# Yeasts You Really Don't Like



## hoohaaman (16/5/09)

Do other people have yeasts they really don't like.I have used a very popular yeast that others rave about.
And have hated the results.Upon advice, have given it a second chance,only to be totally disappointed once again.

I think it may be personal taste to different yeasts,but have never come across another yeast I despise.

Thoughts most welcome.I'll name the yeast later if someone doesn't name it 1st


----------



## Sammus (16/5/09)

WY1968?

I love it, some people dont seem to like it much at all though.


----------



## hoohaaman (16/5/09)

It is an English yeast


----------



## MCT (16/5/09)

Nottingham?


----------



## hoohaaman (16/5/09)

too easy.

I just don't like the way it sucks out the malt profile,aroma is stolen and it always finishes on desert side of dry.

Oh imho


----------



## neonmeate (16/5/09)

wlp500


----------



## Sammus (16/5/09)

mct already got it neonmeate


----------



## hoohaaman (16/5/09)

thoughts are always welcome


----------



## Fourstar (16/5/09)

I found Wyeast 1028 London Ale to be Uber minerally... that was before i was doing wter additions. It was like there was a crapload of minerally carbonates in the beer. Wasnt much of a fan. Might try it again in the future but not anytime soon.


----------



## Stuster (16/5/09)

Fourstar said:


> I found Wyeast 1028 London Ale to be Uber minerally... that was before i was doing wter additions. It was like there was a crapload of minerally carbonates in the beer. Wasnt much of a fan. Might try it again in the future but not anytime soon.



An English IPA in the NSW swap a while back was made with this yeast and a lot of people didn't like it. Personally, I though it was good but could see why it wasn't that popular and for exactly the reasons you give of adding a minerally taste.

neonmeate, I've only used that yeast a bit so no real thought on that, but it's supposed to be the Chimay strain and really I'm not a big fan of their beers. Too much juicy fruit banana from the yeast for me. h34r: 

Another one which many don't like is the Wyeast American Ale II, 1272. I really like this yeast, but many find it too nutty or something. For me, it doesn't strip the beer of body like US-05 can do, and is an excellent beer for loads of different styles. :chug:


----------



## benno1973 (16/5/09)

S23 lager as a dried yeast. It always leaves an odd taste, despite proper temp control...


----------



## hoppinmad (17/5/09)

Kaiser Soze said:


> S23 lager as a dried yeast. It always leaves an odd taste, despite proper temp control...



Agreed! I thought it was just me who could taste that!


----------



## hoohaaman (17/5/09)

Stuster said:


> Another one which many don't like is the Wyeast American Ale II, 1272. I really like this yeast, but many find it too nutty or something. For me, it doesn't strip the beer of body like US-05 can do, and is an excellent beer for loads of different styles. :chug:
> [/quote
> 
> I like 1272 also.I changed from 1056 for no other reason than change for something more in the new castle brown style
> ...


----------



## hoohaaman (17/5/09)

.


----------



## Duff (17/5/09)

Stuster said:


> neonmeate, I've only used that yeast a bit so no real thought on that, but it's supposed to be the Chimay strain and really I'm not a big fan of their beers. Too much juicy fruit banana from the yeast for me. h34r:



Loads of banana if fermented warm initially. It can be subdued significantly if the first 4 - 5 days of ferment at 15C, before rising to 22C.

My least favourite yeast is Windsor. That stuff really sucks.


----------



## newguy (17/5/09)

Hands down wyeast 3724 belgian saison is my least favourite. Can't stand it. :icon_vomit:


----------



## staggalee (17/5/09)

MCT said:


> Nottingham?



Couldn`t agree more.
I wouldn`t use it again, also think Windsor is very over rated.
For a top performing dry yeast for most ale types, I`ll stick to the good old US-56.

stagga.


----------



## t2000kw (17/5/09)

While we're on the subject of yeasts, has anyone here ever tried the Safale K-97 yeast? It is currently only available in the US as a 500 gram brick, too big for a typical homebrewer's use, and I think I'd have to have it shipped from Canada. I used to be able to get some from a place in Canada that re-packaged it into tiny FoodSaver pouches (vacuum sealed), and it lasted a few years that way. Canada changed their export rules on food items since I last bought some, including the laws on shipping yeast, and if it's sent out of the country, it can no longer be repackaged before shipping it.

So my source of packets for this has dried up. Is this available in Australia in packets? If so, I would be interested if a homebrewer who is reputable here could obtain some for me and ship it to the US?

This made a great Kolsch yeast!

I don't have a yeast I hate. I've made decent beer with every brand name yeast (dried or not) I've tried, but I haven't done A-B testing. I'm sure that some of my brews would be improved to be even better than they were if I selected a particular yeast instead of the one I chose to use at that time. 

Maybe I'll just have to get a brick and repackage it myself, then brew every ale that I make with it and see how it works out. It might be a decent multi-purpose ale yeast. It did work for some of my other ales, but I wish now that I had kept written records of my brews with taste impressions also. 

Donald


----------



## darralew (17/5/09)

t2000kw said:


> While we're on the subject of yeasts, has anyone here ever tried the Safale K-97 yeast? It is currently only available in the US as a 500 gram brick, too big for a typical homebrewer's use, and I think I'd have to have it shipped from Canada. I used to be able to get some from a place in Canada that re-packaged it into tiny FoodSaver pouches (vacuum sealed), and it lasted a few years that way. Canada changed their export rules on food items since I last bought some, including the laws on shipping yeast, and if it's sent out of the country, it can no longer be repackaged before shipping it.
> 
> So my source of packets for this has dried up. Is this available in Australia in packets? If so, I would be interested if a homebrewer who is reputable here could obtain some for me and ship it to the US?
> 
> ...


----------



## darralew (17/5/09)

t2000kw
checkout craftbrewer in australia.


