Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => Yeast and Fermentation => Topic started by: Saccharomyces on February 10, 2021, 03:10:16 pm

Title: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 10, 2021, 03:10:16 pm
I kegged the batch of Bohemianish Pilsner that brewed a few Sundays ago last night.  To my surprise, two packs of W-34/70 in 5.5 gallons of wort dropped the specific gravity from 1.058 to 1.010.  That is an AA of 82.8%.  I was shooting for an AA between 75 and 77%.  The resulting beer is more like a German Pils than a Bohemian Pilsner with respect to bitterness, lingering is a good description.  I am going to have to stick with lower attenuating liquid cultures for Bohemian Pilsners.  I have always believed that Wyeast 2124 is W-34/70, but if Fermentis W-34/70 is actually W-34/70, then Wyeast 2124 is not.  I was beginning to believe that the old Brewtek CL-660 culture was W-34/70, but I never got over 77% AA with that culture.  AA was almost always guaranteed to be 75%, regardless of pitch number.  My quest to find a replacement for CL-660 continues.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: dannyjed on February 10, 2021, 04:06:49 pm
I don’t think that WY 2124 and 34/70 are the same as well. I have never gotten much sulfur if any from 34/70 and the last time I used WY 2124 it produced quite a bit of sulfur in the aroma. The sulfur aroma eventually diminished over time and I also got 77% attenuation. Looking back on batches where I used 34/70, I always got 80-82% attenuation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Descardeci on February 10, 2021, 04:23:33 pm
This always bug me, ppl saying that 2124 and wlp 830 is the same as 34/70, the 34/70 seem more clean, have a high flocculation and attenuation
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: hopfenundmalz on February 10, 2021, 04:34:13 pm
The yeast genome study showedvthey are not the same.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 10, 2021, 05:01:06 pm
What is interesting is that Wyeast 2035 and Wyeast 2112 are closely related.  That pretty much seals the deal on my assumption that the yeast strain Anchor acquired from Wallerstein Labs in the mid-seventies was the Christian Schmidt strain.  Wyeast 2035 is the August Shell strain.  It was originally named Wyeast 2035 New Ulm Lager.  It is an open secret that the Schell strain descends from the Christian Schmidt strain.  Seeing that W-34/70 shares parentage has to mean that the Christian Schmidt strain is related to W-34/70 or is W-34/70, which, by the way, is from the Frohberg Brewery in Grimma, Saxony.  I originally posted this part of a post several years ago:

Quote
Original Text:

“Die Hefe Frohberg stammt aus der Brauerei Frohberg in Grimma in Sachsen und ist eine Unterhefe. Die Hefe Saaz, welche in der Betriebshefe einer Saazer Brauerei als Nebenrasse enthalten war und daraus rein gezüchtet wurde, zeigt ebenfalls alle morphologischen Merkmale (einschließlich der Sporenbildung) der Brauerei kulturhefe.  Sie gibt jedoch, im Betriebe verwendet, keine normale Gärung und kann daher eigentlich nicht zu den Kulturhefen gerechnet werden.”

Translated Text:

"The yeast Frohberg comes from the brewery Frohberg in Grimma in Saxony and is a bottom yeast. The yeast Saaz, which was included in the Betriebshefe Saaz a brewery by-race and was bred pure fact also shows all the morphological features (including spores) of the brewery culture yeast. They are, however, used in companies, not a normal fermentation and therefore can not really be classed as culture yeasts. "
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: purduekenn on February 10, 2021, 05:41:12 pm
The last time I used 34/70 was for a 5.5 gallon Helles. Attenuation was 75% but I mashed at 152F.  I don't remember getting sulfur with 34/70 yeast. I brewed the same recipe with Diamond Lager yeast mashing at 152F and got 74% attenuation.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Drewch on February 11, 2021, 11:00:05 am
The last time I used 34/70 was for a 5.5 gallon Helles. Attenuation was 75% but I mashed at 152F.  I don't remember getting sulfur with 34/70 yeast. I brewed the same recipe with Diamond Lager yeast mashing at 152F and got 74% attenuation.

I've only used W-34/70 twice -- both times in a split-batch comparison with US-05 mashed at about 68C -- and even fermenting at ale temps 19C +/- 1C, I found it to taste cleaner than US-05.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: beersk on February 11, 2021, 03:33:11 pm
I've fermented a bunch of different styles with 34/70, always came out great, clean. It's a reliable and forgiving yeast. I ferment it in the 60's sometimes, and have fermented it at 48F as well. I always thought it was the dry form of wy2124. Interesting to know that it's not the same thing. So it's closer to wy2112? Or did I read Saccharomyces post wrong?
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: HopDen on February 11, 2021, 03:42:04 pm
34/70 is my house lager yeast. I have fermented it @48* without issue and have gone out 10 gens without perceivable changes. Lately though I have been using S-189 and although I don't have anything negative about it other than it will not or would not ferment @48*. I found its sweet spot to be 54* and am on gen 4. I will be going back to 34/70 because I like the influence on my recipes better than S-189.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 11, 2021, 04:42:47 pm
I am ready to render my decision on Fermentis W-34/70, and that is, not ready for prime time.  I am used to brewing with cultured yeast, so my threshold for off-flavors is very low.  I put the "A" in anal retentive when it comes to culturing yeast.  There is an off-flavor in this batch that cannot be attributed to anything other than the culture. Granted, the beer is a very naked example, but a quality culture handled correctly would not have this off-flavor.  Additionally, the culture has a significant percentage of non-flocculent cells (i.e., it is powdery). There is little doubt in my mind that W-34/70 is undergoing mutations during aerobic propagation. I will not use it again.  Granted, I am a difficult customer to please. I have brewed mainly from yeast cultures that I isolated and propagated for most of the time that I have brewed.

