[dhacker]

Heard another Nottingham recall is on the way. Think Danstar might want to investigate their QC procedures.

[euge]

The two packs sitting in my fridge for the last six months ought to be ok?

[ullarsskald1989]

Looks like the yeast involved was produced in Austria.

Have never had a problem with Danstar yeasts produced in Canada.

[roguejim]

SH*T!!

I just bought two packs a couple of days ago.  Can someone post the source of this news?  I'll call my LHBS if I can verify the claim, which he will no doubt ask for.

[tubercle]

Tubercle had some of the last recall but used it anyway and didn't notice any adverse effects. Of course, my beer may be of such bad quality that nothing hurts it

[dhacker]

SH*T!!

I just bought two packs a couple of days ago.  Can someone post the source of this news?  I'll call my LHBS if I can verify the claim, which he will no doubt ask for.

An LHBS/ Online Retailer said he received an email about the recall . .

[dhacker]

The two packs sitting in my fridge for the last six months ought to be ok?

Here's the lot info:

Batch lot #: 1080961099V
Exp Date: 12/2011

[roguejim]

An email from Danstar:
"Thanks for your inquiry. Indeed we are asking retailers to suspend sales of batch number 1080961099V and to return the inventory to us, and we will be posting something to homebrew forums in the coming days as well. While our tests of retained samples of this batch are fermenting properly, there are a lot of people reporting difficulties with this batch via forums, and we have received inquiries from a few people that have contacted us directly. We feel it is better to withdraw this batch from the market and assess the nature of the issue rather than risk brewers getting disappointing results.
 
Thanks again, and let me know if you have any more questions."
 
Keith Lemcke
Danstar & Lalvin Premium Yeast


Crap!  It looks like I have some of this lot.  Time to call my LHBS.

[euge]

The two packs sitting in my fridge for the last six months ought to be ok?

Here's the lot info:

Batch lot #: 1080961099V
Exp Date: 12/2011

And indeed. This is the yeast I have. Probably, it's been more like three months.

Tubercle had some of the last recall but used it anyway and didn't notice any adverse effects. Of course, my beer may be of such bad quality that nothing hurts it

Euge wonders if he will notice any difference too...

An email from Danstar:
"Thanks for your inquiry. Indeed we are asking retailers to suspend sales of batch number 1080961099V and to return the inventory to us, and we will be posting something to homebrew forums in the coming days as well. While our tests of retained samples of this batch are fermenting properly, there are a lot of people reporting difficulties with this batch via forums, and we have received inquiries from a few people that have contacted us directly. We feel it is better to withdraw this batch from the market and assess the nature of the issue rather than risk brewers getting disappointing results.
 
Thanks again, and let me know if you have any more questions."
 
Keith Lemcke
Danstar & Lalvin Premium Yeast


Crap!  It looks like I have some of this lot.  Time to call my LHBS.

Is the dry yeast tainted with bacteria or what? What are the "difficulties" reported? And what constitutes "a lot of people"?

[SiameseMoose]

The problem the last time was that most of the yeast was dead, and the effective pitching amount was too small. Lots of fermentations took a long time to get going. At the time I worked at the LHBS, and we had problems with some of our kits.

[BrewArk]

(not) Thinking, I ordered a packet from Austin.  When it didn't take off I checked the packet & sure enough the dreaded lot:
Batch lot #: 1080961099V
Exp Date: 12/2011

Looks like it isn't through the system.

[euge]

Still have the two packets. Considering pitching both of them into a one or two gallon test-batch, which would be a "starter" for another bigger batch.

Anyone see a problem with this approach?

I do have a loose philosophy of when in doubt throw it out...

[BrewArk]

Still have the two packets. Considering pitching both of them into a one or two gallon test-batch, which would be a "starter" for another bigger batch.

Anyone see a problem with this approach?

I do have a loose philosophy of when in doubt throw it out...

If you can't take 'em back to where you got 'em for an exchange, That's about the best you can do.

Mine didn't appear homogeneous, & didn't dissolve completely.  From my experience they ARE BAD, so I'd have another presumably good, packet on hand to rescue the batch.

[euge]

I think you're right. It was only about $4 worth of yeast. Why create a headache for myself when it could be avoided altogether.

[rbclay]

mmmm.... that's the same lot as the packs in my fridge! I used some about a month ago as a bottling yeast. Hard to tell, but I think it worked fine. Oh well...