----------



## Brewer_010 (17/5/09)

Windsor dry yeast. I brewed an IPA last year with it, beautiful malt profile and then the finish was bananery and non-flocculating soup. I was gutted.


----------



## drsmurto (17/5/09)

Stuster said:


> Another one which many don't like is the Wyeast American Ale II, 1272. I really like this yeast, but many find it too nutty or something. For me, it doesn't strip the beer of body like US-05 can do, and is an excellent beer for loads of different styles. :chug:



Been using 1272 for a run of APAs and AIPAs recently and really love the extra dimension this yeast gives. 

Got a double batch of the golden ale in primary using this yeast so will be able to comment directly on how it goes in this beer.

I also think Nottingham is overrated - quick and a good floccer but has a reverse randall effect on flavour


----------



## flattop (17/5/09)

I've found Wlp300 to be a bit of a slow starter, fine once it gets going though.... now i tend to harvest trub to avoid the starter building process from the test tubes....much faster kick off...


----------



## t2000kw (17/5/09)

brewis said:


> t2000kw
> checkout craftbrewer in australia.



Thanks!!!

At first I thought it wasn't there, then I searched the page text for 97 and found it under CraftBrewer German Ale (Twin Pack 2 x 12gm). 

Now I have to find out from them how much shipping wold cost to see if it's worth getting, and if so, how many I'd need to buy to make it worth the extra shipping from there to here. 

But not having to buy a large brick of it may make it worth getting!

Donald


----------



## pmolou (17/5/09)

for some mreason i just dont like belgian abbey II 1762 just gives a weird flavour i can't stand on the other hand 1388 i love and yet to try 3787 which i hear is awsome


----------



## jimi (17/5/09)

Fourstar said:


> I found Wyeast 1028 London Ale to be Uber minerally... that was before i was doing wter additions. It was like there was a crapload of minerally carbonates in the beer. Wasnt much of a fan. Might try it again in the future but not anytime soon.



Having the exact same experience with this yeast now. Mineral profile is overwhelming and giving the porter I'm doing a much much dryer feel than I wanted. I believe that Mountain Goat (and other breweries) use this yeast a lot, and although it's been ages since I had one of their beers, I'm sure they keep this characteristic under control.
Anyone got a tip for controlling the mineral profile of 1028?


----------



## A3k (17/5/09)

t2000kw said:


> Thanks!!!
> 
> At first I thought it wasn't there, then I searched the page text for 97 and found it under CraftBrewer German Ale (Twin Pack 2 x 12gm).
> 
> ...



I've tried K97 once ancd hated it. but that was my own fault. I was trying to make a Koelsh, put it in the fermenter, then got called to Whyalla (well away from home) for work for the week. When i came back, the beer was sitting at 26C, and i was pissed off.

It ended up tasting like a bad banana smoothy. I kept it in the keg for ages, but it never became palatible, so i ended up tipping it out.

I'm guessing it's meant to be fermented at 16-18. What kind of profile does it bring when used properly?

Cheers
al


----------



## t2000kw (17/5/09)

I think I just found a source in the US. I have to confirm that they actually have it in stock. 

It wasn't all that long ago that the former company which made the Safale products (before Fermentis bought them out) discontinued selling the small packets of this yeast. Looks like Fermentis saw the demand and added it back to their product line (the small packets, that is).


----------



## Screwtop (17/5/09)

Obviously all yeasts suit a particular beer, Not style but beer, specific to an area, water and ingredients, those beers are at the very root of the strain availability we have today. Understanding yeast strains is part of the art of brewing. Use Nott in a pale, low gravity or lightly bittered beer and you will hate it. It will finish way too low and scrub out the hop aroma and provide very little in esters, you will end up with a watery bitter bland beer. Windsor is a great choice for an ordinary bitter, the low attenuation allows the beer to finish with some body and it produces esters which pair so well with English hop varieties. Using a low attenuating yeast such as this in a big beer is not going to produce a balanced beer. Balance is what brewing is all about, think about balance right from the outset in your recipe, begin with the FG you want to achieve then select a few yeast strains with suitable characteristics for the style depending on whether you want yeast, malt or hops to the fore......then check it's attenuative ability. Adjust your grist bill according to your efficiency to produce an OG which will finish at your desired FG given the attenuative ability of the yeast you have chosen. Pitch at the recommended pitching rate and ferment within the fermentation temperature range for the yeast............. then after tasting it decide if you want to stress the yeast by adjusting fermentation temperatures or by altering pitching rates to fine tune the results to your liking. Piece a piss, this brewing game eh!


Don't hate any yeast strains..........however there are some I like more than others :lol:

Cheers,

Screwy


----------



## Ross (17/5/09)

Couldn't agree more Michael - I also believe brewers at times can be a bit quick to blame a yeast type for a poorly made beer. Every beer yeast on the market, wet or dry, is IMO capable of making a Gold Medal beer - As you said, it's all about balance & understanding your ingredients.  

cheers Ross...


----------



## Ronin (17/5/09)

jimi said:


> Having the exact same experience with this yeast now. Mineral profile is overwhelming and giving the porter I'm doing a much much dryer feel than I wanted. I believe that Mountain Goat (and other breweries) use this yeast a lot, and although it's been ages since I had one of their beers, I'm sure they keep this characteristic under control.
> Anyone got a tip for controlling the mineral profile of 1028?



Yeah, temperature of the fermentation. I found that if 1028 is fermented at 18-20C the mineral profile is really pronounced. Fermented at 22C, there's less of the mineral profile and more fruity esters (obviously). This is in my experience anyway. I quite like 1028, but it does take some experimentation to get right.

James


----------



## Gerard_M (17/5/09)

WB-06 & US-05 or 56 as it was once known, & anything that is Wyeast.
My big beef with Wyeast is not really product related more packaging. It shouldn't be called a smack pack if it can't take a good smack. 
Cheers
Gerard


----------



## Gulpa (17/5/09)

S-04. Not keen. Ive used it some in mine and tasted others brews who have used it. Just not keen.

cheers
Andrew.


