companies website that the best place to store yeast is in beer.


Thats from wyeast:

http://www.wyeastlab.com/yeast-storage (Bold emphasis mine)


> KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL YEAST STORAGE:
> 
> Keep the yeast cold, 34°F (1°C).
> Store in sterile, vented stainless steel container.
> *Store under a 3 to 4 inch layer of low alcohol, low hop beer.*
> Store yeast from only lower alcohol beers.
> Minimize trub.
> Minimize exposure to oxygen.
> Store under a blanket of CO2 with minimal positive pressure.
> Use as soon as possible, preferably within 3 to 4 days.
> Test for viability, cell count, and contamination prior to pitching.



But they also say only to keep 3-4 days (max 10-14).


----------



## MHB

Yep, pretty common practice to store under beer for *short term storage* but not recommended for more than say 1 week and that's pushing it.
Above I said its not the best way to store yeast (well worst) and it is for anything other than pretty much immediate reuse.
Converse is that washing yeast ups your risk of contamination (infection) and you want to be using sterile de-aired mineralised water, that still isn't regarded as safe for more than a couple of weeks (max).

In trade if you aren't going to use yeast PDQ its a case of starting with a slant or other pure culture and breading it up.
Lots of different things have been tried over the years, commercially scheduling yeast is a dedicated task - left to a professional with good lab support.
Mark


----------



## hoppy2B

I'd rather make a starter with a small amount of dry yeast than wash yeast out of a ferment vessel. It just seems like there is less risk of an infection. I've never had a problem with using a small amount of dry yeast from a packet and then resealing said packet. It depends on the strain as to how long dry yeast will stay alive, but I have had it stay alive for years and that is despite what it says on the packet. I don't purge the packet or vacuum seal it.

If you are brewing large volumes, then sure, collect yeast from the ferment vessel or ferment on the yeast cake of a previous batch. 

I just do what is easiest. I recently bought a bunch of 100 ml lab bottles so I can divide my next 1318 smack pack.


----------



## golfandbrew

Uyllii said:


> Thats from wyeast:
> 
> http://www.wyeastlab.com/yeast-storage (Bold emphasis mine)
> 
> 
> But they also say only to keep 3-4 days (max 10-14).



Wyeast is simply making recommendations for homebrewers not necessarily the "best" way to store yeast.


----------



## mashmaniac

Note the more times you successfully reuse yeast, that's one less pack the yeast company gets to sell. OK on a small scale that ain't much, but there are brewers (with frozen yeast banks) that haven't bought yeast for years. Case in point there's a strain of green belt(not available downunder) in Vic that was imported 4 or 5 years ago -one single package (it has drifted but only slightly). As Mark alluded to the biggest danger to continually re culturing your own isn't drift but other nasties getting in there with it.


----------



## Uyllii

I'm not saying that is my general practice to throw out yeast after a week or two. Just quoting the source I had seen.

At the risk of going way off topic from the OP:

Personally I steal yeast from my starters rather than the trub cake after a ferment. I have stored it in 300ml mason jars under the starter liquid and on other occasions I have washed it and stored it under distilled water.
To be perfectly honest I found both ways left me with yeast that worked just as well (after making a fresh starter) as the original smack-pack starter. I have on a few occasions even used the stored yeast over 6 months after stored either way. I don't know if people are just a little precious about their yeast or if I am using robust strains (I usually store Wyeast 1056, 2206 and 2124).


----------



## ///

I’d hate to see years of research by guys like Bolton on oxygen and yeast health derailed by a presentation somewhere ... I’d take with a grain of salt knowing billion of litres are successfully made with oxygen in mind.

White Labs did cells counts once on direct add vs hydration in water and I am sure almost 50% of cells died on the direct add. But, for a 12 Plato wort the small packs were almost 50% over on cell numbers required.

Dried yeast are lumped full of O2 at end of processing, so when the hit wort they can spring into action and get through the lag phase earlier and faster. So kinda kills that argument about importance of O2. The O2 makes the fatty acid walls of the cells softer than without, hence the short lag time.

As for storage, well I usually had 5000l on top, which was come to come pitched warm to the next for 6-8 gens. Anytime we repitched yeast cold was a probs, for home use this is a bit easier, but my advise is to always use warm yeast not cold


----------



## hoppy2B

While we are on the topic of yeast and methods of pitching... 

Why would pitching a greater amount of yeast give you greater attenuation? I have read enumerable times that if you under pitch, the yeast will fail to eat all of the sugar, thereby leaving your beer under attenuated. To me that just sounds like a load of BS. 

Example: You have gone through a fermentation on 2 identical batches and you pitched 10 times the amount of yeast into one compared to what you did the other. Now, what actually happens is that the batch with the greater amount of yeast uses less of the sugar for reproduction. This means that more sugar is converted to alcohol (which has a lower gravity than water) so when you take a hydro reading it looks as if it has eaten more of the sugar. What has actually happened, is that the batch with the lower amount of yeast at first pitch, has used more of the sugar in the wort to reproduce itself. The result is that there is less alcohol in the beer and it looks like it has under attenuated. Checking both ferment vessels will show there is quite a bit of yeast in both.

I think the most important thing is to pitch a healthy starter. I always pitch a starter. It doesn't matter if I am using a smack pack or dry yeast or whatever. I used to make 1 litre starters but have recently shifted to 500 ml because I broke my conical flask and am now using a lab bottle. Yeast is said to double ever 2 to 3 hours, so I don't see how increasing the size of the starter to double its size is going to cut fermentation down by much anyhow.


----------



## MHB

Problem with rationalisations based on too little knowledge - they can send you a fair way up the proverbial creek.

How about, yeast cant swim, it relies on Brownian motion to cause a sugar molecule to bump into a yeast cell where it can be absorbed and metabolised, 10X the yeast 10X the chance of a sugar molecule bumping into a yeast...
Remember that when the amount of sugar available to a yeast reaches a certain threshold of a given time it will go dormant (cost more energy to stay awake than it's getting from its environment).
The other point to consider is that people who do the sort of research involved in yeast metabolism aren't using hydrometers to "measure gravity" even breweries bigger than craft breweries aren't allowed to use hydrometers to measure alcohol for tax in Australia - they aren't accurate enough. Look up near infrared spectroscopy, or alcohol determination by distillation (standard method).

So many other things need thinking about.
If you pitched 10X the yeast, it wont reproduce as much. The population can only grow while *ALL* the nutrients it requires are available (Oxygen, Fatty Acids, soluble Nitrogen (FAN)…) There is also a simple upper limit in how far yeast will reproduce (around 100Million cells/mL) if there is too much other yeast around it just stops.
Short answer is a smaller or larger pitch (unless its ridiculously large) will result in a very similar number of cells. That doesn't mean under pitching is a good idea, the ideal pitch numbers are based on the idea that the yeast will reproduce quickly enough to avoid giving other bugs a chance to get too busy, that the yeast will consume all the nutrients it needs (so it stays healthy) and in the process it will remove all or most of some things in the wort that we don't want in there (mostly Sterols and Fatty Acids, some protein...)
The amount of cells and their health affect a lot of the other processes in the cells, lower pitches makes for more Esters, higher pitches strip more Iso-Alpha out of the beer.

This without even getting into subjects like population dynamics that determine the average age of the yeast, yeast cells are pretty much immortal, but every time they produce a daughter cell (clone) it leaves a "Bud Scar" this part of the cell wall isn't able to transpire (at least not as well), enough scars and the cell cant function the way we want.

This isn't Simple! the old sayin "we make wort - yeast makes beer" is a truism. The science behind yeast management is extremely complex and has a huge effect on your beer.

Here is a pretty useful introduction to yeast management - I strongly recommend it to you
Mark


----------



## golfandbrew

Fermentis website shows a product called E2U that sounds similiar to what the above claims are. It also looks like this E2U has been around for quite some time but I have never seen it at home brew shops. Would be nice to be able see this research or hear more about it. Hope to see something concrete on this soon.


----------



## mashmaniac

Bloody hell I bought 2 packs of marsh mellows for this flaming!!! WTF There's been longer threads on clocks!


----------



## Tje

MHB said:


> Actually storing yeast under beer is about the worst way to store it.
> Good that you are taking care of temp and pressure, good to use it ASAP.
> Much better to wash it with sterile water, if you are going multi generation acid washing is also a good idea otherwise the amount of bacteria will grow and you can be fairly confidant that most home brew has plenty of unplanned bugs onboard.
> Mark


I'm always curious as to why people bother to wash yeast. Why not just make a larger starter and harvest from that? A lot less messing around.

I crash cool, remove most of the starter beer, transfer to a smaller container to minimise headspace and store it in the fridge until it's time to make a new starter. I've got at least 10 uses out of one strain of yeast without any noticeable changes and that was left in the fridge for about 2-3 months before pitching into a new starter.

Saves me a heap of cash and time.


----------



## thumbsucker

I never hydrate my yeast  to the shook of many.

The reason is that that the person who taught me to brew is the head brewer for New World Distillery here in Melbourne, the makers of Starward Whiskey. My friend was an attended at a brewers conference where a German yeast microbiologist was on the discussion panel. At one point the hydration question came up in the Q&A and after a while the microbiologist getting frustrated with the questions said in a thick German accent "just dump the dry yeast into the wort" So Starward just dump their dry yeast into the wort (Starward are however moving towards culturing yeast themselves to reduce yeast cost).

Does it work, yes is it best practice proven by peer reviewed journal published research papers rather then word of mouth that I cannot say.

I do it because it removes a few more tasks I need to do to get my beer up and running.


----------



## MHB

Tje said:


> I'm always curious as to why people bother to wash yeast. Why not just make a larger starter and harvest from that? A lot less messing around.
> 
> I crash cool, remove most of the starter beer, transfer to a smaller container to minimise headspace and store it in the fridge until it's time to make a new starter. I've got at least 10 uses out of one strain of yeast without any noticeable changes and that was left in the fridge for about 2-3 months before pitching into a new starter.
> 
> Saves me a heap of cash and time.


The reason for washing is to remove the alcohol and other fermentation products, these can cause problems from two directions
First Mutations are accelerated by contact with fermentation biproducts.
Second Reducing the osmotic pressure on the yeast helps to stop it loosing minerals water and other cellular products that it will need next time you use the yeast. Ideally use mineralised water (very similar to what's in the wort you will by using when you next ferment)

Acid washing is to reduce bacteria, by acidifying to around 2-2.2pH you can kill off most beer spoilage bacteria (if you think a multi generational culture contains just the yeast you want you seriously mistaken (probably)).

For short term storage (days) the risk of getting an infection by water washing probably increases the risk of infection just through handling and exposure to air, for longer term (weeks) storage water/acid washing has distinct and measurable benefits in terms of strain purity, contamination counts, yeast health...
For very long term storage (months+) you really need to be thinking about plates/slants/freezing... followed by stepwise re-culturing up to pitchable populations.
Mark


----------



## Byran

thumbsucker said:


> I never hydrate my yeast  to the shook of many.
> 
> The reason is that that the person who taught me to brew is the head brewer for New World Distillery here in Melbourne, the makers of Starward Whiskey. My friend was an attended at a brewers conference where a German yeast microbiologist was on the discussion panel. At one point the hydration question came up in the Q&A and after a while the microbiologist getting frustrated with the questions said in a thick German accent "just dump the dry yeast into the wort" So Starward just dump their dry yeast into the wort (Starward are however moving towards culturing yeast themselves to reduce yeast cost).
> 
> Does it work, yes is it best practice proven by peer reviewed journal published research papers rather then word of mouth that I cannot say.
> 
> I do it because it removes a few more tasks I need to do to get my beer up and running.




