"Proofing" Dry Yeast

[Beerlust]

Hi Christina!

 

After a bit of digging, I found out the nutrient I purchased is the Wyeast Nutrient Blend. It had been repackaged so I wasn't sure of the source. As you rightly suggested, it does indeed have a percentage of DAP, & as such should only be used in the boil or to help stuck or sluggish fermentations.

 

I read the info contained in your link about Lalvin GO-FERM. It sounds exactly like what I need. Not readily available, but ibrew here in AUS are one that do stock it.

 

http://www.ibrew.com.au/products/lalvin-go-ferm

 

I can't believe I'm starting to turn into a yeast geek!

 

No signs of fermentation from the BRY-97 as yet either after 16 hours from pitching (nothing new to me with this yeast!) I swear if they do package this yeast with an additive, it has to be something like valium!

 

In my head right now there is just a single thought looping over & over..."It's getting infected, it's getting infected, it's getting infected..."

 

Damn slow arse BRY yeast!

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

 

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

Tell me a yeast that doesn't behave this way?

 

I have said this before' date=' but no harm in saying it again here. I feel there is a clear difference in the necessity for the involvement of maltose in simply AWAKENING yeast to place them in an active state prior to pitching as opposed to needing maltose for the healthy GROWTH of yeast cells prior to pitching.

[/quote']

 

I have seen it reported that it gets down to a few points above FG then seems to take a few days longer to actually get to the FG. The yeasts I've used don't behave like this. Just an observation really.

 

There is a difference between awakening yeast and growing it obviously, however it's my understanding that the re-hydration itself actually awakens it, given that the labs build food supplies into the yeast cells. They aren't really 'sugars' as such, but they do cause the yeast to become active and start consuming these supplies.

 

I reckon most worts would contain some simpler sugars anyway, especially ones that are mashed low either all the way through the mash, or for a period at the beginning. Perhaps not so much if it is mashed high, though. This could be another advantage when doing partial mashes of mashing low.

[ChristinaS1]

Hi Christina!

 

After a bit of digging' date=' I found out the nutrient I purchased is the Wyeast Nutrient Blend. It had been repackaged so I wasn't sure of the source.

 

Great detective work Lusty!

 

As you rightly suggested' date=' it does indeed have a percentage of DAP, & as such should only be used in the boil or to help stuck or sluggish fermentations.[/quote']

 

No, it was not me who said to use a product containing DAP in the boil or to help sluggish fermentations; I recommended boiled yeast. You probably got that from Wyeast's directions. Interestingly this contradicts what Lellemand says about their equivalent product, Fermaid K, namely that you should wait until after the first signs of fermentation have begun before adding anything that contains DAP. Lellemand also says not to use DAP after 1/3 sugar delpetion. They recommend yeast hulls for restarting stuck ferments, which absorb toxins that lead to stuck ferments....I dunno, Lellemand's instructions make more sense to me than those of Wyeast.

 

I read the info contained in your link about Lalvin GO-FERM. It sounds exactly like what I need. Not readily available' date=' but ibrew here in AUS are one that do stock it.

 

http://www.ibrew.com.au/products/lalvin-go-ferm

 

I can't believe I'm starting to turn into a yeast geek!

 

No signs of fermentation from the BRY-97 as yet either after 16 hours from pitching (nothing new to me with this yeast!) I swear if they do package this yeast with an additive, it has to be something like valium!

 

In my head right now there is just a single thought looping over & over..."It's getting infected, it's getting infected, it's getting infected..."

 

Damn slow arse BRY yeast!

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

 

 

Take a deep breath Lusty. I must say, based on your experiences I am not looking forward to trying BRY97. I suppose I will eventually, when the new Thomas Cooper kits make their way to my LHBS, if that is indeed the identity of those new kit yeasts.

 

I want to get some Go-Ferm too.

 

Cheers! -Christina.

[Beerlust]

I want to get some Go-Ferm too.