(https://i.imgur.com/xRdAa1r.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1v6KXuj.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/mkSv3wZ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/v6wdVNA.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/CHE3ieg.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Eyfluy5.jpg)




Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: erockrph on February 11, 2021, 04:55:49 pm
34/70 is my house lager yeast. I have fermented it @48* without issue and have gone out 10 gens without perceivable changes. Lately though I have been using S-189 and although I don't have anything negative about it other than it will not or would not ferment @48*. I found its sweet spot to be 54* and am on gen 4. I will be going back to 34/70 because I like the influence on my recipes better than S-189.
Not to take this off on too much of a tangent, but your experience with S-189 is a bit different than mine. I get my best results by pitching at 40F, letting it free rise to 45F and holding it there for a few days before ramping up the temp about 3 F a day from there. I've tried it in the mid 50s a few times and wasn't a huge fan of the results.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: fredthecat on February 11, 2021, 07:36:08 pm
I am ready to render my decision on Fermentis W-34/70, and that is, not ready for prime time.  I am used to brewing with cultured yeast, so my threshold for off-flavors is very high.  I put the "A" in anal retentive when it comes to culturing yeast.  There is an off-flavor in this batch that cannot be attributed to anything other than the culture. Granted, the beer is a very naked example, but a quality culture handled correctly would not have this off-flavor.  Additionally, the culture has a significant percentage of non-flocculent cells (i.e., it is powdery). There is little doubt in my mind that W-34/70 is undergoing mutations during aerobic propagation. I will not use it again.  Granted, I am a difficult customer to please. I have brewed mainly from yeast cultures that I isolated and propagated for most of the time that I have brewed.


appreciated. yeah i used it last winter and found it adequate in flavour, it definitely cleaned up as it aged, but in a bock that i made it did 90% attenuation unexpectedly (probably a low mash temp :\ ) and it just had a flavour I wouldn't call pleasant. took a few months before it mellowed enough to become sessionable. like a heavy, chunky almost wood flavour if i remember correctly.

trying s-189 right now and ill see how it turned out in a few weeks.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: roger on February 12, 2021, 06:51:49 am
There is an off-flavor in this batch that cannot be attributed to anything other than the culture. Granted, the beer is a very naked example, but a quality culture handled correctly would not have this off-flavor.  Additionally, the culture has a significant percentage of non-flocculent cells (i.e., it is powdery). There is little doubt in my mind that W-34/70 is undergoing mutations during aerobic propagation. I will not use it again.

Yikes, this is information that I have not heard before. Thanks for sharing. However, my taste threshold isn't nearly as sensitive.

I recently purchased two sachets of 34/70 and two of Diamond to try them out and compare them for myself. Now I'm thinking I should try a third batch with liquid yeast to compare as well. Surely other homebrewers have performed this hundreds of time, but I learn more from my own experiences.

My followup question is, does the drying process somehow result in these mutations you detect, or is this lab or even batch specific? Or is this yeast just different from the specific CL-660 culture you remember?
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 12, 2021, 02:33:36 pm
After conducting a little research, there is something going on with W-34/70 at Fermentis.   TUM lists W-34/70 as having an AA 73%, not 80 to 84% as is claimed by Fermentis for their W-34/70 offering.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjKhs7Vi-TuAhVMHc0KHatKALwQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blq-weihenstephan.de%2Ffileadmin%2Fpdf%2FMikroorganismen%2FHefen_En%2FFrisinga___Proles.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0H0jirQzCv70AZnGk37OSz

With this information in hand, we can assume that Fermentis W-34/70 has a mutated seed culture or the seed culture undergoes mutation when propagated under aerobic conditions in a bioreactor.  If Fermentis did not claim such a high AA, then another explanation is contamination.  I do not care what the dry yeast propagators claim, their cultures are still not as pure as liquid cultures, at least not at the 11g package size.   For example, the team at Washington University had to get a slant of the source culture for BRY-97 from Lallemand because they wound up sequencing a contaminant when they attempted to sequence the culture via dry BRY-97.  I will say that dry yeast has come a long way since early nineties, but it has a long way to go before it will be used as anything but backup in my brewery. The true test of the purity of a yeast culture is a pale, delicately-flavored beer.   Any defects in a culture shine through like a sore thumb.  I know that I did not introduce any contaminants.  I wore surgical gloves and wiped both packages of yeast as well as the scissors that I use in propagation with alcohol before cutting off a corner on each package.  All of the dry yeast culture that I have used from Fermentis and Lallemand have all had off-flavors when compared to liquid or cultured yeast.  S-04, US-05, and now W-34/70 from Fermentis have had the most notable off-flavors.  One has to really look for an off-flavor with BRY-97, but one can be found when compared side-by-side with a beer fermented with well-handled Chico-derived culture.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: fredthecat on February 12, 2021, 10:15:32 pm
After conducting a little research, there is something going with W-34/70 at Fermentis.   TUM list W-34/70 as having an AA 73%, not 80 to 84% as is claimed by Fermentis for their W-34/70 offering.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjKhs7Vi-TuAhVMHc0KHatKALwQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blq-weihenstephan.de%2Ffileadmin%2Fpdf%2FMikroorganismen%2FHefen_En%2FFrisinga___Proles.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0H0jirQzCv70AZnGk37OSz

With this information in hand, we can assume that Fermentis W-34/70 has a mutated seed culture or the seed culture undergoes mutation when propagated under aerobic conditions in a bioreactor.  If Fermentis did not claim such a high AA, then another explanation is contamination.  I do not care what the dry yeast propagators claim, their cultures are still not as pure as liquid cultures, at least not at the 11g package size.   For example, the team at Washington University had to get a slant of the source culture for BRY-97 from Lallemand because they wound up sequencing a contaminant when they attempted to sequence the culture via dry BRY-97.  I will say that dry yeast has come a long way since early nineties, but it has a long way to go before it will be used as anything but backup in my brewery. The true test of the purity of a yeast culture is a pale, delicately-flavored beer.   Any defects in a culture shine through like a sore thumb.  I know that I did not introduce any contaminants.  I wore surgical gloves and wiped both packages of yeast as well as the scissors that I use in propagation with alcohol before cutting off a corner on each package.  All of the dry yeast culture that I have used from Fermentis and Lallemand have all had off-flavors when compared to liquid or cultured yeast.  S-04, US-05, and now W-34/70 from Fermentis have had the most notable off-flavors.  One has to really look for an off-flavor with BRY-97, but one can be found when compared side-by-side with a beer fermented with well-handled Chico-derived culture.

i know i keep just acknowledging. but again, read and appreciated. cool stuff.

im trying to work through dry yeasts i never tried to see if any really pique my fancy.