----------



## jayse (17/5/09)

US-05


----------



## Mantis (17/5/09)

jayse said:


> US-05



So, you dont want to go halves in my next 500g buy of US-05 :lol:


----------



## rclemmett (17/5/09)

Gulpa said:


> S-04. Not keen. Ive used it some in mine and tasted others brews who have used it. Just not keen.
> 
> cheers
> Andrew.



Get yourself down to Canberra and check out the Wig and Pen... You'll be amazed at what Richard can do with s-04.


----------



## flattop (17/5/09)

Mantis i would go halves  i eat the stuff for breakfast....
I'm sure there are better yeasts out there i just haven't needed them yet!


----------



## smollocks (17/5/09)

jayse said:


> US-05



From what I've read this is a pretty popular yeast around here. What is it that you and others don't like about it?


----------



## Bizier (17/5/09)

I have been wrestling with 1318 for a few months... haven't got close to the ester style I am after, and it is very erratic in behaviour. The search continues for a house yeast. Next batting is 1026, though with serious consideration regarding availability.


----------



## drsmurto (17/5/09)

Bizier said:


> I have been wrestling with 1318 for a few months... haven't got close to the ester style I am after, and it is very erratic in behaviour. The search continues for a house yeast. Next batting is 1026, though with serious consideration regarding availability.



I've had some success with this yeast.

An all williamette special bitter, an all challenger IPA and then my latest variation on Warrens 4 shades of stout.

Great yeast for beers that don't require massive amounts of esters. High attenuation, very good flocculator - i didnt use gelatine with this yeast.

That said, i wont be using it very often, prefer the ester packed ringwood and wet yorkshire.


----------



## Scruffy (17/5/09)

Gulpa said:


> S-04. Not keen. Ive used it some in mine and tasted others brews who have used it. Just not keen.
> 
> cheers
> Andrew.



S-04 has been very forgiving for me, tidying things up after my fumblings and general clumsiness, lets the alpha's through, smooths the malts - what's your beef?


----------



## jayse (17/5/09)

smollocks said:


> From what I've read this is a pretty popular yeast around here. What is it that you and others don't like about it?



I don't really wish to get into a debate with the fans of this yeast so I will just say the beers I have had with it could have possibly been better and had more of a 'grin' factor with a different yeast.
Although many haven't found it to be the case I have found it to be a little messy and needs extra time then most to mop up after itself (you won't proberbly notice this if your bottle conditioning) and even then the final result isn't as good as some other yeasts.

Yeah it can make a good beer for some but I don't consider it to be that good of a yeast compared to many others, as far as popularity goes so is britney spears, macdonalds and home and away but thats no measure of quality. :lol: :blink:


----------



## Hutch (17/5/09)

Windsor certainly had me underwhelmed - Rather objectionable esters compared to the same beer made with WY1187 Ringwood and WY1318 London III.
WYeast Ringwood, West Yorkshire and London III are all excellent.

Also didn't rate WY1332 Northwest Ale. Tried it in several "American Ale" styles, and always found it to give a peculiar twang in the finish that didn't sit well with the American hoppyness.


----------



## Gulpa (17/5/09)

Scruffy said:


> S-04 has been very forgiving for me, tidying things up after my fumblings and general clumsiness, lets the alpha's through, smooths the malts - what's your beef?



Hard to quantify. Ive no doubt some make excellent beers from this yeast. I guess Ive just never made a wow type beer with S-04. I always get a bit of twang. Dont imagine ever using it again.

cheers
Andrew.


----------



## KingPython (17/5/09)

Nottingham- always seems dusty.


----------



## Cortez The Killer (18/5/09)

I've made an ordinary bitter, an IPA and am currently fermenting a mild with 1335 British Ale II - and there is something about this yeast I don't like

I'd made the ordinary bitter before - almost the same grain bill / hopping schedule - but with 1028 and it was fab! There's an aroma and taste to 1335 that's just not right

I was gonna use it in a stout and porter that I've got planned - but after a session on the IPA last night I decided to smack a pack of Irish Ale 1084 and dump the mild cake

Any one had much experience with 1335 British Ale II that's not liked it? Can't find too much info on it on the forum and that that I can find suggests that it's a pretty good English strain

Cheers


----------



## t2000kw (18/5/09)

Gulpa said:


> S-04. Not keen. Ive used it some in mine and tasted others brews who have used it. Just not keen.



I've brewed tasty brews with S-04 and like it. Not just because it is a vigorously fermenting yeast. 

As for Wyeast, I don't like it at all. Not that it isn't a high-quality yeast, it did a good job for me, once it was ready. I don't like the pack telling me when it's time to brew, and you don't really know when it's going to be ready. I did that once and will never use it again. My choice for liquid yeast is their main competitor (at least in the US), White Labs. But when I can and when it's appropriate, I use a dried yeast. 

Donald


----------



## Ross (18/5/09)

t2000kw said:


> As for Wyeast, I don't like it at all. Not that it isn't a high-quality yeast, it did a good job for me, once it was ready. I don't like the pack telling me when it's time to brew, and you don't really know when it's going to be ready. I did that once and will never use it again. My choice for liquid yeast is their main competitor (at least in the US), White Labs. But when I can and when it's appropriate, I use a dried yeast.
> 
> Donald



Very strange comment... - The yeast nutrient pack in the Wyeast pack is there if you want to check the viabillity of the yeast & get the yeast firing under guaranteed sanitary conditions (great for old packs), but there's no need to use it - Just leave the pouch intact or burst for the nutrients, then use exactly the same as you would a Whitelabs vial.

Cheers Ross


----------



## BoilerBoy (18/5/09)

Cortez The Killer said:


> I've made an ordinary bitter, an IPA and am currently fermenting a mild with 1335 British Ale II - and there is something about this yeast I don't like
> 
> I'd made the ordinary bitter before - almost the same grain bill / hopping schedule - but with 1028 and it was fab! There's an aroma and taste to 1335 that's just not right
> 
> ...