Im with you mate. Why make an easy job less easy.


----------



## snails07

Byran said:


> Im with you mate. Why make an easy job less easy.


So that you can make better beer, perhaps?


----------



## Byran

snails07 said:


> So that you can make better beer, perhaps?



If you think rehydrating makes better beer then go for it. I dont.


----------



## TheSumOfAllBeers

You lose a lot of the cells when you pitch dry. This can result in under-pitching.

Hydration doesn’t automatically improve the beer, it just ensures more cells survive the pitch, and helps you avoid any yeast stress issues if you are cutting it fine with the pitch rate


----------



## MHB

TheSumOfAllBeers said:


> You lose a lot of the cells when you pitch dry. This can result in under-pitching.
> 
> Hydration doesn’t automatically improve the beer, it just ensures more cells survive the pitch, and helps you avoid any yeast stress issues if you are cutting it fine with the pitch rate


Going to agree - with some qualifications
Most home brewers are under-pitching or pitching at the low end of the range. More is better (up to what sounds ridiculous)
Hard to tell how many cells just die during drying and how many are killed on re-hydrating/pitching
If you pitch into wort at the right temperature you get enough live/healthy cells
If you re-hydrate at the right temperature you get enough live/healthy cells (temperature, mineral content, aeration...)
If you don't temporise (adjust yeast and wort to same temp) you will have another kill event, further reducing he population.

Either way done under the *right conditions* you will get good results, follow the instructions on the yeast carefully, depending on the time of cropping, type of yeast, drying method... there will be optimum methods for activating the dry yeast that will be yeast specific - there isn't a on size fits all method.

I'm sticking with what I've been saying for years - "follow the manufacturers instructions"
Mark


----------



## Rocker1986

I harvest yeast from starters by making them a bit bigger than needed, then just stir it all up after it ferments out and tip the excess into a mason jar and stick it in the fridge. It sits in there until I need it next, usually somewhere between 1 and 2 months. While there most likely are other organisms in there with it, I have taken a few strains past ten generations without noticing any difference in the resultant beers. I've got a 1469 that I've been re-using for two years up to 14 generations currently. Interested to see how much further I can take it actually.

I had also done some stain testing with trypan blue on a separate sample that was also stored under the starter beer (in a smaller jar). After two months it was still 80% viable. I know that viability testing doesn't tell you if the live cells are healthy or not, but without any fermentation or off flavor problems in the beers, the method can't be working too badly.

On the odd occasions I use dry yeast these days, I always re-hydrate it in water first.


----------



## theSeekerr

theSeekerr said:


> I heard the same thing from a different source yesterday (attributed as something a brewer friend heard from a Fermentis rep), but it's still all hearsay.



So it looks like Fermentis have finally gotten around to publishing some of this stuff: https://fermentis.com/news-from-fermentis/technical-reviews/e2u-direct-pitching/

E2U is the branding they use on pretty much all their dry yeast, so this is applicable to US-05, S04, Saflager etc


----------



## MHB

Good spot, be worth keeping an eye on over the next little while.
Mark


----------



## jackgym

nosco said:


> Basically the new research mentioned in this vid says that putting dry yeast directly in to your wort works just as well as re hydrating it. It also says that aerating your wort (no mention of 02) is bad for the yeast. Its basically says its like giving it a sugar hit. It works well while on the sugar but comes down after the sugar hit affecting its health.
> 
> I like this some of his vids but I am a little skeptical at times. He seems really lax on some points but very over the top on other simple points (like stiring your mash well when doughing in for better efficiency).
> 
> Any way does any one have any info on who or where this research came from?



I've never bothered to rehydrate yeast, it seemed to be an unnecessary step. Seems I've been proven correct.


----------



## hoppy2B

theSeekerr said:


> So it looks like Fermentis have finally gotten around to publishing some of this stuff: https://fermentis.com/news-from-fermentis/technical-reviews/e2u-direct-pitching/
> 
> E2U is the branding they use on pretty much all their dry yeast, so this is applicable to US-05, S04, Saflager etc



That confirms what I have thought all along, homebrewers on here professing to know everything and belittling anyone who disagrees with them, are basically full of it. Which is to say, you don't know unless you do the tests.


----------



## EmptyB

hoppy2B said:


> That confirms what I have thought all along, homebrewers on here professing to know everything and belittling anyone who disagrees with them, are basically full of it. Which is to say, you don't know unless you do the tests.


Good advice. Baseless advice is to be taken with two tablespoons of Bunnings gypsum - sorry, I meant salt.


----------



## Rocker1986

Bullshit. The science, at least what I'd seen of it, suggested that re-hydrating dry yeast in water first was better for the overall health of the yeast than pitching it straight into wort, as pitching it straight into wort kills/killed a greater percentage of the cells. I would rather trust the science than some random on a brewing forum who's too lazy to add an extra minor step for my information on yeast health. To say someone is full of it because they haven't got a ******* lab to be able to properly do the tests themselves, is just dumb. That's why we have scientific studies in the first place, so we don't have to do it ourselves.

If that theory ends up being disproven then great, re-hydration isn't as important as once thought, and there's nothing wrong with that. Science is always changing, and the people who follow it are always changing their views in line with what new evidence shows. Until now, there was no evidence, at least that I was aware of, other than randoms on forums proudly proclaiming that they just "chuck it in and it works fine".


----------



## hoppy2B

The claims about attenuation and so on I don't accept. And by that I am referring to the claims people make about needing to chuck in a large amount of yeast for the wort to fully attenuate. Quantity of yeast is insignificant when considered alongside factors such as nutritional content of the wort, when fermenting worts of high gravity.. The above link posted by Seekerr confirms that, for the average beer, chucking in more yeast won't make any difference. 

Or to put things more simply, there is at least 1 commercial website that I am aware of that sells yeast, and they recommend pitching 1 gram of dry ale yeast to ten litres for home brewers, and 1 gram for 25 litres on a commercial scale. The amount for lagers is double that. Seems a bit low even to me.


----------



## MHB

hoppy2B said:


> The claims about attenuation and so on I don't accept. And by that I am referring to the claims people make about needing to chuck in a large amount of yeast for the wort to fully attenuate. Quantity of yeast is insignificant when considered alongside factors such as nutritional content of the wort, when fermenting worts of high gravity.. The above link posted by Seekerr confirms that, for the average beer, chucking in more yeast won't make any difference.
> 
> Or to put things more simply, there is at least 1 commercial website that I am aware of that sells yeast, and they recommend pitching 1 gram of dry ale yeast to ten litres for home brewers, and 1 gram for 25 litres on a commercial scale. The amount for lagers is double that. Seems a bit low even to me.



I don't think it confirms any sort of information about pitch rates at all, the results are for the same beer (15oP or 1.060) pitched at a rate of 50g/hl (0.5g/L) or about 11.5g/23L "standard" brew. The test is examining 3 different ways of managing the yeast - not how much yeast was added.
You really cant take a study saying one thing and say it means somethin else just to keep your opinion on its rather shaky foundations. Well you can, its just your future posts wont get taken very seriously.
Mark


----------



## hoppy2B

If you believe that half the yeast dies when pitching into a fermenter rather than hydrating in water, then the link proves exactly what I said.


----------



## MHB

hoppy2B said:


> If you believe that half the yeast dies when pitching into a fermenter rather than hydrating in water, then the link proves exactly what I said.


To you maybe - not I suspect to anyone else!
Mark


----------



## GalBrew

hoppy2B said:


> If you believe that half the yeast dies when pitching into a fermenter rather than hydrating in water, then the link proves exactly what I said.



It says nothing of the sort.


----------



## Jack of all biers

hoppy2B said:


> If you believe that half the yeast dies when pitching into a fermenter rather than hydrating in water, then the link proves exactly what I said.


Not only does it say nothing of the sort, they haven't even released the study yet. Is that because it hasn't been peer reviewed? Potentially, or because the PhD holder who wrote the release (yes it's a media type release) is the Technical Sales Manager for Fermentis. Not what one would call an unbiased source in the scientific or any other field. Anyone remember all those Doctors studies that proclaimed that Cigarettes caused no harm.... Who paid for them again?

I would wait for the release of the study, before making any claim about their methods or results. For example, from what they've released so far and the recommendations for rehydration (yes Fermentis still recommend rehydration of their yeasts) the only thing that has been added is this newly trademarked E2U method, which doesn't appear to have been used as part of their study. So why is it the new recommendation? 

Chill Winston and wait for the facts. Not flashy news releases that match your opinion.


----------



## hoppy2B

I really don't care.


----------



## goatchop41

hoppy2B said:


> I really don't care.



A pretty standard reply when your poor attempt at interpreting something has been thoroughly torn apart by sound logic and knowledge


----------



## Jack of all biers

Some may not care, but if others do, I post the below. It has all be said in one form or another before.

As always, the right knowledge gives one more options with ones brewing. One can sprinkle yeast, but one should know the consequences that could occur and why. The why is the most important bit, as worts ain't worts and temperature is king when it comes die off of dry yeast upon initial rehydration. When death of yeast occurs, is just as important as when it doesn't occur. Viability is not the only issue, as health (vitality) is another. Does the brewer even want consistency? Is that consistency achieved by sprinkling for every beer brewed. Will the viability results occur for a high OG wort at the same rate as a low OG wort or in other wort variables. Should I do like common Kit&Kilo instructions and pitch (sprinkle) at 25C and then lower the temp to fermentation temp in say 24hrs? Do I not want to be bothered with that and pitch double or quadruple the quantity? All valid points to consider. Not knowing the answer to these can lead to annoyance and frustration in home brewing (financial loss in commercial).

No publication I've read says that all or every pitch of dried yeast direct onto wort will lose 50% of viability. In fact the Yeast book says _"Do not attempt to rehydrate yeast in cold water."_ and then goes on to say
_"Too cold a temperature can result in the death of more than 50 percent of the population."_ It is very unfortunate that they don't state what too cold is, but they do stress to follow the yeast producers instructions! So this 50% figure does come from a study or studies, but it isn't well referenced. Unfortunately the statement has been taken far and wide and misunderstood to a large extent.

Given we are talking about Fermentis, their website currently poses a question of 'Will a pitch temp outside of 25-29C (ie 18C) stun my yeast?' and answers it so. _"The recommended rehydrate temperature is an optimal temperature. Outside this optimal range (as long as the temperature is above 10°C), you will not stun the yeast but you could get a longer lag phase at the beginning of the fermentation. Of course, this point is depending of the others factors influencing the fermentation (quality of the wort, fermentation temperature, starting gravity, etc…)." _What this statement says is that above or below 25-29C non-optimal results (including viability) occur, but the interesting point is they state 10C is a critical temp (not explained, but put it together with the yeast book statement and I think it is clear).
Fermentis' website also currently states that a loss of 3-6% viability should be expected from rehydrating in wort as opposed to water. That statement is in the context of them being in the optimal temperature range.

So, under certain circumstances one can lose up to 50% viability. Think sprinkle pitching on a high OG wort at a cold temp (Doppel Bock for example). Most yeast sprinkle pitched at 18C probably won't lose 50%, but this would have to be OG dependant as to how much % is lost. So my point is, armed with this knowledge one can make the decision, knowing the consequences for resultant beers in different circumstances. ie one would know that sprinkle pitching 2 packets of dry yeast into a doppel bock at 8C, won't result in 120-200 billion cell viability, so one might pitch 4-5 packets. Pitching an Ale yeast at 15C in the same manner may result in a 25%? or 15%? or 10%? loss, so to counter that one may pitch 2 packets instead of 1. Know what you are doing.

