Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => Yeast and Fermentation => Topic started by: PORTERHAUS on April 13, 2021, 11:06:14 am

Title: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: PORTERHAUS on April 13, 2021, 11:06:14 am
Fermentis just put out a very informative and detailed study they conducted on a few of their strains where rehydration vs direct pitch was tested. It also included different ways to rehydrate to test viability and performance vs direct pitching. There has been a lot of talk recently about this topic as it always seems to come up. For quite some time now we have been more comfortable recommending that aeration is not needed and also that direct pitching seems to work just as good and there is no need for rehydration. Well, for those that like the scientific side of things over the general word of mouth or because so and so on the forum said so or someone got secret squirrel information in an email...here ya go.


I haven't seen this mentioned or pop up so if it's already posted, delete it.

https://youtu.be/OJp8O6s9va0
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: ravenwater on April 13, 2021, 11:48:18 am
Thanks for sharing! I will take a look when I have a bit of time. Sounds like it could contain information worth having.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: majorvices on April 13, 2021, 12:39:15 pm
If you don't want to watch an hour long webinar the information is also in this pamphlet

https://fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brochure_Tips_and_Tricks_BAT_BD.pdf
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: fredthecat on April 13, 2021, 01:27:19 pm
Fermentis just put out a very informative and detailed study they conducted on a few of their strains where rehydration vs direct pitch was tested. It also included different ways to rehydrate to test viability and performance vs direct pitching. There has been a lot of talk recently about this topic as it always seems to come up. For quite some time now we have been more comfortable recommending that aeration is not needed and also that direct pitching seems to work just as good and there is no need for rehydration. Well, for those that like the scientific side of things over the general word of mouth or because so and so on the forum said so or someone got secret squirrel information in an email...here ya go.


I haven't seen this mentioned or pop up so if it's already posted, delete it.


excellent, im just watching now and havent seen the presenter's verdict on rehydrate vs direct but it starts around 18:30
https://youtu.be/OJp8O6s9va0


edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: denny on April 13, 2021, 01:52:28 pm
Fermentis just put out a very informative and detailed study they conducted on a few of their strains where rehydration vs direct pitch was tested. It also included different ways to rehydrate to test viability and performance vs direct pitching. There has been a lot of talk recently about this topic as it always seems to come up. For quite some time now we have been more comfortable recommending that aeration is not needed and also that direct pitching seems to work just as good and there is no need for rehydration. Well, for those that like the scientific side of things over the general word of mouth or because so and so on the forum said so or someone got secret squirrel information in an email...here ya go.


I haven't seen this mentioned or pop up so if it's already posted, delete it.


excellent, im just watching now and havent seen the presenter's verdict on rehydrate vs direct but it starts around 18:30
https://youtu.be/OJp8O6s9va0


edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Which is pretty much what they've been saying in their seminars for the last 5 years.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Saccharomyces on April 13, 2021, 02:50:42 pm
If you don't want to watch an hour long webinar the information is also in this pamphlet

https://fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brochure_Tips_and_Tricks_BAT_BD.pdf

Not all of the information that was covered in the webinar is included in the pamphlet.  I was finally glad to see someone backing up what I have said for years about the impact of shear stress on viability in stirred cultures.  Most people poo-pooed me on that claim because they were worshiping at the alter of Kai Troester, which stated that stirred cultures produced more cells.  Stirred cultures produce more cells because shear stress from the stir bar kills more cells.  The only cell count that matters is the viable cell count.  Yeast cells reproduce for replacement only after maximum cell density has been reached.  If there is no carbon source for the creation of replacement cells, the viable cell count actually goes down.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: dmtaylor on April 13, 2021, 03:18:43 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: majorvices on April 13, 2021, 03:55:46 pm
If you don't want to watch an hour long webinar the information is also in this pamphlet

https://fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brochure_Tips_and_Tricks_BAT_BD.pdf

Not all of the information that was covered in the webinar is included in the pamphlet.

True but some of the same graphs and information was in there. Likewise not all of the information in the pamphlet was covered in the webinar. Both are good resources for the subject.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: denny on April 13, 2021, 03:56:59 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.

The best data are data you gather yourself
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: PORTERHAUS on April 14, 2021, 05:40:54 am
excellent, im just watching now and havent seen the presenter's verdict on rehydrate vs direct but it starts around 18:30
https://youtu.be/OJp8O6s9va0

edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

I found it very interesting as well, it's different to see it like this with the testing and data for all the different scenarios.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: goose on April 14, 2021, 07:18:36 am
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.