I used it a few times and found it to be neutral almost to the extreme. 
The wyeast blurb suggests it has a malt emphasis which I just haven't found, its definitely very dry and crisp similar to US O5 which is why I wouldn't use it again, not that it makes bad beer it just leaves me wondering "where's the flavour?' - Not something I'm after in a beer.

I'd definitely go with the 1084 on the stout.

Cheers,
BB


----------



## BoilerBoy (18/5/09)

t2000kw said:


> I've brewed tasty brews with S-04 and like it. Not just because it is a vigorously fermenting yeast.
> 
> As for Wyeast, I don't like it at all. Not that it isn't a high-quality yeast, it did a good job for me, once it was ready. I don't like the pack telling me when it's time to brew, and you don't really know when it's going to be ready. I did that once and will never use it again. My choice for liquid yeast is their main competitor (at least in the US), White Labs. But when I can and when it's appropriate, I use a dried yeast.
> 
> Donald



Agree with Ross's comments, but would also add that if you split a Wyeast pack and make starters and for whatever reason your not ready to brew simply put it in the fridge then take it out brew day. I always prepare a yeast at least 5-6 days before brew day, even if I'm not certain which day exactly I will be brewing its ready in the fridge when I am.

BB


----------



## Bribie G (18/5/09)

BoilerBoy said:


> Agree with Ross's comments, but would also add that if you split a Wyeast pack and make starters and for whatever reason your not ready to brew simply put it in the fridge then take it out brew day. I always prepare a yeast at least 5-6 days before brew day, even if I'm not certain which day exactly I will be brewing its ready in the fridge when I am.
> 
> BB



I've only ever had 2 smack packs that actually smacked properly, the first 1469 and my current Ringwood. Either the pack has arrived puffed and can't find the widget or after giving it a good smack nothing has happened so I've had to pitch the yeast as is and stab the tough as an old boot widget and drain the nutrient into the brew as well. Bit of a W&nk and would prefer White Labs if available from my usual sponsor. The yeasts themselves have been great however, particularly 1768 in a malt driven bitter with a perfect hint of diacetyl and a smoooooooth finish.


----------



## warrenlw63 (18/5/09)

t2000kw said:


> As for Wyeast, I don't like it at all.
> 
> Donald DUCK?



:blink: 

Warren -


----------



## t2000kw (18/5/09)

Ross said:


> Very strange comment... - The yeast nutrient pack in the Wyeast pack is there if you want to check the viabillity of the yeast & get the yeast firing under guaranteed sanitary conditions (great for old packs), but there's no need to use it - Just leave the pouch intact or burst for the nutrients, then use exactly the same as you would a Whitelabs vial.



Never thought of that!

The cost is only slightly higher or the same for Wyeast, but I never checked the price difference before. I figured that it needed the boost of the smack pack for cell count and would have less cells than the White Labs yeast since it was advertised as "direct pitchable) yeast and the Wyeast wasn't. It probably is just the way it's marketed if the cell count is about the same. I do like the compactness of the WL stuff in the refrigerator, though. 

Apparently somoene here had a mishap with a Wyeast pack, though, with it splitting open on him. 

I'll probably stick with WL yeast, but if Wyeast is all that I can find in a hurry, I'll try what you mentioned.

Donald


----------



## t2000kw (18/5/09)

warrenlw63 said:


> :blink:
> 
> Donald DUCK?



Yes, the very same person, er, I mean duck. I got tired of working for Disney and thought I'd retire and make homebrew. :chug:


----------



## Scruffy (18/5/09)

Rubbish...


----------



## T.D. (18/5/09)

Ross said:


> Very strange comment... - The yeast nutrient pack in the Wyeast pack is there if you want to check the viabillity of the yeast & get the yeast firing under guaranteed sanitary conditions (great for old packs), but there's no need to use it - Just leave the pouch intact or burst for the nutrients, then use exactly the same as you would a Whitelabs vial.
> 
> Cheers Ross



Is that right? Is there the same number of yeast cells in an un-smacked wyeast pack than there is in a WLP vial? Both are pitchable packs, but it was my understanding that in order for the wyeast to be "pitchable" (ie enough cell numbers) it had to be smacked. I didn't think it was solely to confirm viability. 

Might also mention that I have been using WLP for years and have never once had an issue with viability. Repackaged dry yeasts on the other hand... h34r:


----------



## Cortez The Killer (18/5/09)

Scruffy said:


> Rubbish...


 :lol:


----------



## peas_and_corn (18/5/09)

3068 makes me fart.


----------



## newguy (18/5/09)

peas_and_corn said:


> 3068 makes me fart.



If you don't get that classic banana/clove interplay in the aroma, try altering the amount of bread you eat and/or try sleeping in a cool place while fermentation takes place.


----------



## Ross (18/5/09)

T.D. said:


> Is that right? Is there the same number of yeast cells in an un-smacked wyeast pack than there is in a WLP vial? Both are pitchable packs, but it was my understanding that in order for the wyeast to be "pitchable" (ie enough cell numbers) it had to be smacked. I didn't think it was solely to confirm viability.



Yes it is right - To save you looking it up, details below  - Whitelabs vials according to their site have from 75 Billion cells, Wyeast have minimum 100 Billion.

*Wyeast product information*
Activator Product Information and Usage
Activator packages are designed for direct inoculation of 5 gallons of standard* wort. Activator packages contain live yeast cells in a liquid slurry. This yeast slurry is packaged in an optimum condition for storage, while maintaining the ability for rapid and complete fermentation.