So that deals with the viability (cells that live), but what about the affect on vitality (the health of the yeast)? The vitality is important too, as many cells don't die, but aren't then in the best of health after rehydration in mediums such as wort or at lower temps. This is why Fermentis' current study would be very interesting to see (when they release it), as it appears to show results of the resultant compounds in beer that good health with the affects those yeast had on the wort or the affects of their health (ie are they healthy enough to do a good job, not just are there enough numbers) [the two are sort of linked, but it isn't that simple).

This Youtube video is a brewer, who conducted a test with recorded results that show that 5% extra viability is lost by not hydrating Fermentis US-05 yeast, (sprinkled into 20C wort) compared with hydrating at 26.7C in water (in his one test). He approaches the whole thing with a level and balanced view and comes across as reasonable. I do highlight that his counting results are, well, unheard of, as he states 200 billion cells in a dry yeast pack (he's talking Fermentis 11.5gm packs) and states he calculated from his 3 test results a count of 263 billion from his 11.5gm pack. That's 22.9 billion cells per gram, which when compared to what Fermentis state as supplied 10 billion cells per gram and minimum of 6 billion cells per gram, makes his count a freakish result. So it does lead me to question his cell counting practice somewhat. His methods and results here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzNmUGsHZf7dOTZzZF9aQVluZXM/view



So with all that, I acknowledge the more I learn the more I realise I know very little. My question to @MHB or others with the knowledge or reference materials is this. Has that die off of yeast cells due to rehydration temp and media been found in studies happen fairly quickly or over a period of hours (ie longer than the 45min in the above test).

EDIT - and after typing all that, I forgot to say that the dry yeast should be brought up to temp first either way, but this goes for any yeast, so I hope it is obvious. Also dry yeast stored at 3C is expected to lose 3-4% viability over a year, so the above youtube test fits those expectations.

I would also like to say, that my personal view is that if rehydrating a packet of yeast into 110mls of sterilised water at 29C for 30mins (or what ever the producer recommends) is the step I have to take only saves 5-10% of my yeast and ensures they are in the healthy state the producer strove to achieve, then that is what I'd recommend for those to do who can. 

I wouldn't leave my liquid yeast in the cupboard instead of storing it in the fridge for the same reason.


----------



## MHB

Cant help you there, I've never seen a report that looks at cell counts at 5-10-15... minutes. Most have given at least half an hour for the yeast to fully hydrate (often up to two hours) and start showing signs of life, mostly taking up Methylene Blue which is a slightly suspect test in its own right.
I'm not even sure how you would design a test that told you when the kill occurred and suspect its pretty moot anyway. it the number that survive and the vitality that really counts.
Mark


----------



## hoppy2B

goatchop41 said:


> A pretty standard reply when your poor attempt at interpreting something has been thoroughly torn apart by sound logic and knowledge


Bullshit. My point is it doesn't matter how you pitch, direct or re-hydrated, it doesn't make a difference to your beer. I have been proven 100% correct. It's the fanatical idiots who have been proven wrong who are making a fuss, not me.


----------



## MHB

Apologies, No mater how vexing they are it isn't OK to call people names.
Mark


----------



## Black n Tan

Interested in seeing the full results and methods. Wonder if they used included some lower pitching rates because that is where things could get interesting. May be not such a good story for marketing, so I suspect the answer is no. A noticeable omission is the viable cells counts using the three methods. If we assume viable cells counts are in fact reduced by half when hydrating in wort, then may be all this research really shows is that the pitching rate for yeast hydrated in water can be reduced to 25g/HL under ideal conditions, rather than the recommended 50g/HL. Just a thought?? In the meantime, in the absence of methods and complete data, some may run around saying this just confirms what they always new, oh to be so wise!


----------



## Jack of all biers

MHB said:


> I'm not even sure how you would design a test that told you when the kill occurred and suspect its pretty moot anyway. it the number that survive and the vitality that really counts.
> Mark


You're right regarding the vitality, but that was got me thinking about the Youtube test I posted, as he left them 45mins, which I would expect would be long enough, but it got me wondering if another hour or so would show up some further weakness in the cells that may cause further death rates (for either method). I expect longer than that and growth may start kicking in effecting the results, so another factor to sway a test. All academic anyway. Thanks for the reply. I have found listings of research papers that I suspect have the answers, but I don't have access to them unfortunately.


----------



## MHB

There are very good reasons why there are recommended pitching rates, these are based on decades of research and the effects of pitching outside the range (either over or under) are well understood.
That being the case why would the experiment repeat what is already well understood. Because it is known what will happen that the test the way it was preformed validates all three methods, as the measured results are so close we can say with confidence that the three methods produce the same number of viable yeast with very similar vitality - if they didn't the beers/results wouldn't be so similar.

The notion that pitching kills half the yeast is I believe a misunderstanding, better to say half the cells die between cropping and pitching. I strongly suspect that a fair fraction of the yeast doesn't survive drying, another fraction just wont fire back up, the total is about half of the starting count. That doesn't mean they were killed when pitching. We cant improve this but can make it worse by pitching outside the recommendations (either rehydrating or direct) parameters or by using too old/badly stored yeast, will all result in more dead yeast - not just kill more yeast.
I also believe this is allowed for in the recommended pitch rates. Lets stay with US-05, reading the spec sheet
_when dry yeast is pitched at 100 g/hl i.e. > 6 x 10^6 viable cells / ml._
Note that in this experiment the pitch was half of that so >3X10^6 cells/mL about what you would get from one fresh packet in a standard 23L brew.
Also, the two recommended ways pitching in the spec sheet are "Alternative" no one is preferred or better. Fermentis has always said that its OK to pitch directly into the wort (at stated conditions) and said so one every sachet they sell, or to rehydrate if you do it properly.
From this some home brewers have reached the conclusion that if you don't rehydrate (their way) the world will end (well no, but your nuts will probably fall off) sorry wrong answer.
Mark


----------



## jackgym

hoppy2B said:


> Bullshit. My point is it doesn't matter how you pitch, direct or re-hydrated, it doesn't make a difference to your beer. I have been proven 100% correct. It's the fanatical idiots who have been proven wrong who are making a fuss, not me.


!00% agree on that one, mate.


----------



## goatchop41

Jack of all biers said:


> I do highlight that his counting results are, well, unheard of, as he states 200 billion cells in a dry yeast pack (he's talking Fermentis 11.5gm packs) and states he calculated from his 3 test results a count of 263 billion from his 11.5gm pack. That's 22.9 billion cells per gram, which when compared to what Fermentis state as supplied 10 billion cells per gram and minimum of 6 billion cells per gram, makes his count a freakish result. So it does lead me to question his cell counting practice somewhat.



This higher cell count is actually something that several sources agree with (including Jamil Z., one of the authors of the book _Yeast_). I can't be assed finding them right now, so you'll have to trust me, a stranger on the internet, but I have seen multiple sources that have done independent cell counts of *well treated/correctly stored *dry yeast packages and found that the cell count in them was certainly up around the 20B+ cells/g.
The popular conclusion appears to be that Fermentis state 10B cells/g as a minimum to account for poor storage, old packages, etc., whereas in reality a decently fresh pack that has been kept cold will have around double that.


----------



## Jack of all biers

goatchop41 said:


> This higher cell count is actually something that several sources agree with (including Jamil Z., one of the authors of the book _Yeast_). I can't be assed finding them right now, so you'll have to trust me, a stranger on the internet, but I have seen multiple sources that have done independent cell counts of *well treated/correctly stored *dry yeast packages and found that the cell count in them was certainly up around the 20B+ cells/g.
> The popular conclusion appears to be that Fermentis state 10B cells/g as a minimum to account for poor storage, old packages, etc., whereas in reality a decently fresh pack that has been kept cold will have around double that.


Thanks for that, I self Googled and found a few references. That'll teach me to trust the yeast producers websites  Sceptical me should have googled that a long time ago. Though in saying that, it appears most of the references for the 20 bill per gm number, come from the methylene blue counting method, which apart from @MHB, Kai Troster doesn't believe is reliable at all (see 2011 link below). Mr Malty pretty much state that other than agreement from Danstar's Dr Clayton Cone, they rely on reports (don't state from where or link anything, but this must be one of them 2011 experiment*), but seem to say until something better comes along they will go with 20 bill per gm (to be honest I'm not sure about their statement, as it's a bit like, it works for me and others, so will be the case for you too. Sounds similar to other arguments I've heard.....).


As far as everything else goes, the best advice I have ever read comes from this Q&A from Dr Clayton Cone [Danstar] and is one I had saved some time ago and forgotten about. It speaks for itself.

* Please note that on that link there is a link to a now removed PDF from Fermentis that he and other forum posts (1, 2) have previously linked citing it for the "up to 50% loss in vitality due to pitch temperature". It's a shame Fermentis removed it from their site altogether, rather than just correcting it if results had changed.


----------



## MHB

Dr Cone is always worth reading, just worth noting that the blog (long before they were called blogs) was written in 2000.
There has been a lot of work done on yeast since then, be worth reading the full results from Fermentis when they become available.
The point Dr C raises about Lipids is very important to anyone propagating yeast, especially note the second blog entry which addresses the role of O2 and Lipid dilution.

JOAB, If you can find out what the missing document is called, fair chance I have it squirreled away somewhere.
Mark


----------



## Jack of all biers

Yes I was going to post something about the age of the advice, and I have a research article from 1999 that shows 65% is about the best viability they could get with dry yeast, but thought the same as you, that a lot has progressed in the field of yeast dehydration since then. Probably a lot of this confusion exists because once relevant research has been superseded due to better methods making it meaningless. I hope that makes sense. Anyway I thought better of it, due to irrelevance and the fact my posts do prattle on sometimes.

The article is only referenced as https://fermentis.com/SHARED/Doc_60698.pdf so Doc_60698.pdf perhaps if you have it. If nothing else, it would be good to read, as I understand it was in this research that they discovered that there was little or no difference between rehydration in water or wort (hence their previous/current rehydration instructions)


----------



## MHB

Might be this one.
If not and you want some more Yeast research PM me your e-mail address and I'll send a few, they are too big to post here.
Mark


----------



## Rocker1986

hoppy2B said:


> Bullshit. My point is it doesn't matter how you pitch, direct or re-hydrated, it doesn't make a difference to your beer. I have been proven 100% correct. It's the fanatical idiots who have been proven wrong who are making a fuss, not me.


And what have you based that on? It's most likely true if the same amount of cells survive the pitch, but if the dry pitching kills a big enough portion of them then it could adversely affect the pitch rate, which could then adversely affect the beer. I don't think anyone is saying that this will happen 100% of the time with dry pitching - it's just a potential risk that isn't there with properly re-hydrated yeast. And it's a risk I'm personally not willing to take when I do use dry yeast. If others want to do it, that's up to them. But you're not making many allies with your arrogant complete and utter dismissal of decades of scientific research based on nothing but your own beers and/or what basically amounts to a marketing release at this point. 

I'm happy to change my mind on it if the science shows it to be that way but until that happens I see no good reason to. And since you don't have a lab to do the tests properly like you accused everyone else of earlier on, what makes you an authority on anything any more than anyone else? Cut the bullshit already. Nobody gives a flying **** if you dry pitch your yeast or not, but some of us like to base our practices on real science, not anecdotes.


----------



## Jack of all biers

MHB said:


> Might be this one.
> If not and you want some more Yeast research PM me your e-mail address and I'll send a few, they are too big to post here.
> Mark


Thanks Mark, but that doesn't appear to be it.