i just bottled it today but NGL: K-97 seems really extremely clean though i dislike the haze that i can not get rid of.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 13, 2021, 06:05:52 am
I am beginning to wonder if Fermentis has truly solved the dry yeast purity problem, especially with respect to packaging.  If you view the PDF I linked, you will see that W-34/70 is classified as a flocculating strain.  Flocculent yeast cells have a protein on their surface called flocculin.  It acts kind of like the yeast cell equivalent of Velcro.  Without going into detail, this protein is inhibited while specific sugars are still available.   When flocculent yeast cells have exhausted flocculin inhibiting sugars and all of the sugars that can be reduced to one of flocculin inhibiting sugars, they start to stick to each other and either rise to the surface on trapped CO2 gas or sediment to the bottom.  Most wild yeast strains are non-flocculent.  What I am observing tells me that a significant number of cells in the culture have either mutated and lost their ability to flocculate or the culture is contaminated with wild or closer to wild yeast cells (e.g., baker's yeast).  The culture needs to be plated out on differential media to be certain that it is not contaminated with wild yeast.  It could just be a mutation in the FLO genes.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: fredthecat on February 13, 2021, 10:20:31 am
I am beginning to wonder if Fermentis has truly solved the dry yeast purity problem, especially with respect to packaging.  If you view the PDF I linked, you will see that W-34/70 is classified as a flocculating strain.  Flocculent yeast cells have a protein on their surface called flocculin.  It acts kind of like the yeast cell equivalent of Velcro.  Without going into detail, this protein is inhibited while specific sugars are still available.   When flocculent yeast cells have exhausted flocculin inhibiting sugars and all of the sugars that can be reduced to one of flocculin inhibiting sugars, they start to stick to each other and either rise to the surface on trapped CO2 gas or sediment to the bottom.  Most wild yeast strains are non-flocculent.  What I am observing tells me that a significant number of cells in the culture have either mutated and lost their ability to flocculate or the culture is contaminated with wild or closer to wild yeast cells (e.g., baker's yeast).  The culture needs to be plated out on differential media to be certain that it is not contaminated with wild yeast.  It could just be a mutation in the FLO genes.

ok, i see what you mean now and see the relevance.

yes, i used s-189 as well recently and i was surprised to see a fair amount of powdery substance (yeast?) coating the sides of the glass carboy though also a fairly tight sediment on the bottom. it does have balls of yeast in flocculation that rose to the surface and are floating as well.


there could probably be better descriptors on the yeast packets re: "sedimentation" than -low/medium/high.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 13, 2021, 11:36:39 am
To be fair to fermentis, dry lager yeast lagged dry ale yeast by many years.  A lot of people believed that lager strains could not withstand the dry yeast manufacturing process.  What I want to know is what happened that pushed a yeast culture with an 73% AA to a yeast culture with an AA in the 80s.  Was Fermentis W-34/70 obtained directly from Weihenstephan Hefebank? Or was it obtained from a brewery that used W-34/70?  How far from the original is the product that Fermentis produces from the source culture genetically?  Is getting a good 11g package of W-34/70 the luck of the draw and I got one or two bad packages?  The expiration date on batch packages was in 2023.  I am sitting on two more packages of W-34/70 that are probably going to be tossed into the trash.  I have never had much in the way of luck with Fermentis yeast.  S-04 and US-05 were both no-gos. I also have four packages of Verdant IPA and two packages of Voss that I am determining whether or not they are going to be pitched.  I have had better luck with Lallemand's dry yeast strains than Fermentis when it comes to not producing weird flavors.  I have used Nottingham and BRY-97 for two spur of the moment brews.   I will not use Nottingham again because while it did not have any weird off-flavors, it did not have any flavor, period.  That culture makes Chico seem fruity. BRY-97 did not produce much in the way of off-flavors either, but the lag time is ridiculous.  If I am going to spend $9+ for yeast for a 5-gallon batch of beer, I am going to use liquid or cultured yeast.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: fredthecat on February 13, 2021, 03:32:46 pm
To be fair to fermentis, dry lager yeast lagged dry ale yeast by many years.  A lot of people believed that lager strains could not withstand the dry yeast manufacturing process.  What I want to know is what happened that pushed a yeast culture with an 73% to a yeast culture with an AA in the 80s.  Was Fermentis W-34/70 obtained directly from Weihenstephan Hefebank? Or was it obtained from a brewery that used W-34/70?  How far from the original is the product that Fermentis ships from the source culture genetically?  Is getting a good 11g package of W-34/70 the luck of the draw and I just got one or two bad packages?  The expiration date on batch packages was in 2023.  I am sitting on two more packages of W-34/70 that are probably going to be tossed into the trash.  I have never had much in the way of luck with Fermentis yeast.  S-04 and US-05 were both no-gos. I also have four packages of Verdant IPA and two packages of Voss that I am determining whether or not they are going to be pitched.  I have had better luck with Lallemand's dry yeast strains than Fermentis when it comes to not producing weird flavors.  I have used Nottingham and BRY-97 for two spur of the moment brews.   I will not use Nottingham again because while it did not have any weird off-flavors, it did not have any flavor period.  That culture makes Chico seem fruity. BRY-97 did not produce much in the way of off-flavors either, but the lag time is ridiculous.  If I am going to spend $9+ for yeast for a 5-gallon batch of beer, I am going to use liquid or cultured yeast.

i agree with s-05, it was and is the default "best" yeast for beginners. but often enough it just wouldn't sit well with me, thats why ive been trying to find a cheap and easy dry yeast to replace it. come slightly warmer weather ill be trying the highly recommended BRY-97.

did you test all of the varieties of dry yeast, even the less popular ones? i hear the abbaye is far from the fruitiness and big flavours of liquid belgian, and is in fact pretty mild, with around 80% attenutation. if you find it tasty, that could be a good regular yeast?

im going to try as many dry yeasts as i can, as it is a better system (well, significantly easier) than liquid.

-hope to try WB-06 in the manner its intended as a close relative of WLP570, ie in a belgian blonde.
-try abbaye with a simple grist to see its flavour.
-would love to try verdant IPA if i see it


are you a professional taster in any way? i have a good sense of taste, but not anything beyond "good tasting ability" and it is likely fading with age slowly.



edit: why do they even make S-33? i mean ive only heard bad things about it, it has very poor attenuation, etc. just? that and S-23, i dont really understand the reason. i know my LHBS sell both of those, but ive never even bought them.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: fredthecat on February 13, 2021, 03:58:42 pm
lol check this out, someone actually wrote this. i guess they were just talking out of their ass:

this is a description of WB-06

"Finally, a dry beer yeast strain for use in those Bavarian style Hefeweizens and Dunkelweizens. This yeast produces the classic estery, phenolic flavors typical of Bavarian Hefeweizens. Flocculation is somewhat low as expected for the style, adding the yeast-in-suspension flavor profile of these cloudy beer styles. The attenuation is a bit lower that other yeast varieties, so mash at a slightly lower temperature if you're going for some dryness. Fermentation temperatures are reported at 59 to 75 degrees... with 68 being about right. Higher temperatures produce stronger 'banana' aromas with lower temperatures leaning more towards 'spice'. "

it simply isnt. i guess initially fermentis just said "for wheat beers" and it has been interpreted and mutated over time into "for BAVARIAN wheat beers" during the earlier years of homebrewing.