Activator packages include a sterile liquid nutrient pouch that, when smacked, releases its contents into the yeast slurry and activates the package. The available nutrients initiate the cultures metabolism which in turn generates CO2 and causes swelling of the package. This process will reduce lag times by preparing the yeast for a healthy fermentation prior to inoculation. Activation also serves as a viability test of the culture. Expansion of the package is an indicator of healthy (viable and vital) yeast. Although beneficial, cultures do not need to be activated prior to inoculation.

Usage

The Activator package contains a minimum of 100 billion cells in a yeast slurry.. The Activator is designed to directly inoculate 5 gallons of standard strength ale wort (1.034-1.060 SG) with professional pitching rates. For lagers, we recommend inoculating the wort at warm temperatures (68-70F/ 20-21C), waiting for signs of fermentation, and then adjusting to the desired temperature. Alternatively, for pitching into cold conditions (34-58F/ 1-14C) or higher gravity wort, we recommend increasing this pitching rate. This can be achieved by pitching additional Activator packages or by making a starter culture. Please see the Pitch Rate section for additional information.


cheers Ross


----------



## reviled (18/5/09)

Ross said:


> Yes it is right - To save you looking it up, details below  - Whitelabs vials according to their site have from 75 Billion cells, Wyeast have minimum 100 Billion.
> 
> *Wyeast product information*
> Activator Product Information and Usage
> ...



Hey Ross, any reason you dont get the propogator packs in? I personally would get them every time to save cash as I generally build up a starter wether I get a propogator or activator...


----------



## T.D. (18/5/09)

Ross said:


> Yes it is right - To save you looking it up, details below  - Whitelabs vials according to their site have from 75 Billion cells, Wyeast have minimum 100 Billion.
> 
> *Wyeast product information*
> Activator Product Information and Usage
> ...



My interpretation of this is that the 100 billion cells is after the pack has been smacked and swelled. So unsmacked it would presumably contain a lot less than a WLP vial.


----------



## jbirbeck (18/5/09)

windsor - only used it once in a stout and it was awful. 

I've used the same recipe with 1084 and it was great. There are a lot more yeasts I like than I don't like.


----------



## Adamt (18/5/09)

My vote for the big vom goes to Nottingham.

:icon_vomit: 

I used it in a subtle blonde ale expecting a cleanish beer... never again.


----------



## kirem (18/5/09)

I think Nottingham comes good after the beer matures.

I get the dusty character in green beer.


----------



## staggalee (18/5/09)

kirem said:


> I think Nottingham comes good after the beer matures.



Sorry, can`t agree. I`ve got some been bottled 4 months and it`s no better than it`s first month.  

stagga.


----------



## kirem (18/5/09)

staggalee said:


> Sorry, can`t agree. I`ve got some been bottled 4 months and it`s no better than it`s first month.



what is it that you don't like?


----------



## Adamt (18/5/09)

The dusty, raspy finish does it for me.


----------



## staggalee (18/5/09)

Adamt said:


> The dusty, raspy finish does it for me.



I`m no good at defining the taste of something apart from what is obvious {to me} but Adams post above might be close. To me, Nottingham has an unpleasant, a little metallic even, twang.
I don`t like it.!

stagga.


----------



## SJW (18/5/09)

Windsor


----------



## Ross (18/5/09)

T.D. said:


> My interpretation of this is that the 100 billion cells is after the pack has been smacked and swelled. So unsmacked it would presumably contain a lot less than a WLP vial.




No - It has 100 Billion cells before smacking.

Cheers Ross


----------



## Ross (18/5/09)

reviled said:


> Hey Ross, any reason you dont get the propogator packs in? I personally would get them every time to save cash as I generally build up a starter wether I get a propogator or activator...




Their is actually only a small difference between the cost of the 2 different packs, so for the convenience off being able to direct pitch into most brews (Propogators have a quarter of the yeast) they get my vote - I couldn't really justify stocking both.

Cheers Ross


----------



## T.D. (18/5/09)

Ross said:


> No - It has 100 Billion cells before smacking.
> 
> Cheers Ross



How do you get that from the info on their website? If they were going to quote any number they'd be mad not to quote the highest possible one - ie smacked...

Reading that blurb it seems implied that it is talking about an activator pack that is ready for pitching, ie smacked (since they don't recommend pitching it unsmacked).


----------



## Ross (18/5/09)

T.D. said:


> How do you get that from the info on their website? If they were going to quote any number they'd be mad not to quote the highest possible one - ie smacked...
> 
> Reading that blurb it seems implied that it is talking about an activator pack that is ready for pitching, ie smacked (since they don't recommend pitching it unsmacked).



T.D. Read the quotes below... You must be reading a different blurb to me, as no-where does Wyeast indicate you need to smack the pack to get minimum 1 Billion cells. As per the 2nd paragraph, the nutrient packs are there simply for determining viability & getting a faster start to fermentation.

The Activator package contains a minimum of 100 billion cells in a yeast slurry.. The Activator is designed to directly inoculate 5 gallons of standard strength ale wort (1.034-1.060 SG) with professional pitching rates. For lagers, we recommend inoculating the wort at warm temperatures (68-70F/ 20-21C), waiting for signs of fermentation, and then adjusting to the desired temperature. Alternatively, for pitching into cold conditions (34-58F/ 1-14C) or higher gravity wort, we recommend increasing this pitching rate. This can be achieved by pitching additional Activator packages or by making a starter culture. Please see the Pitch Rate section for additional information.

The contents of Activator packages may be direct-pitched without prior activation. Our smack pack technology is intended to be a tool for your use in determining viability, and in initiating metabolism for faster starts to fermentation.

Cheers Ross


----------



## T.D. (18/5/09)

Funny because on the occasions I have used Wyeast I haven't noticed any faster start to fermentation than with WLP vials, and that was after smacking them and letting them puff up. That either indicates that the post-smack cell count is similar to WLP (implying that the pre-smack cell count is less) or that the cell count doesn't really matter once you get to these general levels. Either way, I fail to see how Wyeast are superior as you claim.


