Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 10/7/2018 at 7:42 AM, Hairy said:

...Other than being the “Magnum” of the yeast world, it does its job well for me.

US-05 actually has a number of redeeming qualities, Magnum has none unless you consider "dull" & "boring" to be qualities. 😋

BTW, how's that all Magnum beer coming along Hairy?

Cheers,

Lusty.

Edited by Beerlust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Beerlust said:

BTW, how's that all Magnum beer coming along Hairy?

Cheers,

Lusty.

It is still on the list to do. I am planning on a small 9-10 litre batch of extract beer in the craft fermenter.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Worthog said:

Band-aid from US-05 is a fallacy if your water is good (no chloramines).  I've done 14 x US-05 batches of tap mash and rain/tank water additions prove it.

Cheers 😎

Not necessarily a fallacy.  My water contains no chloramines.  The chlorine treated tap water I use is either boiled or treated with a campden tablet.  Roughly 50% of my US-05 beers were "band-aided".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whats the difference between US05 and the Nottingham (which strain)...?

Mainly for use in APA/IPA kit beers.

A dryer style of yeast might be ok for some styles i want to make

Ive used only US05 and have yet to have an issue in 12 or so brews using it (rehydrated)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RepSpec said:

So whats the difference between US05 and the Nottingham (which strain)...?

Mainly for use in APA/IPA kit beers.

A dryer style of yeast might be ok for some styles i want to make

Ive used only US05 and have yet to have an issue in 12 or so brews using it (rehydrated)

My understanding is that US05 is marketed as an American Ale yeast.
Whereas US04 is an English Ale yeast. I thought Nottingham was a similar yeast to the US04.

I tend to use the 04 when I make an IPA, as I use the Morgans can which is a UK style,
rather than the Coopers ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hairy said:

It is still on the list to do. I am planning on a small 9-10 litre batch of extract beer in the craft fermenter.

Are you sure you don't want to do a full 23 litre all-grain batch since it will be so good & all? 😜

Cheers,

Lusty.

Edited by Beerlust
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Graculus said:

My understanding is that US05 is marketed as an American Ale yeast.
Whereas US04 is an English Ale yeast. I thought Nottingham was a similar yeast to the US04.

The US-05 is indeed a clean American style ale yeast that promotes hop character ahead of malt character.

S-04 not "US-04" (as it is often misquoted) is a British style yeast that is much kinder to malt character not stripping maltotriose to the levels the cleaner fermenting ale strains do. Nottingham is more like US-05 than S-04.

Cheers,

Lusty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlackSands said:

Not necessarily a fallacy.  My water contains no chloramines.  The chlorine treated tap water I use is either boiled or treated with a campden tablet.  Roughly 50% of my US-05 beers were "band-aided".  

The other possible cause for this issue is wild yeast contamination, which can result in medicinal notes in the beer that could be mistaken for the band-aid like chlorophenol flavor. Given that all the batches were presumably brewed with the same water and similar other ingredients, it's possible that this 50% that turned out like that were simply contaminated with wild yeast and that US-05 isn't the cause at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

The other possible cause for this issue is wild yeast contamination, which can result in medicinal notes in the beer that could be mistaken for the band-aid like chlorophenol flavor. Given that all the batches were presumably brewed with the same water and similar other ingredients, it's possible that this 50% that turned out like that were simply contaminated with wild yeast and that US-05 isn't the cause at all.

I share this same view & said as much at the time each were experiencing problems with the yeast.

Cheers,

Lusty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 2:59 PM, Otto Von Blotto said:

The other possible cause for this issue is wild yeast contamination, which can result in medicinal notes in the beer that could be mistaken for the band-aid like chlorophenol flavor. Given that all the batches were presumably brewed with the same water and similar other ingredients, it's possible that this 50% that turned out like that were simply contaminated with wild yeast and that US-05 isn't the cause at all.

Except that it never happened with any other yeast other than US-05.  And I used other yeasts more often (usually kit strains).

And it's never happened since I stopped using US-05 and switched to Nottingham, SO4 and more recently M36 for ales.  Also used M84 a couple of times in the Winter.  

Edited by BlackSands
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

Any difference in lag times? 

This is where the root of the problem is at (I reckon).

When I had those problem brews with BRY-97 this was the re-occurring theme. I just couldn't get the damn yeast to get up & start fermenting in a reasonable timeframe, hence I got wild yeasts infecting the brews. I tried a number of different ways of prepping & using the yeast in an effort to have a successful ferment but to no avail. From dry pitching, to rehydrating, to using a starter, & all ended up being tippers due to this very long lag time.

I eventually got a semi-successful beer out if it on the 4th attempt, but I didn't throw anything wonderful at the brew in terms of ingredients through fear of failure again so the beer ended up pretty ordinary, & I haven't gone back to the yeast since because of this slow lag time that simply makes me nervous.

In this case there are alternative yeast strains that deliver the same clean flavours so it hasn't been a loss.

Cheers,

Lusty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that it is at least a factor. At the end of the day, you can clean and sanitise equipment and surfaces until you're blue in the face but you can't do the same to the air, and if those things are floating around in it, they're just as likely to enter a clean and sanitised vessel as a dirty one.