lol attenuation is extremely high for WB06, that is one of the main complaints people post about it. "my weizen finished too dry!!"

the other complaint is that it has none of the esters associated with a bavarian wheat beer other than clove. if you scroll down far in the following PDF it shows that while it does create banana esters it is on par with what might be expected in a belgian yeast and is in fact just slightly more banana than k-97 (a pretty neutral ale) and much less than abbaye or T-58.

https://fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Brochure_Tips_and_Tricks_GB_web_planche-bd.pdf




if it was used properly, it could be a fun yeast. i wonder about that regarding other yeasts too.

maybe i should really experiment with very small batches of some of the much less popular yeasts some day.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 13, 2021, 04:51:00 pm
are you a professional taster in any way? i have a good sense of taste, but not anything beyond "good tasting ability" and it is likely fading with age slowly.

I am a ranked BJCP judge, but my sensory skills microbiology-wise comes from plating and slanting yeast cultures for a long time.  I isolated many cultures back when bottle-conditioned beer was more popular.  I plated out several cultures I obtained directly from small breweries and brewpubs.  I have seen nasties on a lot of plates.  I am thinking about ordering pre-poured Wallerstein Differential Media plates from White Labs (https://www.whitelabs.com/other-products/wallerstein-differential-media-wld-plates-tk3420) and plating out the crop I took from this batch.  I may wait until I collect a couple of more crops because these plates have a 30-day shelf life.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 13, 2021, 05:03:33 pm
it simply isnt. i guess initially fermentis just said "for wheat beers" and it has been interpreted and mutated over time into "for BAVARIAN wheat beers" during the earlier years of homebrewing.

I have come to the conclusion over the years that a lot of people are blind to yeast induced off-flavors.  If all brewer has ever used is dry yeast, that is what he/she expects.  Dry yeast induced flavors are not as noticeable today as they were when I first started to brew, but they are still there, especially on the initial pitch.  I am just more sensitive to it than a lot of brewers because I maintained and propagated my own pure cultures for years.

The reality is that a lot of brewers are not remotely clean and could not propagate a clean starter if their lives depended on it.  I know a couple of local brewers who have been brewing for a long time who routinely have yeast culture-induced off-flavors in their beer.  It is no surprise to me that these brewers have poor brewery hygiene.  A lot people ask me what is the best skill a starting brewer can possess, most are shocked when I ask them the question, "how well can you clean?" Most are expecting to say the ability to cook.  Brewing has very little in common with cooking, not even wort production.  It is closer to baking in that everything has to be measured and a process needs to be followed to the letter.  I have seen a lot of "drive by" cleaning and sanitation in the last 28 years.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: RC on February 13, 2021, 07:49:55 pm
it simply isnt. i guess initially fermentis just said "for wheat beers" and it has been interpreted and mutated over time into "for BAVARIAN wheat beers" during the earlier years of homebrewing.
The reality is that a lot of brewers are not remotely clean and could not propagate a clean starter if their lives depended on it.

Yeah, last I checked most homebrewers, me included, don't have sterile operating rooms in our garage/basements. Good for you if that's your vibe. But your level of microbiological "cleanliness" isn't in the cards for most of us. And yet a lot of us still make fantastic beer from starters that have won plenty of awards--unexplainable!!
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 08:14:30 am
Yeah, last I checked most homebrewers, me included, don't have sterile operating rooms in our garage/basements. Good for you if that's your vibe. But your level of microbiological "cleanliness" isn't in the cards for most of us. And yet a lot of us still make fantastic beer from starters that have won plenty of awards--unexplainable!!

I am not talking about your average person. Most people keep relatively clean homes. I talking about brewers whose homes are one step above a pig sty, especially single men.  You would be surprised by what constitutes clean to a lot of people.  It is not about having an operating room for a brewery.  It is about knowing how to properly clean and sanitize equipment and keep at least one's fermentation area tidy and relatively clean.  Over the years, I have been asked by people to help them improve fermentation quality.  I have reached a point where if I walk into a brewer's home and it is filthy, I give up and walk right back out.  I cannot help people whose parents did not teach them how to keep a clean home.  If person cannot keep a clean home, the odds are against him/her keeping a clean brewery.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: MDL on February 14, 2021, 09:02:45 am
I’m wondering about your pitch rate. Lallemand recommends 3 sachets of their Diamond lager yeast for 6 gallons @ 1.058.

I have not used Fermentis 34/70 but I have been pleased with Diamond lager yeast pitched at 1.7 grams per liter at 1.050 gravity, a bit more than the Lallemand calculator recommends.

Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: denny on February 14, 2021, 09:56:36 am
Yeah, last I checked most homebrewers, me included, don't have sterile operating rooms in our garage/basements. Good for you if that's your vibe. But your level of microbiological "cleanliness" isn't in the cards for most of us. And yet a lot of us still make fantastic beer from starters that have won plenty of awards--unexplainable!!

I am not talking about your average person. Most people keep relatively clean homes. I talking about brewers whose homes are one step above a pig sty, especially single men.  You would be surprised by what constitutes clean to a lot of people.  It is not about having an operating room for a brewery.  It is about knowing how to properly clean and sanitize equipment and keep at least one's fermentation area tidy and relatively clean.  Over the years, I have been asked by people to help them improve fermentation quality.  I have reached a point where if I walk into a brewer's home and it is filthy, I give up and walk right back out.  I cannot help people whose parents did not teach them how to keep a clean home.  If person cannot keep a clean home, the odds are against him/her keeping a clean brewery.

Well, I guess you'll never visit me!
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: denny on February 14, 2021, 09:57:23 am
I’m wondering about your pitch rate. Lallemand recommends 3 sachets of their Diamond lager yeast for 6 gallons @ 1.058.

I have not used Fermentis 34/70 but I have been pleased with Diamond lager yeast pitched at 1.7 grams per liter at 1.050 gravity, a bit more than the Lallemand calculator recommends.

My experience is that one has been fine for 5 gal. of average gravity.
Title: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: BrewBama on February 14, 2021, 10:18:40 am
....  I am sitting on two more packages of W-34/70 that are probably going to be tossed into the trash.

