[dmtaylor]

   Sorry, early morning cranial flatulence - looking at my notes S-23 actually has worked well for me, unbelievable amount of yeast sludge in the bottom of the conical but almost none at all in the bottles and reasonable attenuation.
   Dave, could you please expound upon your preference for 34/70.

I could be wrong but as I understand it, both S-23 and Mangrove Jack's California Lager yeasts are probably better suited to the California Common / "steam beer" style than to a bock.  W-34/70 is a good old reliable lager yeast that has made great beer for me and for many others.

[brewinhard]

I never heard of S-23 as a steam beer yeast. But I guess it could work in that profile if kept cool.

[Visor]

   NOTHING is foolproof. I pitched it in the starter about 7 hours ago and have a few bubbles rising in the wort, a tiny bit of foam on the surface and a bubble through the airlock about every 7 seconds, definitely the slowest yeast to take off I can recall. We'll see what it's doing tomorrow morning. And yes I know, a watched pot never boils.

[Philbrew]

   NOTHING is foolproof. I pitched it in the starter about 7 hours ago and have a few bubbles rising in the wort, a tiny bit of foam on the surface and a bubble through the airlock about every 7 seconds, definitely the slowest yeast to take off I can recall. We'll see what it's doing tomorrow morning. And yes I know, a watched pot never boils.

Hey, that's cookin' right along for a lager.  Patience my friend, it's gonna be really good beer.

[Visor]

She's a chugging along nicely this morning, ready to get to work. Unfortunately, patience has never been my strong suit but it's definitely required if one wants do brew lagers.

[Steve Ruch]

What are your concerns about S-23?

I found it to produce the worst results of any yeast I've ever used.  I'd describe it as disgustingly fruity.  John Palmer called is passion fruit wine cooler.

So, the perfect yeast to make one of those fruity alcopop "wine coolers"?

[majorvices]

   NOTHING is foolproof. I pitched it in the starter about 7 hours ago and have a few bubbles rising in the wort, a tiny bit of foam on the surface and a bubble through the airlock about every 7 seconds, definitely the slowest yeast to take off I can recall. We'll see what it's doing tomorrow morning. And yes I know, a watched pot never boils.

You should not make a starter with dry yeast. Just pitch more yeast. Dry yeasts already have their glycogen reserves stored up and making a starter can cause them to use those reserves if the starter is not large enough. For 5 gallons of 1.050 wort 2 packs would have been all you need. If you made a starter with one pack in say, 2 L of wort you likely did more damage than good.

Regardless, a 7 hour lag time on a lager is pretty damn good so not sure why you would be stressing that. Brewing in a commercial environment daily I usually have 14-24 hour lags on my lagers.

[Visor]

   That is interesting, and a bit different than the response I received a while back to the question of whether there was any downside to doing yeast starters with dry yeast, other than the time and planning involved.
   Something I'm struggling to understand is why our brewing yeasts don't behave like almost all other organisms. It is almost a universal constant that organisms will reproduce up to the limit of the carrying capacity of their environment. If they start with a smaller population when initially entering a new environment they will take longer to reach capacity, but will eventually do so. What are the specific factors that make this so problematic with brewing yeast? Hopefully any responses will not be too far over my head.

[brewinhard]

    What are the specific factors that make this so problematic with brewing yeast? Hopefully any responses will not be too far over my head.

Major is only responding about dry yeast and how they are prepared in the lab before packaging. Liquid yeast does pretty much work in this fashion.

[denny]

   That is interesting, and a bit different than the response I received a while back to the question of whether there was any downside to doing yeast starters with dry yeast, other than the time and planning involved.
   Something I'm struggling to understand is why our brewing yeasts don't behave like almost all other organisms. It is almost a universal constant that organisms will reproduce up to the limit of the carrying capacity of their environment. If they start with a smaller population when initially entering a new environment they will take longer to reach capacity, but will eventually do so. What are the specific factors that make this so problematic with brewing yeast? Hopefully any responses will not be too far over my head.

The issue is that for best beer quality, you want the yeast to replicate only 3-4 times.

[Visor]

  Thanks Denny. I get the fact that we don't want too many generations of reproduction if we wish to maintain beer quality and yeast performance. What I don't get is how we have available year in and year out consistent yeast strains that obviously are uncounted generations descended from their original progenitors. If there is so much genetic degradation after 3 or 4 generations that beer quality is compromised, how do the folks who provide us with yeast manage to overcome this instability?

[majorvices]

  Thanks Denny. I get the fact that we don't want too many generations of reproduction if we wish to maintain beer quality and yeast performance. What I don't get is how we have available year in and year out consistent yeast strains that obviously are uncounted generations descended from their original progenitors. If there is so much genetic degradation after 3 or 4 generations that beer quality is compromised, how do the folks who provide us with yeast manage to overcome this instability?

You are putting a lot more stress on your yeast during fermentation than what a lab does when it replicates a strain, and they have pure cultures to fall back on. Even then, some mutation probably does happen over time.

But even that isn't what denny was talking about. He is saying that you don't want the yeast growth to be too great during the fermentation.

[Philbrew]

  Thanks Denny. I get the fact that we don't want too many generations of reproduction if we wish to maintain beer quality and yeast performance. What I don't get is how we have available year in and year out consistent yeast strains that obviously are uncounted generations descended from their original progenitors. If there is so much genetic degradation after 3 or 4 generations that beer quality is compromised, how do the folks who provide us with yeast manage to overcome this instability?

You are putting a lot more stress on your yeast during fermentation than what a lab does when it replicates a strain, and they have pure cultures to fall back on. Even then, some mutation probably does happen over time.

But even that isn't what denny was talking about. He is saying that you don't want the yeast growth to be too great during the fermentation.

Is that because you want to initially pitch enough yeast to be sure to win the yeast/bacteria replication war or is there  some other reason?

[denny]

  Thanks Denny. I get the fact that we don't want too many generations of reproduction if we wish to maintain beer quality and yeast performance. What I don't get is how we have available year in and year out consistent yeast strains that obviously are uncounted generations descended from their original progenitors. If there is so much genetic degradation after 3 or 4 generations that beer quality is compromised, how do the folks who provide us with yeast manage to overcome this instability?

The lab has a master culture and subsequent cultures are made from that.  They replenish the master occasionally. 

[denny]

I could be wrong but as I understand it, both S-23 and Mangrove Jack's California Lager yeasts are probably better suited to the California Common / "steam beer" style than to a bock.  W-34/70 is a good old reliable lager yeast that has made great beer for me and for many others.

Dave, I'm not saying you're wrong, but why would those be better suited to steam beer?