----------



## Brewno Marz

Serious question on rehydrating. What effect does chlorine (or chloramine) have? My premise is that free chlorine will kill a number of the yeasties. I have been rehydrating in pre boiled water, which, in my mind, disipates free chlorine. Now QUU is using chloramine in my area. So, my reason for using pre-boiled water is now tenuous...but I do like seeing the yeast cream & foam up on rehydration. Am I wasting my time and should I just direct pitch?


----------



## Jack of all biers

Brewno Marz said:


> Serious question on rehydrating. What effect does chlorine (or chloramine) have? My premise is that free chlorine will kill a number of the yeasties. I have been rehydrating in pre boiled water, which, in my mind, disipates free chlorine. Now QUU is using chloramine in my area. So, my reason for using pre-boiled water is now tenuous...but I do like seeing the yeast cream & foam up on rehydration. Am I wasting my time and should I just direct pitch?


If you are worried about chloramine, then you could carbon filter your drinking water or treat the water with Ascorbic acid or Campden tablet (Sodium or Potassium Metabisulphite) then boil it. Before I get hailed down with "that's too much effort" - It is the same for your brew water, so why wouldn't you treat the water you rehydrate your yeast in. No more effort, just 100-200ml more treated water.


----------



## Brewno Marz

Jack of all biers said:


> If you are worried about chloramine, then you could carbon filter your drinking water or treat the water with Ascorbic acid or Campden tablet (Sodium or Potassium Metabisulphite) then boil it. Before I get hailed down with "that's too much effort" - It is the same for your brew water, so why wouldn't you treat the water you rehydrate your yeast in. No more effort, just 100-200ml more treated water.


QUU levels of chloramine are quite low. Ascorbic acid or K/Na metabisulphite is more more likely to impact the end product than the low ppb of chloramine. The question was meant to be whether tap water disinfectants impact or kill the yeast if rehydrating with tap water.


----------



## Rocker1986

If you boil it, doesn't it remove all the SO2 if you've treated it with one of the metabisulphites, so that'd reduce its impact? I've re-hydrated yeast in the tap water here for years without any issues that I could notice, but obviously I don't have anything scientific to say one way or the other if the tap water disinfectants impact on the yeast.


----------



## MHB

Brewno Marz said:


> QUU levels of chloramine are quite low. Ascorbic acid or K/Na metabisulphite is more more likely to impact the end product than the low ppb of chloramine. The question was meant to be whether tap water disinfectants impact or kill the yeast if rehydrating with tap water.


Yes and No, Metabisulfite in reasonable concentrations will harm yeast but it has to be at fairly high concentrations to do much harm or be tasted generally given as >10mg/L (PPM).
Chlorophenols on the other hand can be detected (tasted) at as low as 1ug/L (0.001mg/L) and are regarded as a big problem by the time you get to 5-40ug/L.
Trick is to use very little Metabisulfite to get rid of the Halogens that make something that is both way better at harming yeast and tastes like shit in very small concentrations.
Remember that Metabisulfite will also react with Oxygen so that used in mashing... is going to be denatured long before you start talking about pitching yeast, for yeast work I get ultrapure water from woolies 10L is usually $5-6, tastes good to.
Mark


----------



## hoppy2B

Rocker1986 said:


> And what have you based that on? It's most likely true if the same amount of cells survive the pitch, but if the dry pitching kills a big enough portion of them then it could adversely affect the pitch rate, which could then adversely affect the beer. I don't think anyone is saying that this will happen 100% of the time with dry pitching - it's just a potential risk that isn't there with properly re-hydrated yeast. And it's a risk I'm personally not willing to take when I do use dry yeast. If others want to do it, that's up to them. But you're not making many allies with your arrogant complete and utter dismissal of decades of scientific research based on nothing but your own beers and/or what basically amounts to a marketing release at this point.
> 
> I'm happy to change my mind on it if the science shows it to be that way but until that happens I see no good reason to. And since you don't have a lab to do the tests properly like you accused everyone else of earlier on, what makes you an authority on anything any more than anyone else? Cut the bullshit already. Nobody gives a flying **** if you dry pitch your yeast or not, but some of us like to base our practices on real science, not anecdotes.


To what science are you referring? I've not seen you make one single reference to any scientific article or the like regarding pitch rate and its implications. The only thing I've seen you quote is hearsay.


----------



## MHB

Just googled "the effect on pitching rates beer" this is the first one to turn up.
Interesting that they start at a pitch rate of 1x10^7 cells/mL they aren't silly enough to start any lower!
Feel free to do some basic research for your self, instead of coming up with BS repeating it loudly and often. If you do some work for yourself you wont be saying we are just making it all up.
Mark


----------



## gunbrew

This guy recommends to sprinkle with an elbow bounce.


----------



## Rocker1986

hoppy2B said:


> To what science are you referring? I've not seen you make one single reference to any scientific article or the like regarding pitch rate and its implications. The only thing I've seen you quote is hearsay.


 Neither have you. The only thing you've referenced is a marketing release and anecdotal crap. But since you've asked...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2011.tb00482.x

It's about 7 or 8 years old now, and things may have changed since, but we don't know that until something further is released.

The topic is about the need to re-hydrate dry yeast in water before pitching or not, not the implications of pitching rates as such. I only mentioned that because the science has suggested for a while now that properly re-hydrated yeast retains more live and healthy cells upon pitching than it does when it's simply chucked into wort dry. Since you are clearly too lazy to use Google or bother doing any research of your own and would rather just shitcan everyone who disagrees with your opinion, here's another page
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2007.tb00259.x

These sorts of articles are exactly the reasons I do what I do in my brewing. Off topic but similar articles about the effects of hot break, fermentation temperature etc. are the reasons why I try to prevent hot break getting in the fermenter as much as possible, and use suitable ferment temps to get the best beer I can. Coupled with using pitching rates in the vicinity of recommended rates (obviously you can't get lab precision at home), my beers are better than they've ever been. I don't really care if Joe Bloggs throws all the break in, dry pitches yeast, ferments at 28 degrees and reckons he gets great beer. It's shitty brewing practice and it means nothing except maybe his tastebuds are fucked. The processes recommended by brewing science are generally accepted by everyone to be the best processes until something comes along that proves them wrong, like any other science. The proof is in the beer glass, with consistently great tasting beer every batch using these methods.

Do whatever you want, but don't accuse people of making shit up just because you think it doesn't fuckin matter or whatever. I know most people are usually too lazy to bother citing references to the claims they make so I tend to go and research it myself to see if they're talking shit or not. It may help you to do the same thing before shitposting about it.


----------



## jackgym

Here's hoping all the bruised egos have recovered, and we can continue pitching our yeast as we so desire, not how some people think we should.


----------



## MHB

jackgym said:


> Here's hoping all the bruised egos have recovered, and we can continue pitching our yeast as we so desire, not how some people think we should.


I think that's a very interesting attitude. Naturally you can do whatever you like with your yeast and beer.
To me the whole point of this sort of conversation is about getting the best results from your ingredients (or money if you prefer).
If we can learn that using a product like dry yeast will give better results if you use one method or another I think we all benefit.
In this case there is strong evidence that the right amount of healthy yeast will make the beet taste better, the idea that using a tiny amount of old/unhealthy yeast will give the same result as using more fresh/healthy yeast is pretty counterintuitive and I believe demonstrably wrong, certainly it isn't supported by any sort of research nor by experience (neither mine and that of thousands of other brewers).
To my mind its good to see research continuing on the best way to use yeast, when I spend money on an ingredient I want it to deliver!
The new evidence shows that whether you pitch dry or rehydrate isn't all that important, but that doing either at the right temperature is very important - I now have better information on which to base my decisions on how I will use the yeast I have brought.
Mark


----------



## jackgym

MHB said:


> I think that's a very interesting attitude. Naturally you can do whatever you like with your yeast and beer.
> To me the whole point of this sort of conversation is about getting the best results from your ingredients (or money if you prefer).
> If we can learn that using a product like dry yeast will give better results if you use one method or another I think we all benefit.
> In this case there is strong evidence that the right amount of healthy yeast will make the beet taste better, the idea that using a tiny amount of old/unhealthy yeast will give the same result as using more fresh/healthy yeast is pretty counterintuitive and I believe demonstrably wrong, certainly it isn't supported by any sort of research nor by experience (neither mine and that of thousands of other brewers).
> To my mind its good to see research continuing on the best way to use yeast, when I spend money on an ingredient I want it to deliver!
> The new evidence shows that whether you pitch dry or rehydrate isn't all that important, but that doing either at the right temperature is very important - I now have better information on which to base my decisions on how I will use the yeast I have brought.
> Mark


Totally agree. The whole thing blew up because some brewers prefer to re-hydrate their yeast and some prefer to sprinkle the packet onto the wort. It turned into an argument regarding who was right. It works just as well either way, apparently.


----------



## EmptyB

Actually it turned into one forum user bordering on being a troll and others taking him down with sweet, unbiased science.


----------



## Rocker1986

What it turned into was one person arrogantly telling all the pro re-hydration camp that we're all full of shit and "I was right all along yay me!", and basing that statement on essentially nothing but "well I don't do it and it works fine" and an early publication of a study that appears to show that it doesn't matter as much as we thought it did. I don't have a problem if the new science shows that, I'll just change my views in line with it. Until now, pretty well everything suggested re-hydrating in water first was better for the yeast, including Lallemand's package instructions for pitching.

I don't really care what anyone else does, it's when they shitpost about something like that and essentially say the science was wrong for years and they knew better and blah blah blah, they just end up making themselves look like a F-wit. You can offer advice but it's up to them if they take it on board or not. Personally, I want the best results I can get so I'm happy to put a little more time and effort in to try to adhere as best I can to the recommended best practices in all aspects of my brewing. Whether others want to do that is entirely up to them, but just because they choose not to doesn't mean the other information is wrong, or that doing those things is a waste of time. They'll just never know if their beers could be better or not.


----------



## MHB

EmptyB said:


> Actually it turned into one forum user bordering on being a troll and others taking him down with sweet, unbiased science.


Personally I think one forum user crossed the border. M


----------



## jackgym

Dear oh dear. Let's shut this thread down, shall we?


----------



## Brewno Marz

MHB said:


> Yes and No, Metabisulfite in reasonable concentrations will harm yeast but it has to be at fairly high concentrations to do much harm or be tasted generally given as >10mg/L (PPM).
> Chlorophenols on the other hand can be detected (tasted) at as low as 1ug/L (0.001mg/L) and are regarded as a big problem by the time you get to 5-40ug/L.
> Trick is to use very little Metabisulfite to get rid of the Halogens that make something that is both way better at harming yeast and tastes like shit in very small concentrations.
> Remember that Metabisulfite will also react with Oxygen so that used in mashing... is going to be denatured long before you start talking about pitching yeast, for yeast work I get ultrapure water from woolies 10L is usually $5-6, tastes good to.
> Mark


OK, thanks. I think you misunderstood my question. The question was whether tap water disinfectants (chlorine or chloramine) will kill or harm yeast, as this would influence how I rehydrate.


----------



## Jack of all biers

Brewno Marz said:


> OK, thanks. I think you misunderstood my question. The question was whether tap water disinfectants (chlorine or chloramine) will kill or harm yeast, as this would influence how I rehydrate.


Short answer is yes they can and there is some anecdotal evidence around, but as far as actual research on brewers yeast, there isn't any to be found. The research that is out there is mostly aimed at fungi that are toxic to us. This is one, where some fungi needed long (1-5 hours) exposure to very high rates (10-50 ppm) to kill them, may not be indicative, as it seems it is very fungi dependant. So would 0.3ppm (I'm guessing your water wouldn't have much higher levels of residual chloramines left in it by the time it comes out your tap) kill brewers yeast. Well, unlikely for the 30 mins you may rehydrate it in, but that is just my guess. 