...

Throw them in an envelope and send them to me.  I’ll use them.

Yeah, last I checked most homebrewers, me included, don't have sterile operating rooms in our garage/basements. Good for you if that's your vibe. But your level of microbiological "cleanliness" isn't in the cards for most of us. And yet a lot of us still make fantastic beer from starters that have won plenty of awards--unexplainable!!

I am not talking about your average person. Most people keep relatively clean homes. I talking about brewers whose homes are one step above a pig sty, especially single men.  You would be surprised by what constitutes clean to a lot of people.  It is not about having an operating room for a brewery.  It is about knowing how to properly clean and sanitize equipment and keep at least one's fermentation area tidy and relatively clean.  Over the years, I have been asked by people to help them improve fermentation quality.  I have reached a point where if I walk into a brewer's home and it is filthy, I give up and walk right back out.  I cannot help people whose parents did not teach them how to keep a clean home.  If person cannot keep a clean home, the odds are against him/her keeping a clean brewery.

Well, I guess you'll never visit me!



+1. Clean enough to be healthy, but definitely evidence of being lived in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 10:30:45 am
I’m wondering about your pitch rate. Lallemand recommends 3 sachets of their Diamond lager yeast for 6 gallons @ 1.058.

I have not used Fermentis 34/70 but I have been pleased with Diamond lager yeast pitched at 1.7 grams per liter at 1.050 gravity, a bit more than the Lallemand calculator recommends.

With apparent attentuation of 82.8%, I seriously doubt the problem was underpitching.  The place where the batch was fermented is cold enough that I had to heat the fermentation vessel with a temperature-controlled heating source to keep it at 53F.  The ambient temperature in that room was in the low 40s F.   At that temperature, most native microflora does not present a problem because it is not cryotolerant.  The reason why lager gave birth to industrial brewing is because lager yeast is cryotolerant; therefore, it has a competitive advantage on airborne native microflora. 

I stand by my assertion that dry yeast cultures are not as pure as their producers claim, at least not at the 11g package level.  If you read Kristoffer Krogerus' website (a.k.a. Suregork), you will see his claim that BRY-97 falls outside of the American family of ale strains.   The same thing happened when Chris Large and the team at the University of Washington (UW) sequenced BRY-97 from a retail package.  After receiving a slant of BRY-97 prepared from the reference culture from Tobias Fischborn at Lallemand, Chris came to the conclusion that the team at UW may have sequenced a contaminant because when they sequenced the reference culture of BRY-97 Tobias sent, they discovered that it is a closer match to Wyeast 1056 than either Siebel BRY-96 (the culture from which Sierra Nevada's culture descends) or WLP001 (although those cultures are close matches as well). Tobias Fischborn stated that BRY-97 was isolated from a culture received from a brewery that started with BRY-96.  Lallemand chose to propagate the isolate instead of BRY-96 because selective pressure at the brewery resulted in a culture with better performance characteristics (e.g., flocculation).  The fact that Wyeast 1056 is known to be from Sierra Nevada and the BRY-97 reference culture is a very close match to Wyeast 1056 pretty much points to Sierra Nevada being the brewery from which BRY-97 was isolated.  Now, the probability of two different scientists sequencing a culture (Lallemand BRY-97) and determining that it falls outside of the American family of ale yeast strains is close to nil unless both scientists sequenced a contaminant.   That can only occur if the reference culture contains yeast cells other than what is claimed on the label because I am certain that both scientists plated the culture for singles before sequencing.  I am not attempting to disrespect what Lallemand and Fermentis are doing.  It is just that dry yeast cultures will never match the purity of liquid yeast cultures at the retail packaging level using the current state of the art in dry yeast production.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: ynotbrusum on February 14, 2021, 10:36:46 am
Don’t all dry yeast packaging disclose that they have some wild yeast and other microbes in them?  Has any commercial yeast producer put such information on liquid yeast packaging?  It would seem to me that serially repitching always risks contamination, genetic drift and petite mutants... but I suppose that plating and culturing from slants in sterile conditions (positive vent pressure and sterile loop) might avoid that issue.  I have simply reduced my repitch numbers lately to avoid the issue - rarely more than 5 batches.  Maybe I have just been lucky.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 10:38:39 am
+1. Clean enough to be healthy, but definitely evidence of being lived in.

You are former military and so I am.  While you may not be able to eat off of your floor,  I seriously doubt that your home comes close to what I am talking about.  I am talking about homes where one's shoes stick the floors and one's hands stick to the counters.  Homes where the bathrooms are so filthy that they make the dirtiest gas station bathroom one has ever encountered look clean.  Houses where takeout food boxes are strewn everywhere and lord only knows how long their contents have sat rotting.  A large percentage of the brewers who have helped me improve their fermentation quality live in places that are at this level of unkemptness or slightly above it.  The reason why the military drives cleaning home is partially due to public health, but it is to teach young service men and women to pay attention to detail.  Brewing consistent beer is about paying attention to detail, every little detail.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 10:45:28 am
Don’t all dry yeast packaging disclose that they have some wild yeast and other microbes in them?  Has any commercial yeast producer put such information on liquid yeast packaging?  It would seem to me that serially repitching always risks contamination, genetic drift and petite mutants... but I suppose that plating and culturing from slants in sterile conditions (positive vent pressure and sterile loop) might avoid that issue.  I have simply reduced my repitch numbers lately to avoid the issue - rarely more than 5 batches.  Maybe I have just been lucky.

It is not that the producers do not disclose contamination figures.  It is at what level were those figures determined?  Unless the cultures tested were from the 11g packaging level, they should be taken with a grain of salt.  It is a lot harder to reliably fill 11g packages contamination free than 500g bricks just as it is a lot more challenging to reliably fill LBHS retail trade packages of liquid yeast than it is 1L or larger professional pitches.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: BrewBama on February 14, 2021, 10:52:44 am
You have a ton of speculation, anecdotes, and variability in your justification that dry strains aren’t what they are.

I am not sure how you have experienced a different performance in your wort inoculated with a different pitch rate of 34/70 than the mfr does in their standardized wort — which can be totally different composition that can easily produce different results (therefore comparing apples to oranges) — then jump to a completely a different strain’s analysis as proof of an assertion that dry strains aren’t what the mfr says they are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: RC on February 14, 2021, 11:00:19 am
+1. Clean enough to be healthy, but definitely evidence of being lived in.