The best data are data you gather yourself

+1
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: beersk on April 14, 2021, 12:26:06 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: erockrph on April 14, 2021, 01:01:53 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: denny on April 14, 2021, 01:06:34 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: tommymorris on April 14, 2021, 01:49:17 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.
Do you think US-05 has slowly drifted from the liquid versions or was always peachy? I used to use it a lot the 2010-2015 time frame. I don’t remember the peach but I was new to brewing so I might not have noticed.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: denny on April 14, 2021, 02:06:30 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.
Do you think US-05 has slowly drifted from the liquid versions or was always peachy? I used to use it a lot the 2010-2015 time frame. I don’t remember the peach but I was new to brewing so I might not have noticed.

I think it's always been there.  I don't recall 05 ever being a lot like 1056.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: BrewBama on April 14, 2021, 02:40:15 pm
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.

Some home brewers around the world can’t reliably get liquid strains so I vote for as many dry strains as possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: denny on April 14, 2021, 03:01:03 pm
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.

Some home brewers around the world can’t reliably get liquid strains so I vote for as many dry strains as possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Of course.  I've spent a fair amount of time with homebrewers in South America and dry yeast is 98% of what they can get and use.  I should have said something to the effect of "don't necessarily expect any dry yeast to be a lot like the liquid "equivalent"".
Title: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: tommymorris on April 14, 2021, 03:01:48 pm
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.

Some home brewers around the world can’t reliably get liquid strains so I vote for as many dry strains as possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes. It may not be fair to state they are equivalent to specific liquid strains. But, many are good and dry yeast users need/want variety too.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: dmtaylor on April 14, 2021, 04:39:11 pm
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

2278 isn't very far off from W-34/70.

But yeah, the others really don't have any great dried equivalents.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: clibit on April 14, 2021, 04:54:10 pm
The best data are data you gather yourself
Speak for yourself! You big beer geek you. 😉
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: erockrph on April 15, 2021, 04:28:25 am
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

2278 isn't very far off from W-34/70.

But yeah, the others really don't have any great dried equivalents.
Interesting - I find 2278 to be fairly different from 34/70. In my experience, 2278 tends to let hop flavor shine through while 34/70 tends to mute hop expression. Also, I have never gotten any sulfur from 34/70 no matter how I've used it. WY2278 gives me that faint matchstick character that you get from a lot of continental lagers.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: beersk on April 15, 2021, 12:45:52 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.
Yes, this is true... Still it'd be nice to have the option.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: erockrph on April 15, 2021, 03:01:27 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.
Yes, this is true... Still it'd be nice to have the option.
Indeed. I'd take a dry English strain that is fruitier than Winsor, a dry Belgian strain that is dark fruit forward and less phenolic, and a hop-accentuating dry lager yeast, even if they aren't exactly equivalent to 1469, 1762 or 2278.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Saccharomyces on April 15, 2021, 03:55:53 pm
Do you think US-05 has slowly drifted from the liquid versions or was always peachy? I used to use it a lot the 2010-2015 time frame. I don’t remember the peach but I was new to brewing so I might not have noticed.

I believe that the seed culture is close to the original, but we are talking about an industrial process that takes a colony that grows from a single yeast cell on a plate and turns it into tens of tons of yeast via the respirative (aerobic) metabolic pathway.  That is a lot of cell generations to go without actually fermenting anything.  Fermentation is a selective stress because fermentation produces ethanol and ethanol places stress on a yeast culture.  If you viewed the webinar, the speaker alluded to replicating yeast in a way that maximizes ATP production. ATP is a form of energy that can be used directly by cells.  When we pitch yeast, the medium is above the Crabtree threshold; therefore, yeast cells replicate using their fermentative (anaerobic) metabolic pathway.  Ethanol, esters, and diketones (e.g., diacetyl) are metabolic waste products that are the result of inefficiency in the fermentative metabolic pathway.   The guys at the dry yeast plants are keeping the medium below the Crabtree threshold, so that the culture never produces any of these carbon-based metabolic products.  It converts a carbon source (sugar is carbon bound to water) into energy, carbon dioxide, and water.  It is a very efficient way to propagate yeast, but I believe that it has side effects. However, that is just my opinion.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Steve Ruch on April 15, 2021, 04:17:12 pm
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.

Some home brewers around the world can’t reliably get liquid strains so I vote for as many dry strains as possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Of course.  I've spent a fair amount of time with homebrewers in South America and dry yeast is 98% of what they can get and use.  I should have said something to the effect of "don't necessarily expect any dry yeast to be a lot like the liquid "equivalent"".
Equivalent or not, does it give you the results you want in the finished beer!
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: clibit on April 16, 2021, 02:14:59 am
Indeed. I'd take a dry English strain that is fruitier than Winsor, a dry Belgian strain that is dark fruit forward and less phenolic, and a hop-accentuating dry lager yeast, even if they aren't exactly equivalent to 1469, 1762 or 2278.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I'd say...
Verdant IPA is English and fruitier than Windsor. It is not much different from 1318 and started life as 1318. I'm English and drink cask regularly in England.