I think the main concern would be not treating your water that you use to make your wort with (I'm not just talking about the 100mls used to rehydrate the yeast here). With chloramines and chlorine in your mains water are you using it to make your wort also? If so you will be more likely to affect the flavour of your beer and I would be treating that water as I previously posted. And as I previously posted at the same time you treat it, add 100-200 ml to be used for your yeast rehydration. Ascorbic acid in the dose it is used to bind the chlorine won't affect the yeast and splashing and boiling the water will negate the metabisulphite. Carbon filter is better if you aren't sure on adding things to your water. If you use different water for making your wort, then I'd only ask, why not use 100 ml of that to rehydrate your yeast?


----------



## goatchop41

Brewno Marz said:


> QUU levels of chloramine are quite low. Ascorbic acid or K/Na metabisulphite is more more likely to impact the end product than the low ppb of chloramine. The question was meant to be whether tap water disinfectants impact or kill the yeast if rehydrating with tap water.



Bollocks it will. The correct dosage of ascorbic acid (dosage = ppm of chloramine in the water x 2.5g per 1000L of water) will not make any negative difference to your yeast or the beer. The chloramine certainly will, in the off flavour producing reaction that it has with the yeast


----------



## Rocker1986

Does distilling water remove chloramine? I've been treating my distilled water with K met when I brew with it just in case, although I never noticed any issues with not treating it or tap water. I figure it's better to be on the safe side than risk off flavours though.


----------



## Jack of all biers

Rocker1986 said:


> Does distilling water remove chloramine? I've been treating my distilled water with K met when I brew with it just in case, although I never noticed any issues with not treating it or tap water. I figure it's better to be on the safe side than risk off flavours though.


If the distilling is done correctly then any chloramine should be left behind along with ions like Cl, SO4, Na etc. The whole purpose of distilling is to purify the water as much as possible. If done with too much gusto, then maybe (I stress maybe) some might go with the water vapour, but you'd be taking most other ions with the water too if chloramine went with it. I really think it is unlikely if your still is set up and used correctly. You seem a switched on brewer, so I'd suggest you are worried over nothing. 

metabisulfite (S2O5-2) + monochloramine (2NH2Cl) + 3H20 --> 2NH4+ + 2Cl- + 2SO4-2 + 2H+ By distilling you should be leaving most of the resultant ions behind.

If you are really worried about it, may I suggest a slight change to your practice and add the potassium metabisulphite prior to distilling the water. Otherwise you are just adding potassium (no issue) and ultimately sulphates to your water, which may throw out your Cl:SO4 ratios when you add your later salt additions. Probably not a real issue for you, but if you are distilling the water to get it as pure as you can, then I'd leave it that way if I were you.


----------



## Brewno Marz

goatchop41 said:


> Bollocks it will. The correct dosage of ascorbic acid (dosage = ppm of chloramine in the water x 2.5g per 1000L of water) will not make any negative difference to your yeast or the beer. The chloramine certainly will, in the off flavour producing reaction that it has with the yeast


So, that is quite an agressive response. I have not experienced any deleterious effect from chloramine in Brisbane water. Where is your supply from? If you PM me your suburb I can get a analysis for your bulk supply point.


----------



## goatchop41

Brewno Marz said:


> So, that is quite an agressive response. I have not experienced any deleterious effect from chloramine in Brisbane water. Where is your supply from? If you PM me your suburb I can get a analysis for your bulk supply point.



Perhaps not to your personal threshold of detection, or perhaps you are lucky enough to have used yeasts that haven't reacted strongly with the chloromine. But I am simply being blunt about it - the chloramine is much, much more liekly to affect the final product than a tiny bit of ascorbic acid or metabisulphite.
I have information from the local brewery that our local water tops out at 3ppm of chloramine. They use filtering to remove it from their water


----------



## Jack of all biers

Can I just correct one thing here. Chlorine, where ever it comes from, doesn't need yeast to react with phenols to create chlorophenols. This process can happen as early as the mash, in the kettle or in the wort (including topping up the K&K with water which contains chlorine/chloramines). The most common cause of tasting it is not rinsing chlorine based cleaners/sanitisers from equipment, but high levels of chlorine/chloramine in the water would be detectable to a lot of people (not all).

@goatchop41 is correct, different people are more, or less able to detect the flavours produced by this reaction. I never used to treat my mains water, nor tasted any chlorophenol flavours, until an Uncle from England once had a beer and could taste what he described as chlorine. I've used Ascorbic Acid ever since. The taste can also range in descriptors depending, from Adhesive tape, Band-Aid, disinfectant, medicinal, un-cured lacquer and a few more.


----------



## Rocker1986

Jack of all biers said:


> If the distilling is done correctly then any chloramine should be left behind along with ions like Cl, SO4, Na etc. The whole purpose of distilling is to purify the water as much as possible. If done with too much gusto, then maybe (I stress maybe) some might go with the water vapour, but you'd be taking most other ions with the water too if chloramine went with it. I really think it is unlikely if your still is set up and used correctly. You seem a switched on brewer, so I'd suggest you are worried over nothing.
> 
> metabisulfite (S2O5-2) + monochloramine (2NH2Cl) + 3H20 --> 2NH4+ + 2Cl- + 2SO4-2 + 2H+ By distilling you should be leaving most of the resultant ions behind.
> 
> If you are really worried about it, may I suggest a slight change to your practice and add the potassium metabisulphite prior to distilling the water. Otherwise you are just adding potassium (no issue) and ultimately sulphates to your water, which may throw out your Cl:SO4 ratios when you add your later salt additions. Probably not a real issue for you, but if you are distilling the water to get it as pure as you can, then I'd leave it that way if I were you.


Thanks mate. It's just one of those 4L things off eBay. I'd imagine it works properly as I could definitely taste a difference in my pilsner recipe brewed with the distilled water with small mineral additions vs brewed with untreated tap water. There's always a layer of brown sludge looking shit in the bottom after it finishes a batch of water as well which I assume is the minerals left behind. 

Either way I can't detect any flavour issues from adding the K met in the urn in terms of there being too much sulphate in the water. The beers taste as they should. I may be adding it pointlessly, and I've never detected any off flavours from not using it either but I figure it's better to remove it before it can present a problem.


----------



## goatchop41

Jack of all biers said:


> Can I just correct one thing here. Chlorine, where ever it comes from, doesn't need yeast to react with phenols to create chlorophenols. This process can happen as early as the mash, in the kettle or in the wort (including topping up the K&K with water which contains chlorine/chloramines). The most common cause of tasting it is not rinsing chlorine based cleaners/sanitisers from equipment, but high levels of chlorine/chloramine in the water would be detectable to a lot of people (not all).
> 
> @goatchop41 is correct, different people are more, or less able to detect the flavours produced by this reaction. I never used to treat my mains water, nor tasted any chlorophenol flavours, until an Uncle from England once had a beer and could taste what he described as chlorine. I've used Ascorbic Acid ever since. The taste can also range in descriptors depending, from Adhesive tape, Band-Aid, disinfectant, medicinal, un-cured lacquer and a few more.



Just clarifying that all of my comments are regarding chloramines specifically.
One of the first bbers that I made with tap water was a saison. It was a decent saison, only momentarily on the back end, and only after the horrendous flavour that one could only describe as the smell of a strong band aid had made you want to spit it out. I started using campden from the next batch onwards


----------



## Muzzanthrope

goatchop41 said:


> Just clarifying that all of my comments are regarding chloramines specifically.
> One of the first bbers that I made with tap water was a saison. It was a decent saison, only momentarily on the back end, and only after the horrendous flavour that one could only describe as the smell of a strong band aid had made you want to spit it out. I started using campden from the next batch onwards


I think it's also worth noting (before this starts another argument) the difference between chloraminated and chlorinated water supplies. Chloramines (from chloraminated systems) are much harder to remove than free Chlorine and a large number of water authorities have moved to chloramination disinfection systems in the past 10-20 years (including Bendigo).


----------



## goatchop41

Muzzanthrope said:


> I think it's also worth noting (before this starts another argument) the difference between chloraminated and chlorinated water supplies. Chloramines (from chloraminated systems) are much harder to remove than free Chlorine and a large number of water authorities have moved to chloramination disinfection systems in the past 10-20 years (including Bendigo).



Precisely, hence why it is imperative to either use metabisulphite or ascorbic acid, or a specific filter that can actually remove chloramines (as a lot of filters don't actually remove chloramines sufficiently)


----------



## Brewno Marz

goatchop41 said:


> Perhaps not to your personal threshold of detection, or perhaps you are lucky enough to have used yeasts that haven't reacted strongly with the chloromine. But I am simply being blunt about it - the chloramine is much, much more liekly to affect the final product than a tiny bit of ascorbic acid or metabisulphite.
> I have information from the local brewery that our local water tops out at 3ppm of chloramine. They use filtering to remove it from their water


Again, the original question was around effect of chlorine or chloramine on yeast in rehydration. As I said, I'm happy with the end product, it may not be perfect, but its good and I was using ascorbic acid, but found no perceptible difference. Also, 3 ppm is very, very high and probably getting towards the tolerable end of dosing for tap water?


----------



## Quokka42

I can't imagine the chlorine concentration in major cities' water supplies would have a significant effect on yeast, but K met is actually a nutrient in small quantities so go hard! I used to live in a town where our water was so hard it would polish burnt saucepans, and the chlorine smell at times was almost unbearable. I wouldn't even drink the stuff, let alone try to brew with it! All water for drinking or brewing came from bottles or RO.


----------



## MHB

Chlorine is bad for yeast and beer.
I doubt anyone is doing much research on how bad as anyone involved at a professional or scientific level will be dam sure there is no Chlorine in the water before they start.
So same same with respect to how you choose to reactivate dry yeast, there shouldn't be any there to cause trouble, likewise for dangerous amounts of heavy metals, pesticides, Carbonate, Nitrate, Iron... before you make beer from it we need to be sure the water is good for brewing and that absolutely means its De-Chlorinated at a minimum.
Mark


----------



## mr_wibble

MHB said:


> Here is a pretty useful introduction to yeast management - I strongly recommend it to you



That's a great document, but the font kerning hurts me.


----------



## kyby

I always use rain water as there is no town water where I live and the bore water is undrinkable and I've never had a problem. I have added a few things over the years but nowadays I normally don't bother. I only brew extract, no all grain.


----------



## Quokka42

MHB said:


> Chlorine is bad for yeast and beer.
> I doubt anyone is doing much research on how bad as anyone involved at a professional or scientific level will be dam sure there is no Chlorine in the water before they start.
> So same same with respect to how you choose to reactivate dry yeast, there shouldn't be any there to cause trouble, likewise for dangerous amounts of heavy metals, pesticides, Carbonate, Nitrate, Iron... before you make beer from it we need to be sure the water is good for brewing and that absolutely means its De-Chlorinated at a minimum.
> Mark



Again an emotive argument with no supporting evidence, facts, or literature. In many scientific experiments trace elements in town water can be ignored for large scale experiments, as any wayward effects would have been identified in trials.

Maybe you have a nose more sensitive than a dog - you are just going to have to live with that as the other 7.6 billion of us don't.