You are former military and so I am.  While you may not be able to eat off of your floor,  I seriously doubt that your home comes close to what I am talking about.  I am talking about homes where one's shoes stick the floors and one's hands stick to the counters.  Homes where the bathrooms are so filthy that they make the dirtiest gas station bathroom one has ever encountered look clean.  Houses where takeout food boxes are strewn everywhere and lord only knows how long their contents have sat rotting.  A large percentage of the brewers who have helped me improve their fermentation quality live in places that are at this level of unkemptness or slightly above it.  The reason why the military drives cleaning home is partially due to public health, but it is to teach young service men and women to pay attention to detail.  Brewing consistent beer is about paying attention to detail, every little detail.

So...hoarders might not be able to make a clean starter. Seems reasonable. I doubt most homebrewers fit this description though. Hopefully my life will never depend on having to make a clean starter, but if it ever did, I think I’ll be ok. ;)
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 11:07:13 am
One last thing, as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, the probability of two different scientists sequencing the same product and both coming to the conclusion that a yeast culture falls outside of the American family is close to nil unless they both sequenced a contaminant.  The dry yeast facilities do not only produce brewing yeast.  The also produce bread yeast.  The probability that there is cross contamination is higher than we would like to believe.  Let's think about it in peanut terms.  Plants that produce non-peanut-based food stuffs that also produce peanut-based food stuffs have to claim that they do.  The same thing happens with gluten.  While oats are naturally gluten-free, Quaker had to set up a separate facility for processing gluten-free oats because most of their oats are processed in plants that also process cereal grains that are not gluten-free.  If you have ever been in either White Labs propagation facility, you have seen that bacteria and wild yeast strains are propagated in a different building than the Saccharomyces strains.  The wild yeast and bacteria building is under negative pressure to keep those organism in where the the Saccharomyces building is under positive pressure to keep other organisms out.

The plate shown below was streaked from a culture I grew from the dregs of a bottle of Southern Tier bottle-conditioned pale ale.  We can assume that all of the well-isolated white dots on that plate are all the offspring is a single yeast cell; hence, the term single-cell pure culture or isolate.   What we do not know is if all of the well-isolated colonies are from a single strain of yeast.  The only way to know for certain is to transfer different colonies to different slants and use each slant to step-propagate a starter to use in brewing.  If the slants we create all produce the same fermentation characteristics, we know that we are dealing with a brewery that a) uses a single strain and b) has good biological quality control.  Now, the only way that the scientists who sequenced BRY-97 from the package could both come to the conclusion that the culture was not in the American family is if there were yeast colonies on the plate that were not BRY-97.  If Chris and Kristoffer are like me, they probably selected the largest well-isolated colony on the plate.  It could have been that the culture was infected with another yeast culture that grows faster and more robustly than BRY-97.  I have seen that occur in my own yeast travels.

(https://i.imgur.com/xRdAa1r.jpg)

Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: MDL on February 14, 2021, 11:22:54 am
Until I began pitching at Lallemand recommended rates I was very unhappy with the fermentation profile in terms of flavor. The final gravity was not an issue with lower pitch rates.

After many batches I have settled on a pitch rate of .85 grams/liter for Bry-97 and 1.7 grams/liter Diamond lager.

Pitched direct into fermentation vessel without aeration. 1.050 OG approx. I pitch while filling the fermenter at about 65 degrees. Lager gets cooled to 50F for fermentation.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 11:32:35 am
You have a ton of speculation, anecdotes, and variability in your justification that dry strains aren’t what they are.

I am not sure how you have experienced a different performance in your wort inoculated with a different pitch rate of 34/70 than the mfr does in their standardized wort — which can be totally different composition that can easily produce different results (therefore comparing apples to oranges) — then jump to a completely a different strain’s analysis as proof of an assertion that dry strains aren’t what the mfr says they are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Did you to read the PDF that I linked from the source of W-34/70?  TUM states that W-34/70 (a.k.a. TUM 34/70) has an AA of 73%.  Even with a very fermentable wort, there is no way that a culture known to reliably produce an AA around 73% can reliably produce an AA of between 80 and 84% as stated on the Fermentis site, that is, unless it is contaminated or mutated.  TUM also states that W-34/70 is flocculant whereas W-34/78 is less flocculant.  What I am seeing is a lot of yeast that refuses to sediment (a.k.a. it is powdery), which is sign of non-flocculant yeast cells being in the culture at a significant level.  It does not mean that every package of W-34/70 that ships from Fermentis is this way.  It just means that people who are complaining about dry yeast still not being as reliable as liquid yeast have a case.  There are enough people still complaining about dry yeast cultures being hit or miss that there has to be some validity to their complaints.  Hopefully, this forum will remain a little more open minded about yeast than a very large forum where people who do not go along with group think are beaten down.  These people should be able to plead their case. We have to remember that I received a significant beating on this site when I introduced SNS.  Yet, I stood my ground (I will stand my ground on this one until I have enough evidence to rule out significant mutation or contamination). It was not until Denny tried the method and blogged about his experience that the beat-down stopped.  Now, SNS has become another tool in a brewer's toolbox.  Opportunity comes to those whose minds are prepared and still open to new knowledge.  I know from personal experience that maintaining that mindset becomes more difficult as we age.  I am as guilty as anyone else, but somehow, I keep making observations that go against what is being claimed.  On the liquid and cultured yeast side, I have yet to encounter a culture that does not live up to its data. However, I am certain that one will cross paths with me one day.
 
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 11:42:27 am
Until I began pitching at Lallemand recommended rates I was very unhappy with the fermentation profile in terms of flavor. The final gravity was not an issue with lower pitch rates.

After many batches I have settled on a pitch rate of .85 grams/liter for Bry-97 and 1.7 grams/liter Diamond lager.

Pitched direct into fermentation vessel without aeration. 1.050 OG approx. I pitch while filling the fermenter at about 65 degrees. Lager gets cooled to 50F for fermentation.

The problem with your thesis is that the same thing does not occur with liquid yeast.  Liquid yeast can be underpitched and not produce a product that wildly differs in flavor.  It may be little fruitier, but not what I am experiencing with W-34/70.  The difference between pitching 22 grams and 32 grams of yeast is in the noise.  It is not even a full replication period.  The yeast biomass does not grow linearly.  It grows exponentially at a rate of 2n, where n is the number of replication periods.  I wrote an entire blog entry about pitching rates being relative entitled "Yeast Cultures are Like Nuclear Weapons" (https://www.experimentalbrew.com/blogs/saccharomyces/yeast-cultures-are-nuclear-weapons). 
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: BrewBama on February 14, 2021, 12:11:21 pm
...  Even with a very fermentable wort, there is no way that a culture known to reliably produce an AA around 73% can reliably produce an AA of between 80 and 84% as stated on the Fermentis site, that is, unless it is contaminated or mutated.  ...