I didn't have a longer lag time the one time I did use BRY-97, it wasn't much different to US-05 or any other yeast I'd used up to that point. However, the beer itself didn't taste any different to US-05 which at the time was easier for me to get (5 minute drive vs. 35-40 minute drive), so I didn't bother using it again.

I have had lag times of up to 50 hours with lager yeasts (although lack of visible signs doesn't mean nothing is happening) with no problems in the finished beer either, however, those brews are sitting at 10C during that phase which most likely inhibits the growth of undesirable organisms. If I had lag times that long at ale fermentation temps I'd be getting a bit nervous though.

Edited by Otto Von Blotto
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to the yeast infections theory, if that person is living in a fruit growing area they may get more yeast activity than say being in the city. 

I realise that yeast is everywhere however maybe more populated in the fruit growing regions due to food availability?

I have a friend who lives in middle of the biggest food bowl in SW WA and he reckons he has had trouble with wild yeast infecting his beer but also embraces this in sours that he does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an unscientific mind, but the situation is this;

Why does US-05 cause such a problem only 50% of the time for 5% of the users? I'm roughing out my 5% based on this forum of, say,  100 active posters at this time?

The answer is with an identical process problem within this minority's breweries.

That brewery process problem is yet to be discovered, but resides with the affected. They have 'given up' by non resolution of their procedural flaws.

Cheers 🤓

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of 'alternative yeasts' is masking those brewers procedural flaws.

Cheers 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Worthog said:

I'm an unscientific mind, but the situation is this;

Why does US-05 cause such a problem only 50% of the time for 5% of the users? I'm roughing out my 5% based on this forum of, say,  100 active posters at this time?

The answer is with an identical process problem within this minority's breweries.

That brewery process problem is yet to be discovered, but resides with the affected. They have 'given up' by non resolution of their procedural flaws.

Cheers 🤓

  

Hi WH,

My lightly scientific mind gets your theory.  However, if it was a process problem, wouldn't they have the same/similar issue with 'alternative yeasts'? Just asking out of curiosity.

Cheers Shamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shamus, 

I agree, if all Preparation processes, Brewing processes and Ingredients are identical, to the weight and minute. 

I have produced 63 batches and non are identical in prep, ingredient, process or time. 

Changing the yeast for a different process proves nothing.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi WH

I got the impression you were suggesting earlier, that given the ratio of people with issues with US-05, that it was a process issue.  And that this issue was likely to be common to those select brewers.  Otherwise we would all have the same issue with US-05.

I get your point about the variability of processes.  Like you, I am relatively new into brewing.  Only done about 40 batches and every one was different.  Even the time I did my second batch of English Bitter (the only brew I have tried to repeat).

I was thinking that the'alternative yeasts' may not be susceptible to the specific issue.  Does their answer lie in that supposition?  It is a common issue to those brewers, but an issue that is overcome by the choice of another yeast?

Cheers Shamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. Resolution by change. Not resolution by solution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to this US-05 thing;

My summer Midstrength brew fermented by my 3rd generation US-05 slurry, ripped 1.029 down to 1.004,  3.7% bottled.  Ferment start in 8hrs airlock activity.

This was an All Grain Pale Ale Mid strength:  23L, 2.4kg PaleMalt, 1.4kg Golden Promise, 200g Carapils, Simcoe and Cascade hopping.

This 15th batch using US-05 continues the evolution.....

My low strength Pales are sweet, hop evident brews, which I believe US-05 underpins. (no band aid - no phenols; ever)

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 10:05 AM, BlackSands said:

Not necessarily a fallacy.  My water contains no chloramines.  The chlorine treated tap water I use is either boiled or treated with a campden tablet.  Roughly 50% of my US-05 beers were "band-aided".  

Right there.. a process problem may exist.

Edited by Worthog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shamus O'Sean said:

Hi WH,

My lightly scientific mind gets your theory.  However, if it was a process problem, wouldn't they have the same/similar issue with 'alternative yeasts'? Just asking out of curiosity.

Cheers Shamus

Not in all cases Shamus. Individual strains have different characteristics & behaviour patterns. Some are more sluggish to get going where as others are far more aggressive once exposed to a sugar source & begin showing noticeable signs of active fermentation within only a handful of hours.

So often it can be the processes of the brewer in combination with behaviour patterns of the yeast that together, cause the fermentation problem(s).

Cheers,

Lusty.

Edited by Beerlust
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the chlorinated water is an issue if the water is boiled or treated with campden tablets. Boiling for only a few minutes will drive the chlorine out. It could theoretically leave the water susceptible to being "infected" since there's no chlorine to protect against it, but again it depends on how long the water is left for before being brewed with.

I gave up on campden tablets because the bloody things were too hard to crush up effectively. Or at least the ones I had were. I wondered if they would dissolve by themselves when thrown into water whole, so I dosed two cubes of distilled water with one each, and by the next day they were still sitting in the bottom undissolved. Now I use powdered potassium metabisulphite which dissolves very quickly when added to water; it obviously removes chlorine/chloramines but it also disinfects, so it protects the water against spoilage while it's in storage awaiting a brew day. Campden tablets would do the same if able to be effectively crushed up.

Having said all that, as I previously mentioned I'd done numerous batches with untreated tap water with US-05 and never had this band-aid/medicinal problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×