And Lallemand Abbaye is dark fruit forward and less phenolic.

I like both of these a lot.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: erockrph on April 16, 2021, 06:34:53 am
Indeed. I'd take a dry English strain that is fruitier than Winsor, a dry Belgian strain that is dark fruit forward and less phenolic, and a hop-accentuating dry lager yeast, even if they aren't exactly equivalent to 1469, 1762 or 2278.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I'd say...
Verdant IPA is English and fruitier than Windsor. It is not much different from 1318 and started life as 1318. I'm English and drink cask regularly in England.

And Lallemand Abbaye is dark fruit forward and less phenolic.

I like both of these a lot.
Thanks for the tips! I'll have to add these to the queue.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: fredthecat on April 16, 2021, 10:05:56 am
Indeed. I'd take a dry English strain that is fruitier than Winsor, a dry Belgian strain that is dark fruit forward and less phenolic, and a hop-accentuating dry lager yeast, even if they aren't exactly equivalent to 1469, 1762 or 2278.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I'd say...
Verdant IPA is English and fruitier than Windsor. It is not much different from 1318 and started life as 1318. I'm English and drink cask regularly in England.

And Lallemand Abbaye is dark fruit forward and less phenolic.

I like both of these a lot.

yup i really want to try verdant IPA (what an odd name tho?) and to a slightly lesser extent lallemand abbaye.

anyone actually a fan of T58? It's a nostalgic yeast, but honestly I find it versatile and the flavours it produces pleasant. it is also usually very cheap, around $3
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: PORTERHAUS on April 16, 2021, 10:25:59 am
I have a pack of the Verdant yeast as well, waiting to use that in a Hazy IPA sometime, maybe over the summer. I'm gonna throw out another Fermentis yeast that doesn't get too much attention. S-33, to me it's ballpark flavor profile and mouthfeel of Wyeast 1969. It gets to work fast, goes hard and leaves a bit of sugars behind, doesn't drop clear like 1969 but for a few beers I really like it. English Porter, Stouts, Amber Ales, Browns...middle of the road ales where you can go either American or English yeast.
Title: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: BrewBama on April 16, 2021, 10:41:47 am
I have a pack of Verdant as well (thanks Mark). It’s from the Verdant brewery in the UK. I am going to use it in one of my small test batches sometime soon.

https://youtu.be/fv5Mw7tOHig


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: roger on April 16, 2021, 10:59:36 am
I plan to brew the fifth batch from a single sachet of Verdant tomorrow. Probably the last, only because I am anxious to get going with a few lagers.

If you like 1318 you will like Verdant. It does come across as slightly fruity to me, but not overly so. Predictable attenuation, and easy to top crop. I am quickly becoming a fan of this one.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Saccharomyces on April 16, 2021, 03:00:13 pm
Verdant IPA is English and fruitier than Windsor. It is not much different from 1318 and started life as 1318. I'm English and drink cask regularly in England.

I purchased four packages of Verdant IPA in the fall.  I gave two packages to BrewBama when I mailed my remaining packages of W-34/70 to him.

By way, I now agree with you that 1318 is not Boddington's.  It is probably not Youngs or Fullers.  What about the Anchor brewery?  Is that a possibility?
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: BeerfanOz on April 16, 2021, 03:20:27 pm
Verdant is the best dry yeast I’ve used. I only use it for British ales, because I like them. I don’t like Nottingham or s04 and though I used to use s05, im not a fan of it these days. Very glad I tried verdant. If I don’t use 1469 I use verdant.

I’ve never been as happy with dry lager yeast compared to liquid. Not sure why, I just end up going back to liquids after trying dry lager yeast.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: denny on April 16, 2021, 04:20:31 pm
Verdant IPA is English and fruitier than Windsor. It is not much different from 1318 and started life as 1318. I'm English and drink cask regularly in England.

I purchased four packages of Verdant IPA in the fall.  I gave two packages to BrewBama when I mailed my remaining packages of W-34/70 to him.

By way, I now agree with you that 1318 is not Boddington's.  It is probably not Youngs or Fullers.  What about the Anchor brewery?  Is that a possibility?