I wonder if this stuff works on abdominal muscles? Mine could really use some Go-Firm!

 

Cheers' date='

 

Lusty.[/size']

[Beerlust]

Well good Ol' BRY has kept up it's usual standards (for me anyway). I arrived home from work late yesterday & after 30+ hours in the FV nothing resembling the beginnings of a krausen, no obvious expelling of C02.

 

So I did something I seldom ever do once I've pitched the yeast & sealed the FV, I opened the lid to have a look inside. There appeared to be a white-ish creamy looking build up of yeast on the surface. To hell with the BRY, I pitched some kit yeast onto the surface & re-sealed the lid.

 

There is activity this morning, likely the BRY or perhaps the BRY + infection!

 

I'm fine with conceding the proofing experiment appears to have done nothing to reduce lag time at least with this yeast.

 

Likely another tipper on the cards, but who knows, I may still end up with a drinkable beer. If I do, it'll be a first with this useless yeast!

 

Beer out.

[Mark D Pirate]

Bloody BRYon ....lazy bugger !

Doubt I'll ever let him back in my brew room

[ben 10]

I had similar issues with M44 recently....

General dislike of us style ale yeasts here.

[Otto Von Blotto]

Lusty seriously has the worst luck with that yeast. I shouldn't laugh, because I can understand it's disheartening. I only used it once but had no troubles with it. I wonder whether your wort isn't aerated enough? Pouring a 25 litre cube into an FV from a height splashes it around and aerates it somewhat and I've never had a yeast fail to start like that.

 

I wonder whether this experiment might have been better off done with a yeast that you've used numerous times and know that takes off in a certain ballpark amount of time each batch, and see if this proofing technique kicked it off quicker than usual.

[Beerlust]

Lusty seriously has the worst luck with that yeast. I shouldn't laugh' date=' because I can understand it's disheartening.[/quote']

Nothing wrong with that mate, if I was anyone else but me, I'd be having a bit of a chuckle too.

To be honest, I'm even at the point where I can laugh about it!

I only used it once but had no troubles with it. I wonder whether your wort isn't aerated enough? Pouring a 25 litre cube into an FV from a height splashes it around and aerates it somewhat and I've never had a yeast fail to start like that.

For this brew I went the extra yard & poured all of my liquid from height through a fine mesh sieve into the FV. Trust me' date=' it was heavily aerated. The lengths I've gone to in an attempt to gain a successful brew from this stuff, NO-ONE should have to.

 

Brew 1: Yeast Pitched dry = Long lag time, FAIL.

Brew 2: Re-hydrated yeast then pitched = Long lag time, FAIL.

Brew 3: Re-hydrated yeast, nutrient added during boil phase = Long lag time, FAIL.

Brew 4 (current): Re-hydrated yeast, proofed, heavily aerated wort = Long lag time, outcome unknown as yet.

I wonder whether this experiment might have been better off done with a yeast that you've used numerous times and know that takes off in a certain ballpark amount of time each batch, and see if this proofing technique kicked it off quicker than usual.

Possibly, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, given how slow BRY is to show signs of active fermentation, it seemed the best choice for the experiment. I haven't tasted the beer yet, so I may be jumping the gun on the outcome. But given my history with this yeast, you'd have to admit it doesn't look good for a positive outcome.

I had similar issues with M44 recently….

General dislike of us style ale yeasts here.

The same thing happened when I used the M44' date=' & I clearly remember thinking, "Ohh NO, not the BRY experience again??". But the yeast got going, & in quicker time than the BRY, & produced a nice beer. [img']happy[/img]

Bloody BRYon ….lazy bugger !

Doubt I'll ever let him back in my brew room

I have NO doubt now. That was its last chance in my brewery.

 

I have better things to do than worry about yeast doing what their supposed to.