We disagree. A strain shouldn’t be expected to react the same as advertised if the conditions are different than the conditions the attenuation was based on. There are numerous variations that can create a complex account for the different performance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: RC on February 14, 2021, 12:13:38 pm
You have a ton of speculation, anecdotes, and variability in your justification that dry strains aren’t what they are.

I am not sure how you have experienced a different performance in your wort inoculated with a different pitch rate of 34/70 than the mfr does in their standardized wort — which can be totally different composition that can easily produce different results (therefore comparing apples to oranges) — then jump to a completely a different strain’s analysis as proof of an assertion that dry strains aren’t what the mfr says they are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Hopefully, this forum will remain a little more open minded...Opportunity comes to those whose minds are prepared and still open to new knowledge.  I know from personal experience that maintaining that mindset becomes more difficult as we age.  I am as guilty as anyone else, but somehow, I keep making observations that go against what is being claimed.

Sidenote: Yeah I know the feeling. It's like when I claim that if your city uses chlorine gas to treat the water, you don't have to filter because all the chlorine will gas off when you heat the water. Woe is us!
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: MDL on February 14, 2021, 12:37:41 pm
I was never satisfied with lagers I attempted with liquid cultures. I assumed pitching rate was the cause. Never wanted to buy enough yeast or plan ahead to grow up enough.

I have no experience with 34/70 from Fermentis. However, overall I personally feel that I get better flavor results using Lallemand on the dry strains I have tried.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: ynotbrusum on February 14, 2021, 12:42:26 pm
I am open to the points raised.  I remain dedicated to progress, yet I tend toward my own personal experience to reinforce an approach touted by others or criticized by others.  I tried SNS early on and found it to be working well and adopted it for starters.  I am open to an argument that production conditions for dry yeast do not reach sanitation in liquid yeast production levels.  I welcome this discussion without any prejudgment (nor lab skills and lab access).  Please continue....
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 03:13:13 pm
Sidenote: Yeah I know the feeling. It's like when I claim that if your city uses chlorine gas to treat the water, you don't have to filter because all the chlorine will gas off when you heat the water. Woe is us!

Cities do not use chlorine gas to treat water.  They use sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which is basically common household bleach.  Sodium hypchlorite decomposes into hypochlorous acid and hypochloric acid when mixed with water.  While these compounds will completely off-gas given enough time at a given temperature. They will not completely off-gas in the time it takes to hit strike temperature; therefore, when mixed with malt, these compounds will react with malt, forming chlorophenols.  That is basic chemistry.  If that were not true, commercial breweries would not spend money on water filtration systems.  Another problem with brewing with straight, unfiltered municipal tap water that is treated with sodium hypochlorite is that the dosing often changes with the seasons, so the time to off-gas changes with the seasons. Water tends to more heavily dosed in the summer than the winter.  That is due to higher microflora counts in the summer than in the winter.  If you sit for the BJCP exam, you will become familiar with chlorophenols, more so if you start judging local contests.  A beer made with unfiltered, chlorinated tap water brew taken straight from the tap to kettle tastes very different than one made with filtered water from the same water source.

That being said, some cities dose what with a mixture of sodium hypochlorite and ammonia, more commonly known as chloramine.  No amount of boiling will remove that compound.

Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 14, 2021, 04:00:01 pm
I am open to the points raised.  I remain dedicated to progress, yet I tend toward my own personal experience to reinforce an approach touted by others or criticized by others.  I tried SNS early on and found it to be working well and adopted it for starters.  I am open to an argument that production conditions for dry yeast do not reach sanitation in liquid yeast production levels.  I welcome this discussion without any prejudgment (nor lab skills and lab access).  Please continue....

I do not believe that the propagation of dry yeast in a bioreactor is problematic, but it may be.  We then have to deal with the fact that dry yeast has to first go through a fluidized bed dryer and then get packaged.  While things have improved from bad old days, it is clear that the process is not as foolproof as we have been led to believe.  I have remained silent on my dry yeast experiences since dry yeast became allegedly light years better than it used to be.  I chalked it up to I was used to brewing with cultured yeast that I propagated aseptically; therefore, I was more sensitive to yeast-derived off-flavors.  I am absolutely certain that people have had positive experiences with dry, but I am not blind to the fact that others who have been brewing for years with liquid cultures and/or cultured yeast have had trouble with dry yeast.  Yeast should be yeast.  In use, dry yeast should not perform any different that liquid cultures, but the evidence that it does is difficult to ignore.  Longer lags times are par for the course with dry yeast.  The peach ester that is common to US-05 is not common to any other Siebel BRY-96 descendant.  Why is that so?  Are the people who sense this ester crazy?  Or is the difference due to the fact people sense off-flavors at different thresholds. I suspect RC is blind to chlorophenols given his insistence that brewing with chlorinated water straight from the tap makes no difference in the outcome of a batch of beer.  On the other hand, I am so sensitive to phenolic compounds of any kind that I cannot drink Belgian beer or Hefeweizen. Cultures that are POF+ do not enter my brewery.  A place where I am blind is diacetyl.  I cannot sense that compound until it is at the almost in your face level.  We are talking about the full-on buttered popcorn or butterscotch level.  I know a BJCP judge who is like a bloodhound with respect to diacetyl.  He routinely astonishes me with his ability to sense it at low levels.

In the end, no one and do mean no one wants dry yeast to be the equal of cultured and liquid yeast more than me.  I have spent most of the time I have been brewing maintaining a yeast bank (that is why I know so much about yeast).  I was hoping this time around that I could focus on the beer instead of the microbiology of beer.  Trust me, maintaining a yeast bank is like having a second, unforgiving job.  To say that it is a lot of work is an understatement.  I am sure that Denny can attest to that reality. He was lucky enough to get Wyeast to propagate a Brewtek culture (CL-50) that he had kept alive for a long time.  I  plan to use Wyeast 1450 in an upcoming batch. The last time I used it was from a mini-slant of CL-50 in 1995.  It will be interesting to see how much the strain has remained stable over the years.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: RC on February 14, 2021, 04:25:50 pm
While these compounds will completely off-gas given enough time at a given temperature. They will not completely off-gas in the time it takes to hit strike temperature.