----------



## Ross (18/5/09)

T.D. said:


> Funny because on the occasions I have used Wyeast I haven't noticed any faster start to fermentation than with WLP vials, and that was after smacking them and letting them puff up. That either indicates that the post-smack cell count is similar to WLP (implying that the pre-smack cell count is less) or that the cell count doesn't really matter once you get to these general levels. Either way, I fail to see how Wyeast are superior as you claim.




I doubt you would see much quantifiable difference between 2 fresh yeasts of similar counts, especially with all the variables on a homebrew level.
Not sure where I stated Wyeast are superior, certainly not in this thread, I doubt there is any "quality" difference between the 2 products especially if stored correctly. From purely a retailers point of view though, having a product that's UV protected & fairly foolproof for the novice yeast user, with the smack feature that indicates yeast viabillity, it's definately got it's benefits. 
Hopefully we'll soon have both available anyway, so everybody should be happy  

Cheers Ross


----------



## Quintrex (18/5/09)

staggalee said:


> I`m no good at defining the taste of something apart from what is obvious {to me} but Adams post above might be close. To me, Nottingham has an unpleasant, a little metallic even, twang.
> I don`t like it.!
> 
> stagga.




I wonder if it's just that nottingham attenuates pretty incredibly, doesn't leave much residual sugars to hide anything, maybe it's just the residual mineral prodile of the water you are using or something. I think nottingham is an awesome yeast but you've definitely got to pick and choose which style/beers to use it in as it truly is a maltose mowing monster.

Q


----------



## T.D. (18/5/09)

Ross said:


> Not sure where I stated Wyeast are superior, certainly not in this thread,





Ross said:


> Whitelabs vials according to their site have from 75 Billion cells, Wyeast have minimum 100 Billion.



Implies same.


----------



## Ross (18/5/09)

> T.D. Is that right? Is there the same number of yeast cells in an un-smacked wyeast pack than there is in a WLP vial?



T.D. I pointed out the relevant yeast counts after you asked the question above. The figures were taken off both the Yeast Company's websites. Just because you appear to have not liked the answer, please don't start flaming... Higher cell count does not make a yeast "superior"... 

End of :icon_offtopic: 

Cheers Ross


----------



## T.D. (18/5/09)

Ross said:


> Just because you appear to have not liked the answer, please don't start flaming... Higher cell count does not make a yeast "superior"...



:lol: Couldn't care less if the cell counts are a bit different. Its obviously a moot point because there is no appreciable difference in the time it takes for either brand to fire.

Good to see a bit of impartiality from you Ross


----------



## Smashin (18/5/09)

1007, had one bad experience with it in an attempt to brew a kolsch. even after ~6months of conditioning it still was over powering in a dry/powdery band-aid taste/flavor/aroma. could be a bad batch but i've never been back. Only time i've blamed the yeast.


----------



## Stuster (18/5/09)

Sounds more like an infection to me, Smashin. It's really a very clean yeast and certainly no band-aids. :icon_vomit:


----------



## Gerard_M (18/5/09)

T.D. said:


> My interpretation of this is that the 100 billion cells is after the pack has been smacked and swelled. So unsmacked it would presumably contain a lot less than a WLP vial.



T.D. I have some 005 slurry ready for you later this week. 1 kilo of slurry should be about 1 gazillion viable cells.
Cheers
Gerard


----------



## jimi (18/5/09)

Screwtop said:


> Obviously all yeasts suit a particular beer, Not style but beer, specific to an area, water and ingredients, those beers are at the very root of the strain availability we have today. Understanding yeast strains is part of the art of brewing. Use Nott in a pale, low gravity or lightly bittered beer and you will hate it. It will finish way too low and scrub out the hop aroma and provide very little in esters, you will end up with a watery bitter bland beer. Windsor is a great choice for an ordinary bitter, the low attenuation allows the beer to finish with some body and it produces esters which pair so well with English hop varieties. Using a low attenuating yeast such as this in a big beer is not going to produce a balanced beer. Balance is what brewing is all about, think about balance right from the outset in your recipe, begin with the FG you want to achieve then select a few yeast strains with suitable characteristics for the style depending on whether you want yeast, malt or hops to the fore......then check it's attenuative ability. Adjust your grist bill according to your efficiency to produce an OG which will finish at your desired FG given the attenuative ability of the yeast you have chosen. Pitch at the recommended pitching rate and ferment within the fermentation temperature range for the yeast............. then after tasting it decide if you want to stress the yeast by adjusting fermentation temperatures or by altering pitching rates to fine tune the results to your liking. Piece a piss, this brewing game eh!
> 
> 
> Don't hate any yeast strains..........however there are some I like more than others :lol:
> ...



C'mon Screwy cut to the chase. As you pointed out all yeast have appropriate and inappropriate uses and different appropriate handling. If you can have yeasts that you like more than others it follows that you can have least favorite yeasts ,, so what are they?

To stir a little more, I also find 1056 a bit boring, I like my yeast to contribute something more to the brew


----------



## Tony (18/5/09)

I hate S23......... yuck. 

good for making fruit punch at 10 deg!


----------



## staggalee (18/5/09)

Regardless, you can make Gold Medal Beers with S23.

stagga.


----------



## Tony (18/5/09)

would proabaly make a fair keolsch..... that apple fruitiness


----------



## Quintrex (18/5/09)

Tony said:


> would proabaly make a fair keolsch..... that apple fruitiness



Mhhh I used it in a boh pils, ferment started at 7 degrees for 2 days then allowed it to reach 10 on the third, and it's still got this taste that I'm not happy with. Nowhere near as nice as any other lager strain I've used.
Would never use it again given the choice.

Q


----------



## dr K (18/5/09)

very odd...this yeast thing
i make fantastic beers by letting nature take its course, no additives, just pure water, malt and hops.

k


----------



## Quintrex (18/5/09)

dr K said:


> very odd...this yeast thing
> i make fantastic beers by letting nature take its course, no additives, just pure water, malt and hops.
> 
> k



Spontaneous ferments?