Wyeast calls it London III so if it's Anchor maybe they got it from a British brewery.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: nateo on April 16, 2021, 05:18:17 pm
Just picked up some Verdant for an IPA, but wondering if it'd work in something like an 80/- or a mild?
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: roger on April 16, 2021, 06:10:37 pm
Just picked up some Verdant for an IPA, but wondering if it'd work in something like an 80/- or a mild?
IMHO. Yes. I have used it in a Sweet Stout, Irish Ale, NEIPA, and a Pale Ale and have happy with all. Might be a bit fruity for a 80/- but that would be good for my taste. YMMV.

Sent from my LM-V450 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: erockrph on April 16, 2021, 07:42:39 pm
Ok, 2 packs of Verdant on order from Label Peelers. Ron Pattinson is on an AK kick right now, and he's put that idea in my head. Looks like I'll be having a nice light bitter on tap soon.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: nateo on April 16, 2021, 07:46:09 pm
Bitter is one of those styles that's pretty much impossible to get in the states. I used to live by a brewery that had mild and bitter in cask but now I gotta make my own if I want some. . .
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Richard on April 16, 2021, 07:58:44 pm
Well, you can get it but it isn't fresh. I saw some Fuller's ESB in the store today but it was unrefrigerated on a shelf, and who knows how long it had been there. I really wanted to buy some but I decided it wasn't worth it.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: nateo on April 16, 2021, 08:01:16 pm
Yeah you can get Fullers, which is good, but I've never seen a commercial regular bitter at a liquor store.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: deckerhand on April 16, 2021, 11:33:14 pm
I have my stuff shipped to me from northern brewer so I also go on the safe side and get dry yeast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: deckerhand on April 16, 2021, 11:35:58 pm
edit: this is INCREDIBLE information on testing. this is great so far. wow. temp barely matters, time of rehydration barely matters, without agitation produced better results than mixing or agitation.

ok, and well it looks like there is basically no difference in results in almost any way between direct pitch and rehydration. also very little loss of vitality between fresh yeast and "artifically aged for 3 years" yeast in their study.

dry yeast, at least produced by fermentis, is really hardy stuff.

Thanks for the quick summary.  I am not at all surprised.  In my own homebrewery, experience has demonstrated many dozens of times all of these truths.  Which are part of the reasons why I tend to use dried yeasts almost all the time now and have for several years.  If we could eventually obtain great dried yeasts for every style... well I believe I would!  Things are getting better every year, closer and closer, that's for sure.
We need a dry yeast for WY1084!!!
And 1469, 1762, 2278, if we're starting a wish list  ;D

Think about how far US05 is from 1056.  Then ask yourself what dry versions of those would be like.
Do you think US-05 has slowly drifted from the liquid versions or was always peachy? I used to use it a lot the 2010-2015 time frame. I don’t remember the peach but I was new to brewing so I might not have noticed.
05 is still my go to yeast I keep it in the 59 to 65 temp range I haven’t noticed any flavors from it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: fredthecat on April 17, 2021, 12:22:37 am
I have a pack of the Verdant yeast as well, waiting to use that in a Hazy IPA sometime, maybe over the summer. I'm gonna throw out another Fermentis yeast that doesn't get too much attention. S-33, to me it's ballpark flavor profile and mouthfeel of Wyeast 1969. It gets to work fast, goes hard and leaves a bit of sugars behind, doesn't drop clear like 1969 but for a few beers I really like it. English Porter, Stouts, Amber Ales, Browns...middle of the road ales where you can go either American or English yeast.

hey man, i appreciate your posts and read them through. i've never tried s-33, slightly before my time tbh, but i always hear such crazy stuff about it.

any other descriptors? it's probably the most contentious yeast i can think of.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Saccharomyces on April 17, 2021, 06:02:22 am
Wyeast calls it London III so if it's Anchor maybe they got it from a British brewery.

I should have been more specific.  I was not referring to the Anchor brewery in San Francisco.  I was referring to the Anchor brewery in London, which was originally owned by Barclay Perkins & Co and later Courage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Brewery
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on April 17, 2021, 09:03:51 am
Wyeast calls it London III so if it's Anchor maybe they got it from a British brewery.

I should have been more specific.  I was not referring to the Anchor brewery in San Francisco.  I was referring to the Anchor brewery in London, which was originally owned by Barclay Perkins & Co and later Courage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Brewery
The Anchor pub is still on the south side of the Thames. The old brewery buildings are nearby.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: denny on April 17, 2021, 09:04:16 am
Wyeast calls it London III so if it's Anchor maybe they got it from a British brewery.

I should have been more specific.  I was not referring to the Anchor brewery in San Francisco.  I was referring to the Anchor brewery in London, which was originally owned by Barclay Perkins & Co and later Courage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Brewery

That makes sense.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: chinaski on April 17, 2021, 04:11:10 pm
Do you think US-05 has slowly drifted from the liquid versions or was always peachy? I used to use it a lot the 2010-2015 time frame. I don’t remember the peach but I was new to brewing so I might not have noticed.