----------



## MHB

Quokka42 said:


> Again an emotive argument with no supporting evidence, facts, or literature. In many scientific experiments trace elements in town water can be ignored for large scale experiments, as any wayward effects would have been identified in trials.
> 
> Maybe you have a nose more sensitive than a dog - you are just going to have to live with that as the other 7.6 billion of us don't.


I'll do you the courtesy of assuming your pissed not just a complete dick!
Chlorine/Chloramine are added to otherwise Potable Water (safe to drink) to kill bugs (micro organisms of which yeast is an example). If water had too much of some contaminants it wouldn't be potable and wouldn't be safe to drink nor to brew with.
The major exception being Cl, this is present in amounts than can harm yeast and in some cases to affect the flavour of the beer. In another thread I posted a snippet from _"A Handbook of Basic Brewing Calculations" S Holle_ here it is again.





I doubt there is anyone here (on AHB) who posts more documentation of their contentions than I do, certainly haven't seen much from you, just emotive argument with no supporting evidence and personal digs.
From The Complete beer fault guide, also posted often enough.


----------



## Rocker1986

Personally, I've never detected any off flavors commonly associated with chlorine/chlorophenols in my beers. Up until about a year or so ago I wasn't doing anything to the water in regards to chlorine/chloramine removal. Then I started reading about this potential issue and decided it was better to prevent it before it might occur rather than risk it occurring and end up tipping an entire keg down the sink, or having someone else drink the beer and pick up the fault. It doesn't take up much of my brew day to stir the brewing water a bit and throw in a pinch of K-met to achieve that. I hardly ever use dry yeast anymore so that aspect doesn't really affect my brewing.


----------



## Leyther

Interesting the description of Chlorophenol, this is something I have detected in a couple of my beers that I ended up tipping, I've never known the source though, I live SE Melbourne and our water is quite neutral, I also only use sodium perc and star san so no bleach type cleaners.

I've never used campden tablets as I never thought necessary however if it prevents a tipped batch then I would definitely consider using them, is there any downside to using these? especially if they may not actually be required?


----------



## Rocker1986

Leyther said:


> Interesting the description of Chlorophenol, this is something I have detected in a couple of my beers that I ended up tipping, I've never known the source though as I live SE Melbourne and our water is quite neutral, I also only use sodium perc and star san so no bleach type cleaners.
> 
> I've never used campden tablets as I never thought necessary however if it prevents a tipped batch then I would definitely consider using them, is there any downside to using these? especially if they may not actually be required?


If you want the chlorine/chloramine removed then it is necessary to use them, or the powdered form which I prefer. Used at the correct dosage I don't see a downside, the SO2 will just boil off when the wort is boiled, and you won't be risking those flavours. 

Neutral or soft water like Melbourne has doesn't mean it doesn't contain these things, or less of them. It's still treated with them for disinfection and as such they can still affect your beer if not removed from the water, which it sounds like has happened on those couple of occasions.


----------



## Muzzanthrope

Leyther said:


> Interesting the description of Chlorophenol, this is something I have detected in a couple of my beers that I ended up tipping, I've never known the source though, I live SE Melbourne and our water is quite neutral, I also only use sodium perc and star san so no bleach type cleaners.
> 
> I've never used campden tablets as I never thought necessary however if it prevents a tipped batch then I would definitely consider using them, is there any downside to using these? especially if they may not actually be required?


If you get your water from SE Water then (I'm fairly sure) they use Chlorination for disinfection so you can simply boil or leave your water to sit overnight to remove the free chlorine. Chloramines, produced by Chloramination are much harder to remove so campden tablets are a sound option when this is how your mains water is treated.

In regards to yeast kill from Chlorine and Chloramines: If you are using a yeast starter with untreated mains water then there is no way you would kill off enough yeast to have a significant negative impact on the viability of your pitch. The amount of organic material added (from malt and yeast) would use up all available free and total chlorine well before a 100% yeast kill could occur, and if you add your L/DME and boil the liquid the yeast may not even see any chlorine. Untreated water will however result in some by-products being produced in your starter, the effect on your beer will depend on a number of factors; the amount and type of chlorine in your mains water, the style of beer being made, the size of your starter in relation to your total batch and your personal sensitivity. Personally I would wager that from a starter it would be, at most a very slight off flavour but I would just by a 600ml bottle of water from the supermarket if I needed water quickly for a starter or use the treated water I planned to use for my mas/boil.
_(FYI I am a practicing Water Quality Engineer, so if anyone wants to call out my dodgy opinions I am more than happy to reference scientific papers if required)_


----------



## Schikitar

I've got campden tablets, would half a tablet to ~36 litres of fairly neutral tap water be sufficient? I'd like to try it on the next brew because I keep detecting an off-flavour that I'm having a hard time identifying the source of (I wish I could describe it - it's sort of medicinal/papery, not overpowering but present)..


----------



## wide eyed and legless

I am on SE water, one camden tablet and stands overnight for around 34 litres


----------



## Rocker1986

I think the discussion about chlorine/chloramine effect on yeast was more about the re-hydration step rather than pitching into the whole batch or making yeast starters. My personal experience has been that it has no effect on it, at least from a taste point of view when drinking the beer. I don't treat the water I use in my starters; the water up here is chloraminated and I do boil the starter wort which isn't gonna do much in that regard, but most of the "beer" is poured off before the yeast is pitched anyway, so what little amount is in that little amount that's pitched is going to be even littler in 21/25 litres. I always treat my brewing water though.

@Schikitar it should be enough, but you'll have to crush the thing up into powder before you put it in the water. I actually found the tablets a pain in the arse to work with and switched to powdered potassium met. I just stir the water a bit, and put in 1/5-1/4 of a teaspoon of the stuff. It swirls around and dissolves within seconds. ******* reeks when you open the bag though, a mask might be a good idea.


----------



## Muzzanthrope

Schikitar said:


> I've got campden tablets, would half a tablet to ~36 litres of fairly neutral tap water be sufficient? I'd like to try it on the next brew because I keep detecting an off-flavour that I'm having a hard time identifying the source of (I wish I could describe it - it's sort of medicinal/papery, not overpowering but present)..


Definitely sounds like a phenolic flavour. But keep in mind that there are other factors which can contribute to these flavours: Yeast (commercial and wild), bacteria, tannin from high mash pH or high sparge temps and even produced by algae in water storage before it gets to treatment (is it worse in the Summer?). 
How are you currently treating your water?


----------



## Schikitar

Muzzanthrope said:


> How are you currently treating your water?


Not to derail the thread but here is (apparently) my water profile - I haven't measured pH yet, I only just got a meter and haven't opened the box yet..
Alkalinity Bicarbonate (CaCO3) - 16 mg/L
Calcium - 9 mg/L
Chloride - 14 mg/L
Magnesium - 2.13 mg/L
Sodium - 5.6 mg/L
Sulphate - 13.2 mg/L

Using EZWater I have been treating with gypsum, epsom salts, (more recently) calcium chloride and a dash of baking soda. To be honest the best beer I've brewed to date was the first one where I made zero additions, every beer after that I started doing additions as I was having trouble with fermentation but then things started tasting a little.. weird! I made too many changes at once so the last brew I did I replicated that first brew with the exception of adding water additions (10g Gypsum, 5g Epsom Salts,10g Calcium Chloride) and this too tasted slightly weird. The treated water itself tasted fine before I mashed in but the resulting beer also just had this subtle but distinct off-flavour.. next time I'm thinking I'll omit all water additions and maybe just try the campden tablet, I dunno!


----------



## Muzzanthrope

Schikitar said:


> Not to derail the thread but here is (apparently) my water profile - I haven't measured pH yet, I only just got a meter and haven't opened the box yet..
> Alkalinity Bicarbonate (CaCO3) - 16 mg/L
> Calcium - 9 mg/L
> Chloride - 14 mg/L
> Magnesium - 2.13 mg/L
> Sodium - 5.6 mg/L
> Sulphate - 13.2 mg/L
> 
> Using EZWater I have been treating with gypsum, epsom salts, (more recently) calcium chloride and a dash of baking soda. To be honest the best beer I've brewed to date was the first one where I made zero additions, every beer after that I started doing additions as I was having trouble with fermentation but then things started tasting a little.. weird! I made too many changes at once so the last brew I did I replicated that first brew with the exception of adding water additions (10g Gypsum, 5g Epsom Salts,10g Calcium Chloride) and this too tasted slightly weird. The treated water itself tasted fine before I mashed in but the resulting beer also just had this subtle but distinct off-flavour.. next time I'm thinking I'll omit all water additions and maybe just try the campden tablet, I dunno!


I meant more how are you currently removing the Chlorine from your water? But one thing you did mention was your new pH meter - as well as removing the Chlorine from your water I would also take a look at your mash pH to make sure it's not too high.


----------



## Rocker1986

The mineral additions need to suit the style of beer you're brewing as well. You can't just use the same additions for every style and expect them all to turn out great. If I used the same minerals for a pilsner that I do for a pale ale it'd be shit. You can always adjust mash pH with acid or acidulated malt if required, it doesn't have to be done with mineral salt additions. The pH of the water is largely irrelevant to the mash pH anyway, you need to measure the mash pH and adjust that, not the water itself. 

I'm in a situation now where I'm sick of guessing the tap water profile based on vague reports found online from a year or two ago so I've decided to just distill all the water I use and build profiles from scratch for every batch (previously only did this with pilsners to get very soft water like your profile there). I'll be trying this on a brown ale next, and after that a pale ale. It'll be interesting to compare to the same beers brewed with tap water and somewhat guessed additions. If there's no real difference then I won't bother continuing it, but if they improve then I will keep it up.


----------



## Schikitar

Muzzanthrope said:


> I meant more how are you currently removing the Chlorine from your water?


Oh right, I'm not currently.



Muzzanthrope said:


> I would also take a look at your mash pH to make sure it's not too high.


I'll definitely do this on the next brew!



Rocker1986 said:


> The mineral additions need to suit the style of beer you're brewing as well.


Yeah, that's why I didn't list the amounts of the additions as they do vary - I exclusively make anything between hop forward ales through to american stouts - I don't brew lagers, pilsners etc., as they don't appeal to my uneducated palate. I also like anchovies, olives and jalapenos on my pizza!  


I was going to post earlier that I have kinda gone full circle on yeast, went from dry to liquid and back to dry rehydrated. Have had similar results between the last two but the lag time is definitely shorter with a liquid starter - hard to beat the convenience of rehydrating though..


----------



## Digga

Hahahahaha I’d much rather prefer to go in wet than dry! Hahahaha


----------



## munta

Digga said:


> Hahahahaha I’d much rather prefer to go in wet than dry! Hahahaha



Spit on it and slam it in


----------



## Quokka42

I will not reply to the untermenschen*, *but please, let's leave the kiddy toilet humour out?

I'm sorry I dropped out of the loop due to trolls for a while, but really happy to see you have stood the tide Kelsey - and I think you have actually grown as well. Not that I think you were lacking before - you might even know who I am from another forum, and that I am not afraid to admit I am wrong, 'though I sometimes get a little vehement when I am not and under attack. I really appreciate the valid, authenticated references you have provided - I might not be able to convince anyone else, but at least I feel privately vindicated.


----------



## Muzzanthrope

.


----------



## MHB

Quokka42 said:


> I will not reply to the untermenschen*, *but please, let's leave the kiddy toilet humour out?
> Snip


Who exactly do you regard as sub-human?
Are you a fully paid-up member of the master race, seriously playing the old Nazi card is often the last resort of a lefty on the loosing side of an argument, I don't know what putting on the mantle says about anybody but suspect its nothing good.