----------



## Screwtop (18/5/09)

jimi said:


> C'mon Screwy cut to the chase. As you pointed out all yeast have appropriate and inappropriate uses and different appropriate handling. If you can have yeasts that you like more than others it follows that you can have least favorite yeasts ,, so what are they?
> 
> To stir a little more, I also find 1056 a bit boring, I like my yeast to contribute something more to the brew





> Don't hate any yeast strains..........however there are some I like more than others  :lol:



For instance I prefer W3068 over dried WB-06 for Hefeweizen's and WLP-833 over W2308 for Helles. S-189 always produces Acetyl Aldehyde aplenty when I use it in light lagers. Maybe to do with my fermentation/lagering regime, as others don't find this.

Simpel eh!

Screwy


----------



## t2000kw (18/5/09)

Ross said:


> Yes it is right - To save you looking it up, details below  - Whitelabs vials according to their site have from 75 Billion cells, Wyeast have minimum 100 Billion.
> 
> >>>snip<<<
> 
> The Activator package contains a minimum of 100 billion cells in a yeast slurry.. The Activator is designed to directly inoculate 5 gallons of standard strength ale wort (1.034-1.060 SG) with professional pitching rates . . .




I get from their information that the 100 billion figure is after the pack is smacked and ready to pitch. It implies that the pack has that many cells before activation, but since it doesn't actually state that, it appears that the 100 billion figure is when the pack has been smacked and ready for pitching. 

I could be wrong here, but if it is otherwise, they should state so. It would make their product a better buy for direct pitching (more cells, about the same price).


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (18/5/09)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Screwtop (18/5/09)

t2000kw said:


> I get from their information that the 100 billion figure is after the pack is smacked and ready to pitch. It implies that the pack has that many cells before activation, but since it doesn't actually state that, it appears that the 100 billion figure is when the pack has been smacked and ready for pitching.
> 
> I could be wrong here, but if it is otherwise, they should state so. It would make their product a better buy for direct pitching (more cells, about the same price).




Why not drop them an email and ask, they have always responded to my questions promptly. Greg Doss is their QC Manager and Microbiologist/Brewer you can ask him directly [email protected]

Cheers,

Screwy


----------



## warrenlw63 (18/5/09)

Quintrex said:


> Spontaneous ferments?



Probably Birrell. :lol: 

Warren -


----------



## reviled (19/5/09)

I wasnt a fan of 1026 british cask, used it about 3 times and just wasnt happy with the results personally.. I got alot of diacetyl off of it and just wasnt a big fan of the yeast profile...

1469 on the other hand :wub:


----------



## Scruffy (19/5/09)

:icon_offtopic: Speaking of which...

...anyone got any 1469 'just lying around' that they don't want? 

Any donations however small... 

...not sure when the new season starts; Ross?


----------



## Duff (19/5/09)

What about trying the guys in WA who were going to propagate and sell a wide range of yeasts? I thought they had something like 1469, or an equivalent, on their list. Do a search and you should be able to find the thread.

Shame you're not closer as I've got 4 smackpacks of 1469 sitting in my fridge waiting for some ESB loving over the winter. If you can't get your hands on some, try 1968. It does a great job as well.


----------



## T.D. (19/5/09)

Duff said:


> What about trying the guys in WA who were going to propagate and sell a wide range of yeasts? I thought they had something like 1469, or an equivalent, on their list. Do a search and you should be able to find the thread.
> 
> Shame you're not closer as I've got 4 smackpacks of 1469 sitting in my fridge waiting for some ESB loving over the winter. If you can't get your hands on some, try 1968. It does a great job as well.



Do you blokes even have a winter up there Brett??? More like a slightly less humid period yeah? :lol:


----------



## Duff (19/5/09)

It's just good beer drinking weather year round TD B)


----------



## drsmurto (19/5/09)

Duff said:


> Shame you're not closer as I've got* 4 smackpacks of 1469 sitting in my fridge* waiting for some ESB loving over the winter. If you can't get your hands on some, try 1968. It does a great job as well.



:super: 

I only have 1 unsmacked pack left.....


----------



## reviled (19/5/09)

Duff said:


> It's just good beer drinking weather year round TD B)



:icon_offtopic: My FIL tried to tell me that the best time to be drinking beer was when it was stinking hot and the beer was cold...

I personally disagree, I thought about it, and my absolute favourite and most enjoyable beer, would be a half pint of something really rich, dark, and warming whilst sitting in front of the fire/heater when its cold as hell frozen over outside! To me that is absolute bliss B)


----------



## Duff (19/5/09)

Good for you.

Seeing as it still is around 28C here, we like cold beer.

Cheers.


----------



## Brewmeister70 (19/5/09)

My experience with Wyeast 2035 American lager was not good. It throws a lot of diacetyl and DOES taste kind of woody which makes a very weird lager (I tried it out of desparation on a Classic American Pilsener).

I felt like apologizing to the case swap guys that copped a bottle each... (a belated sorry to you all)


----------



## t2000kw (19/5/09)

Screwtop said:


> Why not drop them an email and ask, they have always responded to my questions promptly. Greg Doss is their QC Manager and Microbiologist/Brewer you can ask him directly



Here's what he said. Apparently they send the packet with 100 billion yeast cells in it. The message is below.

Donald

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Hi Donald,

Thank you for the email.

There is little to no culture expansion with activating the package.
The amount of nutrient media released into the culture will start the
culture's metabolism (reducing lag times), however is too limited for
cell growth. 100 billion cells (95 ml. @ 1.2E9 cells per ml.) is the
amount of yeast at packaging.

I hope that this helps.