I believe that the seed culture is close to the original, but we are talking about an industrial process that takes a colony that grows from a single yeast cell on a plate and turns it into tens of tons of yeast via the respirative (aerobic) metabolic pathway.  That is a lot of cell generations to go without actually fermenting anything.  Fermentation is a selective stress because fermentation produces ethanol and ethanol places stress on a yeast culture.  If you viewed the webinar, the speaker alluded to replicating yeast in a way that maximizes ATP production. ATP is a form of energy that can be used directly by cells.  When we pitch yeast, the medium is above the Crabtree threshold; therefore, yeast cells replicate using their fermentative (anaerobic) metabolic pathway.  Ethanol, esters, and diketones (e.g., diacetyl) are metabolic waste products that are the result of inefficiency in the fermentative metabolic pathway.   The guys at the dry yeast plants are keeping the medium below the Crabtree threshold, so that the culture never produces any of these carbon-based metabolic products.  It converts a carbon source (sugar is carbon bound to water) into energy, carbon dioxide, and water.  It is a very efficient way to propagate yeast, but I believe that it has side effects. However, that is just my opinion.

I think the question to ask is: does the way that yeast is produced to make it available in the dry form different than the way for liquid yeast?  If so, does this lend itself to drift of those dry yeasts in a certain direction in terms of brewing qualities?

I'm assuming there are certain production differences between liquid and dry yeast that make some strains more amenable to being produced in dry form?

 
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: fredthecat on April 17, 2021, 07:18:25 pm

I think the question to ask is: does the way that yeast is produced to make it available in the dry form different than the way for liquid yeast?  If so, does this lend itself to drift of those dry yeasts in a certain direction in terms of brewing qualities?

I'm assuming there are certain production differences between liquid and dry yeast that make some strains more amenable to being produced in dry form?

yup, apparently that is the reason why they havent made certain popular liquid yeast varieties into dry yet, though im not an expert on the exact whys.
Title: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: BrewBama on April 18, 2021, 06:46:29 am
The mfr processes for dry yeast may influence which strains are produced but I’d say the biggest influence is the market. Notice the newest strains from one mfr are the Voss kveik and Verdant. The release of those strains  follows the influence of the market.

If you look across the portfolio you see they have covered most styles with at least one product and in some cases they may offer a choice between two products per style. They may never offer the subtle nuance of multiple strains across a style (i.e. three or four lager or English strains) like other mfrs.

In any case, I believe the mfr process has advanced to a point that the products they do offer are head and shoulders above what was offered years ago despite the old timers turned off by the recollection of the crap that used to be offered. A bad reputation can be hard to live down.

“Do what you want to do. If you like the results you did it right.” —Brew Dudes

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Saccharomyces on April 18, 2021, 08:16:01 am
I agree that the dry brewer's yeast cultures offered today are more reliable than what was offered years ago, but I believe that research still needs to be performed with respect to propagating brewer's yeast aerobically that performs exactly like brewer's yeast that is propagated anaerobically.  The brewers yeast strain's that we enjoy have been propagated under anaerobic conditions for hundreds of years; therefore, they are what they are because of the stresses placed on a culture when propagated anaerobically.   We are taking about yeast cultures that are used to the stresses incurred during the lag, exponential growth, stationary, and quiescent phases that occur in anaerobic (fermentative) use.  Unlike wild most yeast strains, domesticated brewer's yeast strains can handle ethanol levels found in fermentation.  That is due to the stresses they have been subjected to over hundreds of years.  I have my doubts that the dry yeast propagators have a reached a point where they can cause this selective process to occur under aerobic conditions.  One place that the dry yeast manufactures need to research is the loss of flocculation in many of the dry cultures.  Sure, there are standouts such as S-04, but most dry yeast cultures are significantly more powdery than their liquid reference cultures.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: denny on April 18, 2021, 08:30:55 am
Do you think US-05 has slowly drifted from the liquid versions or was always peachy? I used to use it a lot the 2010-2015 time frame. I don’t remember the peach but I was new to brewing so I might not have noticed.