Respectfully, you're simply wrong about this. Have you actually tried it and tested it? And yes, I know chemistry, you're not the only scientist on this forum. You bring a lot of great knowledge to this forum but you should consider taking your own advice: "Hopefully, this forum will remain a little more open minded...Opportunity comes to those whose minds are prepared and still open to new knowledge."

I suspect RC is blind to chlorophenols given his insistence that brewing with chlorinated water straight from the tap makes no difference in the outcome of a batch of beer.

Nope. I know exactly what it takes like. Come on man. Do you think you're the only one on this forum with good sensory skills? I'm sure yours are great, but there's no need to knock others' sensory skills. Your dogmatism is actually a bit insulting. It's unfortunate, because again, you have a lot of knowledge to share and I appreciate (most of) your posts. You remind me of that LODO guy...
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: MDL on February 14, 2021, 05:48:27 pm
Municipal water systems DO in fact use chlorine gas for establishing a free residual for distribution.  Some use hypochlorite. More commonly now to use hypochlorite because of the dangers of large volumes of chlorine gas on site. But chlorine gas is still being used.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: fredthecat on February 14, 2021, 07:48:04 pm

The plate shown below was streaked from a culture I grew from the dregs of a bottle of Southern Tier bottle-conditioned pale ale.  We can assume that all of the well-isolated white dots on that plate are all the offspring is a single yeast cell; hence, the term single-cell pure culture or isolate.   What we do not know is if all of the well-isolated colonies are from a single strain of yeast.  The only way to know for certain is to transfer different colonies to different slants and use each slant to step-propagate a starter to use in brewing.  If the slants we create all produce the same fermentation characteristics, we know that we are dealing with a brewery that a) uses a single strain and b) has good biological quality control.  Now, the only way that the scientists who sequenced BRY-97 from the package could both come to the conclusion that the culture was not in the American family is if there were yeast colonies on the plate that were not BRY-97.  If Chris and Kristoffer are like me, they probably selected the largest well-isolated colony on the plate.  It could have been that the culture was infected with another yeast culture that grows faster and more robustly than BRY-97.  I have seen that occur in my own yeast travels.

i understand what youre saying. ive tried reading your posts carefully and respectfully, i think sometimes due in part to the complexity of quickly reducing this stuff into a few sentences for a wider audience than you are used to it can be confusing. but the paragraph above explains what you believe could be happening pretty clearly. the chance of "randomly" (well, not exactly) selecting the unwanted yeast is potentially higher than selecting the labelled yeast, however that doesnt change the fact that it is still there in the product.

Until I began pitching at Lallemand recommended rates I was very unhappy with the fermentation profile in terms of flavor. The final gravity was not an issue with lower pitch rates.

i don't know why i so frequently hear people say to potentially underpitch and ignore the recommended rates. i wouldnt say there is a concensus online to do this. it makes very little effort and price difference to pitch the correct amount of yeast for a batch of beer. and my focusing on that, i believe has definitely improved my beer.

I was never satisfied with lagers I attempted with liquid cultures. I assumed pitching rate was the cause. Never wanted to buy enough yeast or plan ahead to grow up enough.

same, i have been doing 2 or 3 lagers each winter now and considered liquid, but to get a correct pitch rate would require multiple steps up. the greater difference in ease between liquid lager yeast starters and oxygenation required vs just adding 2 or 3 sachets of dry yeas vs ale yeast makes discussing dry lager yeast all the more important.


Respectfully, you're simply wrong about this. Have you actually tried it and tested it? And yes, I know chemistry, you're not the only scientist on this forum. You bring a lot of great knowledge to this forum but you should consider taking your own advice: "Hopefully, this forum will remain a little more open minded...Opportunity comes to those whose minds are prepared and still open to new knowledge."

this topic is sort of unrelated but in my experience removing chlorine is pretty important for brewing. i used to have bandaidy tastes in my early beers before i started trying to treat my water before use. city water can vary drastically and even be different from the official reports. tbh i have not correctly nailed down my city's water qualities yet even after reading multiple reports the city publishes on it.
i currently just measure out the water required, add half a campden tablet (its usually in total about 6 to 8 gallons of water) and let it sit for 24 hours. not that much work and no filter required.



Nope. I know exactly what it takes like. Come on man. Do you think you're the only one on this forum with good sensory skills? I'm sure yours are great, but there's no need to knock others' sensory skills. Your dogmatism is actually a bit insulting. It's unfortunate, because again, you have a lot of knowledge to share and I appreciate (most of) your posts. You remind me of that LODO guy...

i dont want to seem like im whiteknighting here, but i think hes not personally insulting you, but saying different people have different perceptual abilities. tbh i havent ever noticed diacetyl in my beers that i can remember, though i have used yeasts that dont produce much of it usually, but i wonder now if i have a very high threshold for noticing it.
Title: Re: Fermentis W-34/70 is a monster
Post by: Saccharomyces on February 16, 2021, 12:05:37 pm
Respectfully, you're simply wrong about this. Have you actually tried it and tested it? And yes, I know chemistry, you're not the only scientist on this forum. You bring a lot of great knowledge to this forum but you should consider taking your own advice: "Hopefully, this forum will remain a little more open minded...Opportunity comes to those whose minds are prepared and still open to new knowledge."

Yes, I have brewed using a chlorinated municipal water supply without a chlorine filter.  I started brewing at time where it was still like being part of mad monk squad. To say that brewing knowledge was sparse is an understatement.   I too thought that removing chlorine from water was an unnecessary expense, but I was wrong.  The difference between before and after moving to a chlorine filter was like the difference between night and day with the water supply I had at that time.  That county still uses sodium hypochlorite as their disinfectant.  The dosing can get so high in the summer that the water coming out of the tap smells like pool water.  Hypochlorous acid and hypochloric acid may be unstable, but they do not off-gas in the time it takes to heat strike water to strike temperature unless they were at undetectable levels coming out of the tap.   Is a chlorine filter an absolute necessity? Well, not if one is willing to pre-boil one's water or at least allow it to sit long enough at a temperature for dissolved hypochlorous acid and hypochloric acid to off-gas.  However, taking water from a chlorinated tap, heating it to strike temperature, and immediately mashing-in is living life in the fast lane with respect to chlorophenol production. Chlorine pretty much starts to produce chlorophenols on contact with barley husks.  Chlorophenols are detectable at the ppb level.