 

I did make myself smile a bit yesterday when I arrived home & viewed the brew. It was very cloudy (quite normal during active fermentation) & it reminded me of the dust flying when two blokes have a scuffle in the dirt' date=' & I said to myself, "I hope that is the kit yeast kicking the @#$% out of that BRY yeast!" [img']lol[/img]

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

[Otto Von Blotto]

Yeah, I can definitely see where you were coming from trying it with the BRY as well. It certainly appears to have done sweet FA for it. I just wonder whether it would do sweet FA for a yeast that actually works properly too. Sounds like no issues with aeration either. I agree with you on the lengths gone to to get it working properly, it is pretty ridiculous.

 

The only reason I used it only once is because the resultant beer wasn't really much different to similar recipes done with US-05, and given my LHBS doesn't stock Danstar yeasts... well I couldn't be bothered driving all the way to Craftbrewer just to get it. Besides they have all the Wyeast range anyway.

[ben 10]

Nice one Lust-Man for attempting a brew you had a fair idea would be a bin job...

[Mark D Pirate]

The kit yeast sends BRYon running home to mum crying I'd bet !

 

Was surprised out of date Notty worked as well as it did for me

Heading home from work now to begin the onerous task of harvesting CCA yeast from some pale ale longnecks I bought last week (won't waste the beer )

 

I try to always have some longnecks in fridge to ensure

A: tasty beer

B: source of a yeast that's NEVER let me down and furthermore has saved 2 batches that stalled /never started

[ChristinaS1]

I had similar issues with M44 recently....

General dislike of us style ale yeasts here.

 

Ben and Lusty, I have read that BRY97 and M44 were developed from the same "parent" source, so it makes sense that they would display similar behaviour (long lag times).

 

Lusty, the reason you might want to stick it out with BRY97 or M44 is because they accentuate hops, and you like to make hoppy beer. If you can't get it to work for you, maybe you will have better luck with M44?

 

Cheers. -Christina.

[ChristinaS1]

The lengths I've gone to in an attempt to gain a successful brew from this stuff' date=' NO-ONE should have to.

 

Brew 1: Yeast Pitched dry = Long lag time, FAIL.

Brew 2: Re-hydrated yeast then pitched = Long lag time, FAIL.

Brew 3: Re-hydrated yeast, nutrient added during boil phase = Long lag time, FAIL.

Brew 4 (current): Re-hydrated yeast, proofed, heavily aerated wort = Long lag time, outcome unknown as yet.[/quote']

 

Not surprised that the dry pitched one failed, because Lellemand/Danstar says you have to rehydrate. They are not like Fermentis, who say you can either rehydrate or dry pitch.

 

Also, just out of curiosity, what temperature did you rehydrate at for Brews 2-4? Did you use the recommended 30-35C? I have found that Danstar yeast really need it that warm, and have seen this supported in a study as well, which compared % viable cells of Nottingham and another Danstar yeast, maybe Munich, when rehydrated at various temperatures. I would have to look for the link, but it is in an old thread; if memory serves, Antiphile provided the link. The thread is either about rehydrating or Nottingham.

 

I am not surprised #3 had a long lag time, since the Wyeast nutrient you used in the boil contains DAP, which Lellemand says is toxic to the yeast in the early stages. As I have mentioned, Wyeast and Lellemand have contradictory instructions: Lellemand says nutrients containing DAP should not be used until signs of fermentation are seen. Cheers! -Christina.

[ChristinaS1]

BTW Lusty, you may have seen this before, but in case you haven't, here is a little side-by-side test done at the folks of Rebel Brewer of 001, US-05, M44, and BRY97.

 

http://www.rebelbrewer.com/blog/yeast-experiment-american-session

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

[Beerlust]

Hi Christina.

 

I have seen some literature of side by side testing with US-05 & BRY. I think someone here on the forum recently linked a Brulosophy? experiment comparing the two.

 

In my time brewing, I've used two other Lallemand yeasts, Nottingham, & Belle Saison. Both terrific yeasts that get cracking quickly & always ferment well. I've pitched both of these yeasts dry & re-hydrated with no problems whatsoever.