I believe that the seed culture is close to the original, but we are talking about an industrial process that takes a colony that grows from a single yeast cell on a plate and turns it into tens of tons of yeast via the respirative (aerobic) metabolic pathway.  That is a lot of cell generations to go without actually fermenting anything.  Fermentation is a selective stress because fermentation produces ethanol and ethanol places stress on a yeast culture.  If you viewed the webinar, the speaker alluded to replicating yeast in a way that maximizes ATP production. ATP is a form of energy that can be used directly by cells.  When we pitch yeast, the medium is above the Crabtree threshold; therefore, yeast cells replicate using their fermentative (anaerobic) metabolic pathway.  Ethanol, esters, and diketones (e.g., diacetyl) are metabolic waste products that are the result of inefficiency in the fermentative metabolic pathway.   The guys at the dry yeast plants are keeping the medium below the Crabtree threshold, so that the culture never produces any of these carbon-based metabolic products.  It converts a carbon source (sugar is carbon bound to water) into energy, carbon dioxide, and water.  It is a very efficient way to propagate yeast, but I believe that it has side effects. However, that is just my opinion.

I think the question to ask is: does the way that yeast is produced to make it available in the dry form different than the way for liquid yeast?  If so, does this lend itself to drift of those dry yeasts in a certain direction in terms of brewing qualities?

I'm assuming there are certain production differences between liquid and dry yeast that make some strains more amenable to being produced in dry form?

Yes, yes, and yes
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Saccharomyces on April 18, 2021, 09:37:39 am
Yes, yes, and yes

Concur!   The way dry yeast is manufactured is foreign to brewing yeast.  Brewing yeast is unique in that is meant to be re-used.  Baker's strains are not usually re-used and neither are stains used in wine and spirits productions.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: chinaski on April 19, 2021, 04:42:17 pm
Interesting- thank you.  Two more questions:
Wouldn't you expect that the strains offered by the dry yeast labs have also passed through the same selection up until they get into production at the said manufacturer?  Are you saying that once those strains go into production for dry yeast they again experience enough selection through that unique process to make them qualitatively (and quantitatively) different?

Finally, why is dry yeast production and liquid yeast production not exposing the yeast to similar selection?
Thanks for the education Sac!
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: Saccharomyces on April 21, 2021, 05:27:24 pm
Interesting- thank you.  Two more questions:
Wouldn't you expect that the strains offered by the dry yeast labs have also passed through the same selection up until they get into production at the said manufacturer?  Are you saying that once those strains go into production for dry yeast they again experience enough selection through that unique process to make them qualitatively (and quantitatively) different?

Finally, why is dry yeast production and liquid yeast production not exposing the yeast to similar selection?
Thanks for the education Sac!

I am really tired, so I am going to keep this explanation short because I have explained the difference at least a hundred times on this site.  Dry yeast is propagated in a medium that is held in a steady state below the Crabtree threshold.  That is an S.G. 1.0008 or less.  Yeast cells have two metabolic pathways.  Batch liquid culture propagation uses the anaerobic (fermentative) metabolic pathway.  Dry yeast producers propagate yeast cells using their aerobic (respirative) metabolic pathway because they propagate below the Crabtree threshold.  A yeast cell's aerobic metabolic pathway converts carbon (sugar is carbon bound to water) to energy, carbon dioxide gas, and water.  Its anaerobic metabolic pathway converts carbon to energy, alcohols, esters, and diketones.  Herein lies a big difference between how dry yeast and liquid yeast is propagated.  Not only is dry yeast not subjected to much in the way of osmotic pressure from the medium.  It is also not subject to the stresses imposed alcohols, esters, and diketones, which are all metabolic waste products of the anaerobic metabolic pathway.  These are the very stresses brewers place on a culture when they pitch it into a batch of wort because all brewer's wort is above an S.G. 1.0008.  There is lot of science between the two different ways of propagating yeast cells, but it suffices to say, no, dry yeast and liquid yeast are not propagated the same way, not even close.  That is why dry yeast does not need to be aerated on the initial pitch whereas liquid yeast, like cropped yeast, needs to be aerated.  Liquid yeast is propagated in a way that is more natural to beer production.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: chinaski on April 21, 2021, 06:56:20 pm
Thanks- that is helpful. 
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: RC on April 21, 2021, 07:14:34 pm
I am really tired, so I am going to keep this explanation short because I have explained the difference at least a hundred times on this site.  Dry yeast is propagated in a medium that is held in a steady state below the Crabtree threshold.  That is an S.G. 1.0008 or less.  Yeast cells have two metabolic pathways.  Batch liquid culture propagation uses the anaerobic (fermentative) metabolic pathway.  Dry yeast producers propagate yeast cells using their aerobic (respirative) metabolic pathway because they propagate below the Crabtree threshold.  A yeast cell's aerobic metabolic pathway converts carbon (sugar is carbon bound to water) to energy, carbon dioxide gas, and water.  Its anaerobic metabolic pathway converts carbon to energy, alcohols, esters, and diketones.  Herein lies a big difference between how dry yeast and liquid yeast is propagated.  Not only is dry yeast not subjected to much in the way of osmotic pressure from the medium.  It is also not subject to the stresses imposed alcohols, esters, and diketones, which are all metabolic waste products of the anaerobic metabolic pathway.  These are the very stresses brewers place on a culture when they pitch it into a batch of wort because all brewer's wort is above an S.G. 1.0008.  The is lot of science between the two different ways of propagating yeast cells, but it suffices to say, no, dry yeast and liquid yeast are not propagated the same way, not even close.  That is why dry yeast does not need to be aerated on the initial pitch whereas liquid yeast, like cropped yeast, needs to be aerated.  Liquid yeast is propagated in a way that is more natural to beer production.