----------



## fungrel

That's the thread done, folks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## brewgasm

I have only rehydrated a few times in 50 odd batches. Not out of laziness but when I started brewing it was just to keep it simple, minimise risk of infection ect.. The few times I did rehydrate I wasn't really impressed with the results so I just stuck with the dry pitch and never really gave it much more thought.

I'm going to knock up a quick kit and kilo tomorrow and I'm seriously thinking about rehydrating for a change.


----------



## jackgym

fungrel said:


> That's the thread done, folks.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


I'll be buggered if I knew Hitler made his own beer.


----------



## brewgasm

Rehydrated 3 packets of bry-97 today, gotta say for a habitual dry pitcher it wasn't really much extra effort to be honest. One thing that I would like to know is what is best practice for getting the slurry down to wort temp?


----------



## Rocker1986

brewgasm said:


> Rehydrated 3 packets of bry-97 today, gotta say for a habitual dry pitcher it wasn't really much extra effort to be honest. One thing that I would like to know is what is best practice for getting the slurry down to wort temp?


What I've read is usually just adding small amounts of cooler water or wort to slowly bring the temp down. It doesn't have to be exactly the same as the wort temp, within 5C should be ok.


----------



## brewgasm

Rocker1986 said:


> What I've read is usually just adding small amounts of cooler water or wort to slowly bring the temp down. It doesn't have to be exactly the same as the wort temp, within 5C should be ok.


Thanks, that makes sense to me. I don't know if it is related to rehydration but BRY-97 is a monster! Yesterday (day 4) I had to clean up the top of the fermentor remove, clean and sanitise to airlock. About 10 hours later I found my airlock had been blown apart and spatter about the place so I had to replace the airlock with a blow off tube. The beast is still quite angry this morning but is contained. I am slightly worried about the contamination risk but I can't turn back time. Next time I use this yeast which will probably be next batch lol going to use the blow off tube from the start.


----------



## Rocker1986

Hahah! I've only used that yeast once and didn't experience anything like that. I can't remember if I rehydrated it or not now, but I probably did. Another thing I didn't experience with it which seems quite common, is a really long lag time. Krausen was evident in 24 hours or less. I've seen a number of comments on it taking 2 days or more.


----------



## Leyther

Ive used BRY-97 a lot, I have seen this but only once, generally its just a standard type ferment however I use a blow off most of the time these days just in case.


----------



## brewgasm

Rocker1986 said:


> Hahah! I've only used that yeast once and didn't experience anything like that. I can't remember if I rehydrated it or not now, but I probably did. Another thing I didn't experience with it which seems quite common, is a really long lag time. Krausen was evident in 24 hours or less. I've seen a number of comments on it taking 2 days or more.


I pitched at 18° for an 18° ferm so I was expecting a significant lag time. It was showing signs of fermentation 24hrs later (krausen was about 5mm and airlock showing pressure) it just kept climbing and by day 4 it was coming out of airlock.

I did use a dose of yeast nutrients (1.5 tsp in 60l of wort) and did have a sg of 1.060. I'm not sure if that makes a difference. Maybe I was lucky enough to get fresh yeast that was stored well.


----------



## brewgasm

Leyther said:


> Ive used BRY-97 a lot, I have seen this but only once, generally its just a standard type ferment however I use a blow off most of the time these days just in case.


Might be a good idea to use a blow off tube from now on , I have used them in the past. I intend on using the same yeast in the next batch


----------



## hooper80

/// said:


> I’d hate to see years of research by guys like Bolton on oxygen and yeast health derailed by a presentation somewhere ... I’d take with a grain of salt knowing billion of litres are successfully made with oxygen in mind.
> 
> White Labs did cells counts once on direct add vs hydration in water and I am sure almost 50% of cells died on the direct add. But, for a 12 Plato wort the small packs were almost 50% over on cell numbers required.
> 
> Dried yeast are lumped full of O2 at end of processing, so when the hit wort they can spring into action and get through the lag phase earlier and faster. So kinda kills that argument about importance of O2. The O2 makes the fatty acid walls of the cells softer than without, hence the short lag time.
> 
> As for storage, well I usually had 5000l on top, which was come to come pitched warm to the next for 6-8 gens. Anytime we repitched yeast cold was a probs, for home use this is a bit easier, but my advise is to always use warm yeast not cold



When u say warm yeast, what temp ya talking?


----------



## Thomas Wood

I always rehydrate my yeast before pitching, but I don't think I have had a lag time less than 48hrs, most taking 60hrs before the iSpindel starts showing any signs of activity. Am I rehydrating too warm possibly?


----------



## Wobbly74

That sounds like really long lag times. My last lager got 2x 15g packs of 34/70 with no rehydration and I thought that took a long time at 21 hours to finish multiplying and start fermenting. This was at 13C. My straight pitched ales have started by about 8-10 hours. This is the graph from my last lager, a 1.050 Vienna Lager.


----------



## Thomas Wood

Yeh it's so strange. This one was even one of the Mangrove Jacks M44 US West Coast yeasts completely temperature controlled @ 19*C, but still an incredibly long lag time. (Ignore the gravity values, it's not completely calibrated yet).


----------



## ///

hooper80 said:


> When u say warm yeast, what temp ya talking?


Fermentation temp. We never used yeast that had been chilled.


----------



## Wobbly74

Maybe just try pitching commando next time and see if you get any difference.


----------



## Dylo

MHB said:


> Might be this one.
> If not and you want some more Yeast research PM me your e-mail address and I'll send a few, they are too big to post here.
> Mark



I noticed that Fermentis have updated this doc too in this link: https://fermentis.com/tips-n-tricks/for-you-brewers/ I have one question for anyone that may be clever enough to offer suggestions...

Between the two documents they seem to have included one new point in the "rehydrating with wort" section. Now they specifically say the wort should be hopped. Any idea what advantage this would have over un-hopped?


----------



## altone

Dylo said:


> I noticed that Fermentis have updated this doc too in this link: https://fermentis.com/tips-n-tricks/for-you-brewers/ I have one question for anyone that may be clever enough to offer suggestions...
> 
> Between the two documents they seem to have included one new point in the "rehydrating with wort" section. Now they specifically say the wort should be hopped. Any idea what advantage this would have over un-hopped?



I thought the hop addition was to help prevent infection I have a little jar of old hops and add a couple of pellets to the starter - just in case.


----------



## MHB

Dylo said:


> I noticed that Fermentis have updated this doc too in this link: https://fermentis.com/tips-n-tricks/for-you-brewers/ I have one question for anyone that may be clever enough to offer suggestions...
> 
> Between the two documents they seem to have included one new point in the "rehydrating with wort" section. Now they specifically say the wort should be hopped. Any idea what advantage this would have over un-hopped?


Less bacteria is what comes to mind, hops are a bacteria killer.
Mark


----------



## mfroes

still can't find it at https://fermentis.com/news-from-fermentis/news-and-events/ or http://www.lallemandbrewing.com/news/

i see no changes on the fermentis and the lallemand websites or packages on the instructions of the yeast. in fact on both of them they say that can cause a few other things even. http://www.lallemandbrewing.com/products/brewing-yeast/ under the "Rehydration" tab says that can cause stuck fermentation, longer everything (lag, fermentation, diacetyl rest)... https://fermentis.com/tips-n-tricks/for-you-brewers/


----------



## mfroes

Contacted Brad smith and this was his answer about the aeration.


----------



## Wobbly74

Chris white is an expert on liquid yeast but doesn't deal in dry yeast. Not to say that he doesn't know a lot about it, but his recommendations are around the liquid yeasts he works with (just the context of the conversation). I've not had issues without hydrating dry yeast vs hydrating, but I always aerate for liquid yeast, either spun up from a pack or re-used...


----------



## awfulknauful

So what is the general consensus with the dry yeast?


----------



## wide eyed and legless

If using Fermentis dry yeast, Fermentis do not recommend aerating the wort , the ergosterol's (pretty much what cholesterol is for us) are incorporated in the dry yeast. I have also read that the cells are oxidated if there is such a word, or even if it can be done. I always rehydrate the dry yeast, reasons I have read for doing this is it is a shock for yeast to suddenly get dumped into the wort. 
https://beerandbrewing.com/how-to-use-dry-yeast/


----------



## goatchop41

wide eyed and legless said:


> If using Fermentis dry yeast, Fermentis do not recommend aerating the wort , the ergosterol's (pretty much what cholesterol is for us) are incorporated in the dry yeast. I have also read that the cells are oxidated if there is such a word, or even if it can be done. I always rehydrate the dry yeast, reasons I have read for doing this is it is a shock for yeast to suddenly get dumped into the wort.
> https://beerandbrewing.com/how-to-use-dry-yeast/



What about all of the pro breweries who rehydrate in wort, then do viability counts that are the same as water?


----------



## wide eyed and legless

Yeh what about them?


----------



## awfulknauful

So is it better to rehydrate yeast or not?


----------



## wide eyed and legless

awfulknauful said:


> So is it better to rehydrate yeast or not?


There has been many a discussion on here regarding that self same question. I have put out what I do, the best thing to do is research at what micro biologist and brewers say. Join Wiley online its free though sometimes you can't access all the info but you can access a lot.


----------



## peteru

awfulknauful said:


> So is it better to rehydrate yeast or not?



Simple enough to find out. Split your next batch in two and compare the results. No need to believe in science, just use empirical evidence to get the result that pleases you.


----------



## goatchop41

peteru said:


> Simple enough to find out. Split your next batch in two and compare the results. No need to believe in science, just use empirical evidence to get the result that pleases you.



Yeah, sounds like a great idea...
Wait, no, you're saying to ignore what the manufacturer of the actual product has to say, and just perform a completely pointless, uncontrolled n=1 study...
...
...


----------



## goatchop41

awfulknauful said:


> So is it better to rehydrate yeast or not?



The reasonable and logical option would be that if the manufacturer recommends rehydrating, then rehydrate. If they don't, then don't.
We can rest assured that they know what they're talking about, since they make the stuff


----------



## MHB

Here is the latest US-05 spec sheet.
It doesn't mention wort aeration at all, I'm far from sure whether that means that they expect that
1/ any sensible brewer will have aerated their wort as a matter of course.
2/ It isn't necessary

They still recommend 50-80g/hl, at 23l, 50g/hl is 11.5g. No information is given on the effect of wort gravity so its pretty fair to assume that they are talking about "standard beer" (12oP and 25IBU (1.048)).

I suspect that if you aren't aerating you would want a bigger pitch rate to compensate, say up near the 80g/hl (~18.4g/23l). Good idea to pay very close attention to the recommended pitching temperatures to.
Mark

PS - This is really well worth reading Fermentis Tips and Tricks
M


----------



## wide eyed and legless

MHB said:


> Here is the latest US-05 spec sheet.
> It doesn't mention wort aeration at all, I'm far from sure whether that means that they expect that
> 1/ any sensible brewer will have aerated their wort as a matter of course.
> 2/ It isn't necessary
> 
> They still recommend 50-80g/hl, at 23l, 50g/hl is 11.5g. No information is given on the effect of wort gravity so its pretty fair to assume that they are talking about "standard beer" (12oP and 25IBU (1.048)).
> 
> I suspect that if you aren't aerating you would want a bigger pitch rate to compensate, say up near the 80g/hl (~18.4g/23l). Good idea to pay very close attention to the recommended pitching temperatures to.
> Mark


I used US-05 in my last batch and pitched into what I thought was a trifle high due to the ambient temp reading the range of pitching temperature put my mind at ease. I still do aerate my wort, maybe I should do a test which petru suggests aerate one batch and not another. 
This is where I read about Fermentis suggesting not to aerate the wort.
https://discussions.probrewer.com/showthread.php?53010-Dry-yeast-needs-aerating-wort


----------



## razz

I’ve been pitching dry yeast for years, us-05 and 34-70. And occasionally rehydrating with bugger all difference. Best thing I ever did was lift the pitch rate to minimum 1 g/l. And a bit more if I’m pitching cold.