Cheers,

Greg 


Greg Doss
Quality Control Manager
Microbiologist/ Brewer
Wyeast Laboratories, Inc.
888-WYEAST-1 / Fax: 866-WYEAST-1
[email protected]
www.wyeastlab.com


----------



## Screwtop (19/5/09)

t2000kw said:


> Here's what he said. Apparently they send the packet with 100 billion yeast cells in it. The message is below.
> 
> Donald
> 
> ...




Yay! on ya Donald, piece a piss this brewing game eh! :lol:


----------



## t2000kw (19/5/09)

Screwtop said:


> Yay! on ya Donald, piece a piss this brewing game eh! :lol:




This is what makes it interesting, I think. So many variables to manipulate makes for a stimulating hobby. And the product makes it worth our efforts.


----------



## T.D. (19/5/09)

Interesting. Clearly cell counts are not as important as first thought. Good to know I guess.


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

T.D. said:


> Interesting. Clearly cell counts are not as important as first thought. Good to know I guess.



Does that mean Ross was right?  

Chappo


----------



## warrenlw63 (19/5/09)

Chappo said:


> Does that mean Ross was right?
> 
> Chappo



If he is you'll be in for a good time chappo. B) 

Warren -


----------



## Screwtop (19/5/09)

t2000kw said:


> This is what makes it interesting, I think. So many variables to manipulate makes for a stimulating hobby. And the product makes it worth our efforts.




Another big up's to this man!

It's all about getting what you want out of yeast, water hops and malt and understanding those ingredients.

Screwy


----------



## mje1980 (19/5/09)

I tried san francisco lager once, didn't have good results. Nor with windsor dry yeast. Almost definately brewer error though. 

A good tradesman never blames his tools.


----------



## T.D. (19/5/09)

Chappo said:


> Does that mean Ross was right?
> 
> Chappo



Is he ever wrong???  :lol:


----------



## chappo1970 (19/5/09)

T.D. said:


> Is he ever wrong???  :lol:


ROFL! :lol: 


God I'm waiting for that day!  

Cheers

Chappo


----------



## dr K (19/5/09)

> My experience with Wyeast 2035 American lager was not good. It throws a lot of diacetyl



Don't shoot the messenger.
What makes 2035 different from what other common brewing yeasts ?
In particular lager yeasts.
Diacetyl (and Acetaldehyde, just to mention the common ones) are a natural part of the fermentation process. The presence of either in the finished beer is a result of the brewer's methods not the yeast.

K


----------



## /// (19/5/09)

Hear hear. Yeast do not throw off any diacetyl (VDK) at all, but a reductive precursor. And, any yeast is particularly affinative to VDK. So, dont blame poor brewer practice for the presence of VDK.... you and you only bear your fruits here ....


----------



## Ross (19/5/09)

T.D. said:


> Is he ever wrong???  :lol:



Not difficult when people take on silly arguments  

cheers Ross


----------



## hoohaaman (21/5/09)

Screwtop said:


> Obviously all yeasts suit a particular beer, Not style but beer, specific to an area, water and ingredients, those beers are at the very root of the strain availability we have today. Understanding yeast strains is part of the art of brewing. Use Nott in a pale, low gravity or lightly bittered beer and you will hate it. It will finish way too low and scrub out the hop aroma and provide very little in esters, you will end up with a watery bitter bland beer. Windsor is a great choice for an ordinary bitter, the low attenuation allows the beer to finish with some body and it produces esters which pair so well with English hop varieties. Using a low attenuating yeast such as this in a big beer is not going to produce a balanced beer. Balance is what brewing is all about, think about balance right from the outset in your recipe, begin with the FG you want to achieve then select a few yeast strains with suitable characteristics for the style depending on whether you want yeast, malt or hops to the fore......then check it's attenuative ability. Adjust your grist bill according to your efficiency to produce an OG which will finish at your desired FG given the attenuative ability of the yeast you have chosen. Pitch at the recommended pitching rate and ferment within the fermentation temperature range for the yeast............. then after tasting it decide if you want to stress the yeast by adjusting fermentation temperatures or by altering pitching rates to fine tune the results to your liking. Piece a piss, this brewing game eh!
> 
> 
> Don't hate any yeast strains..........however there are some I like more than others :lol:
> ...



I agree to an extent,also understand that Nottingham in a pale ale is akin to cat piss.I understand mash temps,yeast profiles and fermentation temps.

I understand balance,and how to achieve it.

I simply don't like the nagging flavour Nottingham leaves at the back of the palate.Not a deal killer,but bordering.

Not as noticeable in a darker beer,but there. 

Have used Nottingham as an experiment against its alternatives in a variety of beers I do often,sorry but it is a yeast I hate. The best use I can think for it,is to boil it up for nutrients for more deserving yeasts


----------



## T.D. (21/5/09)

Ross said:


> Not difficult when people take on silly arguments
> 
> cheers Ross



C'mon Ross, don't be modest, it doesn't suit you! :lol:


----------



## Cortez The Killer (25/5/09)

Cortez The Killer said:


> I've made an ordinary bitter, an IPA and am currently fermenting a mild with 1335 British Ale II - and there is something about this yeast I don't like
> 
> I'd made the ordinary bitter before - almost the same grain bill / hopping schedule - but with 1028 and it was fab! There's an aroma and taste to 1335 that's just not right
> 
> ...


I take back the nasty things I've said about 1335 - was drinking the IPA over the weekend and this beer was most awesome - 1335 definitely pushes the malty side through though - so bitterness is a little subdued 

The Mild was also very drinkable straight out of the fermenter whilst kegging - waiting for this one to carb up 

The flavour I was describing seems to have cleared up for the most part 

I reckon this yeast is better suited to maltier beer styles as the flavours / maltiness doesn't seem to wanna tango well with bitterness / hop flavours - from my limited experience anyway

Cheers


----------



## DennisKing (26/5/09)

Did you guys in Auss. get the White labs Essex yeast when it came out [February here in the UK]. Now drinking the 1st barrel and I`m impressed. As I live in Essex I might be prejudice


----------