Friendly suggestion: of those >100 explanations, why don't you just pick your best one and then put a link to it in a reply. It would save you time, ATP, tiredness, and eye-rolling.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: roger on April 22, 2021, 03:10:21 pm
IDK who decides a post worthy to be pinned, but one of Saccharomyces' posts on this subject seems a good one. I find it curious there are no pinned posts in the Yeast and Fermentation category.

Sent from my LM-V450 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: clibit on May 08, 2021, 12:55:52 am
I purchased four packages of Verdant IPA in the fall.  I gave two packages to BrewBama when I mailed my remaining packages of W-34/70 to him.

By way, I now agree with you that 1318 is not Boddington's.  It is probably not Youngs or Fullers.  What about the Anchor brewery?  Is that a possibility?
Sorry, I missed this.
I don't know but one theory is that 1318 might be a Whitbread strain. This is from the suregork website:

"Wyeast 1318 London Ale III – Seems to be another member of that little Whitbread II subfamily.  Traditionally it’s linked to Boddington’s which I never quite believed but Boddies had all sorts of yeast problems in the 1980s (I've heard this from other places, I live about 3 miles from the site of the Bodds brewery) and were bought by Whitbread in 1989 so it’s plausible that the original yeast was ultimately replaced by one from the yeast bank at head office (perhaps after they’d tried others?)."

I don't know when Wyeast acquired the 1318 strain. The timing might be helpful.

The suregork chart places 1318 closest to Wy1945, and then 1098 and WLP017.

Have you tried the Verdant yet? I like it, to me it is a bit different to 1318 but behaves in a very similar manner. I am enjoying using it across a variety of styles, especially brown and dark ales and American hopped pales. I'll happily use it in English pales but it's a bit too vanilla and apricot to be ideal, for my taste at least. So there's still a gap with the dry options, for me.

I do use S-33 occasionally. It's similar to Windsor I feel. I've recently blended some dry yeasts in a few brews and found S-33 and Nottingham quite effective. Much better flocc for one thing. Bry-97 and Windsor might be better. It's keeping me amused anyway, trying things. Notty and Belle Saison produced a fruity dry session pale, slightly tart, that's going down very nicely. Tastes more APA than EPA, I used Crystal hops for the first time.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: fredthecat on May 08, 2021, 10:01:19 am
I purchased four packages of Verdant IPA in the fall.  I gave two packages to BrewBama when I mailed my remaining packages of W-34/70 to him.

By way, I now agree with you that 1318 is not Boddington's.  It is probably not Youngs or Fullers.  What about the Anchor brewery?  Is that a possibility?
Sorry, I missed this.
I don't know but one theory is that 1318 might be a Whitbread strain. This is from the suregork website:

"Wyeast 1318 London Ale III – Seems to be another member of that little Whitbread II subfamily.  Traditionally it’s linked to Boddington’s which I never quite believed but Boddies had all sorts of yeast problems in the 1980s (I've heard this from other places, I live about 3 miles from the site of the Bodds brewery) and were bought by Whitbread in 1989 so it’s plausible that the original yeast was ultimately replaced by one from the yeast bank at head office (perhaps after they’d tried others?)."

I don't know when Wyeast acquired the 1318 strain. The timing might be helpful.

The suregork chart places 1318 closest to Wy1945, and then 1098 and WLP017.

Have you tried the Verdant yet? I like it, to me it is a bit different to 1318 but behaves in a very similar manner. I am enjoying using it across a variety of styles, especially brown and dark ales and American hopped pales. I'll happily use it in English pales but it's a bit too vanilla and apricot to be ideal, for my taste at least. So there's still a gap with the dry options, for me.