----------



## LorriSanga

Aerating the wort razz?


----------



## wide eyed and legless

razz said:


> I’ve been pitching dry yeast for years, us-05 and 34-70. And occasionally rehydrating with bugger all difference. Best thing I ever did was lift the pitch rate to minimum 1 g/l. And a bit more if I’m pitching cold.


I have tried both methods razz the only thing I have found is the difference in lag time when rehydrated and pitched at similar temps.


----------



## razz

No aerating of the wort Lorrisanga although I did have the yeast and water in a drink shaker and gave it a brief shake after rehydrating the yeast. I don’t recall a large difference in lag times Weal although that doesn’t mean there wasn’t. Always get some good action after 24 hours and generally hit TG at 5 days.


----------



## ///

Just for context, Whitey is a good mate of mine with a PhD related to yeast and fermentation. He is a respected teaching academic across the UC network, Master Brewers Assoc, Ibd and any other research and teaching facility you can poke a stick at for yeast. He has also has a solid working relationship with Lallemand (ahh, that dried yeast company) and sells some of thier products after working collaborately with them to develope the product. 

Wobbly your academic or professional experience in brewing, fermentation scince and yeast is? Couple of research papers up your sleeve? BA, MSc, PhD?

I've been a practical brewer for 15 years and won Champion trophy's and medals following Whitey's advise.

Your post is personally and professionally offensive, bordering on slander to his reputation. It is one of, of not, the biggest peice of selling ejaculating Homebrewer bulllshit I have ever seen. 

Yes, over reaction. Think twice before you post crap online.


----------



## peteru

goatchop41 said:


> Yeah, sounds like a great idea...
> Wait, no, you're saying to ignore what the manufacturer of the actual product has to say, and just perform a completely pointless, uncontrolled n=1 study...



I failed to convey sarcasm. Maybe I should have used the rolling eyes emoji.

There will always be people who don't believe in science. Heck, there are also people who like beer that I would tip out. If their yeast management produces beer that smells and tastes like green apple scented hand wash and they enjoy it, yay for them.

Correctly rehydrating dry yeast is such a simple and quick procedure that it makes you wonder why people resist doing it. It takes more effort to argue the point than just getting it done.


----------



## Vazerhino

MHB (and others) - having read the Tips and Tricks - i don't understand why we need to re-hydrate outside the fermentation vessel as it says to rehydrate between 25 and 29 degrees. What is the difference in pitching in the fermenter at that temperature (thus "re-hydrating") versus wort in a separate vessel and then tipping into the fermenter?


----------



## wide eyed and legless

Vazerhino said:


> MHB (and others) - having read the Tips and Tricks - i don't understand why we need to re-hydrate outside the fermentation vessel as it says to rehydrate between 25 and 29 degrees. What is the difference in pitching in the fermenter at that temperature (thus "re-hydrating") versus wort in a separate vessel and then tipping into the fermenter?


When you read the tips and tricks in MHB's post it states re-hydrate in water, as I stated earlier that it could be a shock for the yeast to re-hydrate in a sugary wort.


----------



## MHB

Vazerhino said:


> MHB (and others) - having read the Tips and Tricks - i don't understand why we need to re-hydrate outside the fermentation vessel as it says to rehydrate between 25 and 29 degrees. What is the difference in pitching in the fermenter at that temperature (thus "re-hydrating") versus wort in a separate vessel and then tipping into the fermenter?


The very short answer (short and incomplete) is that as the yeast is rehydrating it cant control what crosses the cell membrane and enters the cell.
If you rehydrate in other than water (ideally not distilled) the yeast can end up full of stuff that might not be good for it.
There has been a lot of research on this process that has lead to some commercial products like Go Ferm and a bunch of others. but these require spending time and money - been known to cause a terminal pucker among some home brewers....
Mark


----------



## JDW81

MHB said:


> The very short answer (short and incomplete) is that as the yeast is rehydrating it cant control what crosses the cell membrane and enters the cell.
> If you rehydrate in other than water (ideally not distilled) the yeast can end up full of stuff that might not be good for it.
> There has been a lot of research on this process that has lead to some commercial products like Go Ferm and a bunch of others. but these require spending time and money - been known to cause a terminal pucker among some home brewers....
> Mark



As Mark rightly points out (as always), the issue with dehydrated yeast is it is unable to control what crosses it's cell membrane until it is rehydrated (I can't give you a timeframe).

The effect different solutions have on yeast depend on their toniticy/osmolarity/osmolality (whatever you want to call it) and the osmotic gradient between the cell and the fluid. There's a good podcast by the brewstrong guys on yeast rehydration.

Distilled water is hypotonic compared to the inside of the cell. If you rehydrate in distilled/deionised water, the yeast cells will swell and burst as the hypotonic solution moves into yeast cell.

Wort is hypertonic compared to the cell, and it will further dehydrate the yeast + shift intracellular solutes to ensure balance with the surround solution.

Good old fashioned tap water, while not truly isotonic, is pretty similar to the dehydrated yeast so it allows the yeast to rehydrate, while maintaining a fairly stable intracellular environment. Once's it's rehydrated properly, the cells can regulate what crosses the membrane and it can got to work and ferment your wort.

It is much more complicated that this, but this is a basic description of what happens.

JD


----------



## MHB

I keep forgetting to say - make sure the water is de-Chlorinated - really we should all know that and its easy to assume people do.
Either carbon filter or boil your water before using it to rehydrate yeast, or grab a bottle of commercial water(not mineral water), most of them are just filtered tap water.
About the worst thing that can get inside a yeast cell is any free halogen (F, Cl, Br, I) lots of other stuff that isn't good but halogens are probably the worst your likely to have in your tap water.
M


----------



## labels

Pray tell me I'm doing everything wrong.
I run a starter on all yeast whether dry or liquid on a stir plate with a 1.040 starter wort made from DME. Much bigger starters with lagers but still 1.040. Generally, the starter is kept at 25-30C, lager or ale.

I start with 500ml - 1L of wort per pack of yeast, usually three-four days before brewing and this ferments out fairly quickly. The night before brewing I step up again with about 500ml DME starter wort per pack of yeast. The stir plate is turned up to high with a big vortex.

When pitching, I do not throw away the starter beer, it's kept spinning hard on the stir plate so I am pitching highly oxygenated, yeast rich beer into my wort. Even with lagers, lag time is almost zero and I pitch all beers at 25-30C. In all cases they go directly into my temp controlled chest freezer and hit ferment temps well within 12 hours (we're talking about 100L brews divided into four 30L fermenters)

Being I brew mainly lagers, they come out very clean and free of all fermentation by-products every time.


----------



## krz

/// said:


> ....
> 
> Your post is personally and professionally offensive, bordering on slander to his reputation. It is one of, of not, the biggest peice of selling ejaculating Homebrewer bulllshit I have ever seen.
> 
> Yes, over reaction. Think twice before you post crap online.



Which post do you refer to /// that is offensive.
I looked through the history but cant see what was offensive, maybe it was deleted?


----------



## Brewno Marz

labels said:


> Pray tell me I'm doing everything wrong.
> I run a starter on all yeast whether dry or liquid on a stir plate with a 1.040 starter wort made from DME. Much bigger starters with lagers but still 1.040. Generally, the starter is kept at 25-30C, lager or ale.



I would say you’re not doing anything wrong. It works for you. For me, I have just started direct pitching dry yeast into the wort based on this thread and found it reduces lag time and reduces time to FG compared with rehydrating, especially for lagers (e.g. w34/70 ot MJ-84). Note that I haven’t made starters from dry yeast though, and don’t intend to, so can’t comment on additional benefits outlined by @labels . I had been rehydrating dry yeast for decades and now question why I spent this extra time and effort. All anectdotal though, so each to there own...


----------



## altone

labels said:


> Pray tell me I'm doing everything wrong.
> I run a starter on all yeast whether dry or liquid on a stir plate with a 1.040 starter wort made from DME. Much bigger starters with lagers but still 1.040. Generally, the starter is kept at 25-30C, lager or ale.
> 
> ...
> 
> Being I brew mainly lagers, they come out very clean and free of all fermentation by-products every time.


I basically do the same except at a lower temp (20-25 - room temp)



> Wort is hypertonic compared to the cell, and it will further dehydrate the yeast + shift intracellular solutes to ensure balance with the surround solution.


 Bugger! But I assume as we are actually making a starter the yeast recovers and propagates as usual.
I do actually start off with a low gravity wort - perhaps that reduces the shock.


----------



## Coalminer

I run my ale starters at 26-27C (which is the same as the recommended rehydration temps),
but slowly reduce the starter to the wort pitching temps before pitching, generally 17-18C


----------



## 5teve

I've always read and understood to just rehydrate using only sterile water, but in the latest US-05 spec sheet linked by MHB in the pitching with prior rehydration instructions it says "_Alternatively, sprinkle the yeast in minimum 10 times its weight of sterile water *or boiled and hopped wort*..._"

Also in the "How to rehydrate yeast?" section in the linked Tips and Tricks brochure, they also state "_Fermentis yeast can be rehydrated with sterile water *or sterile wort*,..._"

There's no clear indication by them that water is the recommended choice anymore?


----------



## wide eyed and legless

5teve said:


> I've always read and understood to just rehydrate using only sterile water, but in the latest US-05 spec sheet linked by MHB in the pitching with prior rehydration instructions it says "_Alternatively, sprinkle the yeast in minimum 10 times its weight of sterile water *or boiled and hopped wort*..._"
> 
> Also in the "How to rehydrate yeast?" section in the linked Tips and Tricks brochure, they also state "_Fermentis yeast can be rehydrated with sterile water *or sterile wort*,..._"
> 
> There's no clear indication by them that water is the recommended choice anymore?


I think they purposely do that, imagine the thousands of pairs of eyes on many amount of threads on many forums where the name Fermentis crops up. Buckshee advertising.


----------



## wide eyed and legless

Finally got hold of a sample of Chinese English Ale yeast by Angel, looking forward to trying it when I get back from holidays.


----------



## MHB

Hope it works out better than the Chinese hops did!
Mark


----------



## wide eyed and legless

MHB said:


> Hope it works out better than the Chinese hops did!
> Mark


Yes that was a complete disaster, can't lose anything giving this one a go though I am not raising my expectations that it is going to turn out better than SO4 just hoping.


----------



## wide eyed and legless

So the Chinese yeast has gone into an English Pale ale, instructions were re hydrate the yeast but do not aerate / oxygenate the wort, re hydrated on the stir plate for 1 hour, strong bready aroma, never smelt other yeasts as strong as this one. Hoping for some good esters coming off this. fingers crossed.


----------



## wide eyed and legless

Doesn't really mean much but the ferment is going well this was the following morning after pitching, today the krausen is in decline, will give a couple more days before taking a reading.


----------



## wide eyed and legless

I have done a second brew using the Chinese Ale yeast, first one was finished in three days, but there was a long lag time due to the temperature differential. Second one was brewed Friday pitched yeast Friday arvo, Monday all but finished flocculation is good, all resting now on the taste test 2 or 3 weeks time.


----------



## wide eyed and legless

1st brew using the Chinese yeast is out of fermenter, transferred to to cube/cask inline pressure regulator factory set at 8psi, dry hoped and primed, smelling good will give it a taste in a few days.


----------