 

If what you have stated regarding Lallemand's BRY-97 yeast should be taken as gospel, I would question why a yeast that has such a narrow margin to effectively work in would be put into mainstream production & offered to home brewers in the first place.

 

Anyway, this is all immaterial now to me, as I have US-05 that has never failed me so there is no need for me to continue wasting my time molly-coddling this strain in an effort to get it to function like a brewing yeast should.

 

The vigorous part of primary fermentation on this current brew has concluded, & on Wednesday I'll draw a sample & taste it. Hopefully it is a drinkable beer.

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

[ChristinaS1]

Hi Christina.

 

I have seen some literature of side by side testing with US-05 & BRY. I think someone here on the forum recently linked a Brulosophy? experiment comparing the two.

 

In my time brewing' date=' I've used two other Lallemand yeasts, Nottingham, & Belle Saison. Both terrific yeasts that get cracking quickly & always ferment well. I've pitched both of these yeasts dry & re-hydrated with no problems whatsoever.

 

If what you have stated regarding Lallemand's BRY-97 yeast should be taken as gospel, I would question why a yeast that has such a narrow margin to effectively work in would be put into mainstream production & offered to home brewers in the first place.

 

Anyway, this is all immaterial now to me, as I have US-05 that has never failed me so there is no need for me to continue wasting my time molly-coddling this strain in an effort to get it to function like a brewing yeast should.

 

The vigorous part of primary fermentation on this current brew has concluded, & on Wednesday I'll draw a sample & taste it. Hopefully it is a drinkable beer. [img']unsure[/img]

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

 

Fair enough. US-05 is a great yeast.

 

Yes, Coopers would done extensive testing with a third party yeast before selecting it; I agree they must have felt it checked all the right boxes (which must have included consistent good performance used dry and under-pitched). If the new yeast is indeed BRY97 it makes me wonder why you are having such bad luck with it? All my questions stemmed from a desire to get to the bottom of that (indeed we discovered that the DAP in your nutrient might have been a factor in your third attempt). In any case, I very much hope I have not offended you....I can see how I might have. If so, I sincerely apologize Lusty....It seems the only other logical conclusion is that the new kit yeast is not BRY97, and that the "B" in the code stands for something else? I have yet to hear reports on the forum of long lag times with the new kits. Have you heard any? I suppose the other candidate for the new "B" yeast is US-05. Have there been reports of persistent krausen, or of it taking a long time to clear, which would support that theory?

 

BTW, the new kits in the Thomas Cooper line have yet to appear in my LHBS.

 

PS I have never tried BRY97, as my LHBS does not carry it, but the reports of long lag times turn me off. I have no patience with that kind of thing. I tried M44 once. In spite of rehydrating it did not take off as quickly as I was used to with Coopers yeast; I pitched Coopers yeast on top of it at 16 hours. In retrospect I probably should have waited a little longer. Cheers my friend! -Christina.

[Beerlust]

If the new yeast is indeed BRY97 it makes me wonder why you are having such bad luck with it?

Me too' date=' that's why I gave it one last go.

 

In any case, I very much hope I have not offended you....I can see how I might have. If so, I sincerely apologize Lusty....It seems the only other logical conclusion is that the new kit yeast is not BRY97, and that the "B" in the code stands for something else?

No apology necessary. Nothing you stated in your previous post offended me in any way, & I could see you were genuinely trying to help get to the bottom of why I've had problems with this yeast. There was actually a lot of truth in the comments you made.

 

I haven't used the new TC kit that we believe might be packaged with it enough yet to draw comparisons, & I was only spit-balling possibilities on the yeast codes.

 

Anyways, that yeast is dead to me now (much like it was in life! ), so I'll speak no more of it.

 

Cheers & good brewing,

 

Lusty.

[Hairy]

Lusty, ya big proofter.

 

You have proven something for me; that is never to use BRY-97 again. Thanks for the confirmation.

[ChristinaS1]

Hi Christina!