I do use S-33 occasionally. It's similar to Windsor I feel. I've recently blended some dry yeasts in a few brews and found S-33 and Nottingham quite effective. Much better flocc for one thing. Bry-97 and Windsor might be better. It's keeping me amused anyway, trying things. Notty and Belle Saison produced a fruity dry session pale, slightly tart, that's going down very nicely. Tastes more APA than EPA, I used Crystal hops for the first time.

hey, i keep seeing your posts and while i have nothing to really add to this post, i appreciate the (for me) fresh perspectives from across the pond. as i might have said in another thread this coming brewing year (october to may - yes its actually just a practical schedule for me to follow here in canada) im aiming for mostly english styles.

i  feel like 1318 is used as a catchall for "use this yeast instead of this one". i tried it this year and i don't imagine i'll be using it again in the near future.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: erockrph on May 08, 2021, 10:02:42 am

Notty and Belle Saison produced a fruity dry session pale, slightly tart, that's going down very nicely. Tastes more APA than EPA, I used Crystal hops for the first time.


Interesting. How did the combo perform compared to Belle on its own? Notty is cleaner and less attenuative than Belle, so I have a hard time picturing what it would add.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: clibit on May 08, 2021, 12:33:02 pm

Notty and Belle Saison produced a fruity dry session pale, slightly tart, that's going down very nicely. Tastes more APA than EPA, I used Crystal hops for the first time.


Interesting. How did the combo perform compared to Belle on its own? Notty is cleaner and less attenuative than Belle, so I have a hard time picturing what it would add.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I pitched 3g Belle 18 hours after 4g Notty in an 8 litre batch (I split 40 litres 5 ways). There was a krausen already formed. It only got down to about 1008. Surprisingly. I think the Notty head start allowed it to have a sizeable influence. There's a distinct tart citrus to the beer, which the hops must have contributed towards, but it's not super dry, the mouthfeel is not so Belle like. Lallemand has done some stuff recommending dual yeast pitches, and this is one of them. I intend to try different timings and proportions, cos I like the combination and am interested in how it can be varied. I'm going to try Belle with T-58 too. And Verdant.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: roger on May 08, 2021, 02:09:30 pm
I am interested in the Lallemand recommendations regarding multiple yeast pitches but couldn't find it on their website. Is this information available?
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: clibit on May 08, 2021, 02:31:25 pm
I am interested in the Lallemand recommendations regarding multiple yeast pitches but couldn't find it on their website. Is this information available?
Hi Roger. I emailed Lallemand and I was sent a set of presentation slides about co-fermentation. That presentation is covered in this video...

https://youtu.be/nmA4xraEScU

Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: roger on May 09, 2021, 05:58:26 am
Thanks clibit. Very interesting. Its funny that I subscribe to his channel but missed those two.

After thinking more about this, the downside is harvesting yeast for subsequent batches seems problematic for the average homebrewer. Any harvested slurry will be a mix with no chance of pitching separately. Thinking on my keyboard, one would have to maintain a slurry of each separately, or use new yeast each batch. If this is true, the results will have to be impressive for me to use this technique routinely. YMMV.

I'll be interested in reading anyone's experiences with this method.
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: erockrph on May 09, 2021, 07:01:51 am
Thanks clibit. Very interesting. Its funny that I subscribe to his channel but missed those two.

After thinking more about this, the downside is harvesting yeast for subsequent batches seems problematic for the average homebrewer. Any harvested slurry will be a mix with no chance of pitching separately. Thinking on my keyboard, one would have to maintain a slurry of each separately, or use new yeast each batch. If this is true, the results will have to be impressive for me to use this technique routinely. YMMV.

I'll be interested in reading anyone's experiences with this method.
Before you make that conclusion I'd suggest that you try it first. I use the Windsor + Notty combo all the time. I always see the recommendation to pitch the Windsor first to allow for more ester formation, but I just pitch them together from the start, and I get the character I'm looking for. I'm not convinced that the timing or exact ratio of cells from one strain vs the other is critically important in these copitches. That said, I don't do a lot of repitching, so I can't confirm that for subsequent batches.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: deckerhand on May 09, 2021, 07:55:34 am
I am interested in the Lallemand recommendations regarding multiple yeast pitches but couldn't find it on their website. Is this information available?
Hi Roger. I emailed Lallemand and I was sent a set of presentation slides about co-fermentation. That presentation is covered in this video...

https://youtu.be/nmA4xraEScU
Interesting when if you could do that with dry yeast mix on together and see how they work together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Fermentis Dry Yeast Study
Post by: roger on May 09, 2021, 09:00:55 am
Before you make that conclusion I'd suggest that you try it first. I use the Windsor + Notty combo all the time. I always see the recommendation to pitch the Windsor first to allow for more ester formation, but I just pitch them together from the start, and I get the character I'm looking for. I'm not convinced that the timing or exact ratio of cells from one strain vs the other is critically important in these copitches. That said, I don't do a lot of repitching, so I can't confirm that for subsequent batches.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
[/quote]

Eric, that's good advice. I need to do some tests before reaching conclusions.