 

I read the info contained in your link about Lalvin GO-FERM. It sounds exactly like what I need. Not readily available' date=' but ibrew here in AUS are one that do stock it.

 

http://www.ibrew.com.au/products/lalvin-go-ferm

 

I can't believe I'm starting to turn into a yeast geek!

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

 

 

Hi Lusty. Just thought I would update you regarding my efforts to get some Go-Ferm. I looked around and could not find it for sale in any home-brew supply store, so I ended up calling the distributor. I found out that the smallest volume the manufacturer makes is 2.5kg, which is really only for commercial use. Smaller amounts that are for sale online are in the USA have been repackaged by a home-brew supply shop, but they can't send it across the border for some reason. The distributor said that they don't usually sell Go-Ferm to breweries, just wineries. He tried to steer me to Servomyces (White Labs), which is yeast hulls from yeast grown in a zinc and magnesium rich medium. It is quite expensive and I gave it a pass. In terms of starters, I think boiled brewer's or bread yeast (1gm/gallon or 1/2gm in 2L starter) will have to do for me. Have you had any luck getting some Go-Ferm? Cheers! -Christina.

[Otto Von Blotto]

I don't use nutrient in either my starters or my main batches and haven't had any issues with fermentations struggling to take off or finish properly or whatever. There should be enough in the malt itself anyway, really.

 

I have thrown old dry yeast packets into the boil on brew days on occasion, i.e. when I remember that they're in the fridge... But normally nothing.

[Beerlust]

Just a quick follow up...

 

Well I kegged this brew the other day after 3 weeks of CC'ing & I can finally say I have a successful BRY-97 fermented beer. For a simple brew, it's turned out very well actually.

 

On the topic of proofing, I don't feel this had any affect on improving the behaviour of the yeast, so will not be bothering with the technique again, & will stick to standard re-hydration or full starter methods in future.

 

I don't have any plans to use BRY-97 again as although I had some success here with this brew, I still don't like it's long lag time before it gets going. It just unnerves me.

 

Take a bow BRY-97, then nick off!

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

[ChristinaS1]

Hi Lusty,

 

I came across this document from Danstar, maker of BRY-97, today and was reminded of this thread. Thought you might find it interesting:

 

http://www.lallemandyeast.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/lallemand_catalog_2015.pdf?download=1

 

It says that for rehydration media you can use:

 

"Sterile tap water

Water from the hot liquor tank

Diluted wort (2-6°P / OG 1.008 to 1.024)"

 

It is the first time I have seen a manufacturer say you can rehydrate in dilute wort. Support for Antiphile's method?

 

The other interesting thing is that in the production of dry yeast, they propagate in molasses, water, and added nutrients. Molasses is sucrose, not malt. I find this very surprising.

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

[Beerlust]

Hi Christina.

 

Yes that is interesting. Also interesting that Lallemand appear to prefer a different approach to rehydration of ale & lager dry yeast strains.

 

From the same link...

2. Type of rehydrating media

The media used is crucial to a successful rehydration. Undiluted wort causes

osmotic pressure to the yeast and compromises its health. Most yeast strains can

be rehydrated in water but lager yeasts benefit from rehydration with a small concentration

of sugar' date=' so diluted wort is preferred.[/quote']

If you are using a low gravity wort as part of your rehydration process, then that equates to a form of "proofing" to me. As proofing also acts as an activation/re-activation mechanism.

 

It's the contradictions made between manufacturers & so called experts in the field that make what is the best approach to take, all a little confusing.

 

Cheers & good brewing,

 

Lusty.

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

It's the contradictions made between manufacturers & so called experts in the field that make what is the best approach to take' date=' all a little confusing.[img']pinched[/img]

Totally agree with that. All the to-ing and fro-ing about the cell density of dry yeast that's been going on recently, now what best to re-hydrate in, and even the temperature of it... jeez.

 

I think I'll just stick to liquid yeast from now on unless I'm really in a bind and need to pitch something ASAP. At least I know I'm doing what I should be doing with that stuff.