Nottingham Yeast

[smizak]

There is a serious problem with this batch of yeast.

I've bought two packs of this lot, 1080961099V exp. 12 2011, from my LHBS. I actually stepped on my first pack when it fell out of a bag so I went back to the store and bought a second, same lot #. It's exactly as a previous poster described, it would not hydrate. It just stayed grainy, even after 45 minutes in water. I pitched it anyway, hoping for the best. 24 hours later, nothing.

Before someone comes in here with the 48-72 hr spiel, I've brewed a lot of batches. I've NEVER had one take longer than 12 hrs. to start. I'm a huge freak about proper pitching rates and yeast health. This yeast is doing NOTHING. No growth, you can still read a newspaper through the wort, it's not even in suspension. With a flashlight, you can see it sitting on the bottom of my fermenter still un-hydrated and grainy. No wonder people are having slow starts, the freakin yeast is not hydrating. I actually dug my first packet out of the garbage to see if it would hydrate. Nope, did the same thing. I'm super pissed at Lallemand and I'm going to send them an email when I have time later tonight, with a link to this thread and the one about this particular batch. I wish I had read the updates on this thread before brewing yesterday.

 

[RavenChief]

There is a serious problem with this batch of yeast.

I've bought two packs of this lot, 1080961099V exp. 12 2011, from my LHBS. I actually stepped on my first pack when it fell out of a bag so I went back to the store and bought a second, same lot #. It's exactly as a previous poster described, it would not hydrate. It just stayed grainy, even after 45 minutes in water. I pitched it anyway, hoping for the best. 24 hours later, nothing.

Before someone comes in here with the 48-72 hr spiel, I've brewed a lot of batches. I've NEVER had one take longer than 12 hrs. to start. I'm a huge freak about proper pitching rates and yeast health. This yeast is doing NOTHING. No growth, you can still read a newspaper through the wort, it's not even in suspension. With a flashlight, you can see it sitting on the bottom of my fermenter still un-hydrated and grainy. No wonder people are having slow starts, the freakin yeast is not hydrating. I actually dug my first packet out of the garbage to see if it would hydrate. Nope, did the same thing. I'm super pissed at Lallemand and I'm going to send them an email when I have time later tonight, with a link to this thread and the one about this particular batch. I wish I had read the updates on this thread before brewing yesterday.

Any way you could document your Nottingham problem with a video? I bet if you post that you might get Danstars's attention...

 

[smizak]

Any way you could document your Nottingham problem with a video? I bet if you post that you might get Danstars's attention...

That's not a bad idea. I just was at the LHBS again to get some US-05 so I can re-pitch. I guess I bought the last packet yesterday afternoon, didn't see any there. I brought it up to them and gave them the empty packet. They were cool enough to give me a credit for the Notty, love my LHBS, didn't ask for it.

 

[RavenChief]

Good deal! Let us know how fast the US-05 takes off.
I am thinking that I will try US-05 for my next brew...

 

[nutty_gnome]

Any way you could document your Nottingham problem with a video? I bet if you post that you might get Danstars's attention...

This strikes me as a waste of time; you'll spend your free time making a video and if you are lucky you'l get a whopping 3 free notty packs from Danstar to throw in the garbage because frankly, you can't trust them to work.

You'd be better off spending your time tossing anything danstar related into the trash, doing a new brew and pitching a yeast that actually works as advertised.

It still pisses me off that Danstar has NO mention of last year's recall on their website. If you wanted to find out why your nottingham-infected beer doesn't ferment, you have to go do a google search and wade deep into homebrewer forums to even find out that there was a major issue. That is not how a stand-up business deals with quality control issues. Danstar will never get my business again and I make it my business to steer my buddies away from their crappy yeast.

 

[smizak]

This strikes me as a waste of time; you'll spend your free time making a video and if you are lucky you'l get a whopping 3 free notty packs from Danstar to throw in the garbage because frankly, you can't trust them to work.

You'd be better off spending your time tossing anything danstar related into the trash, doing a new brew and pitching a yeast that actually works as advertised.

It still pisses me off that Danstar has NO mention of last year's recall on their website. If you wanted to find out why your nottingham-infected beer doesn't ferment, you have to go do a google search and wade deep into homebrewer forums to even find out that there was a major issue. That is not how a stand-up business deals with quality control issues. Danstar will never get my business again and I make it my business to steer my buddies away from their crappy yeast.

Hear, hear!

That's exactly what I plan on doing. The only reason I bought it was because the LHBS didn't have Wyeast 1028 in stock. The Nottingham was the closest substitute for an English IPA yeast. Now I've re-pitched with US-05, this beer was for a local beer competition, English IPA's only. Sucks.

I made sure that the store knows about the problem and directed them to this site.

 

[SteveM]

Before someone comes in here with the 48-72 hr spiel, I've brewed a lot of batches...

This thread does not get enough attention and should be required reading before anyone quotes that 72 hour rule - that's why the first question I ask is "what yeast did you use" when I read those slow fermentation questions. This issue has changed the rules on how to answer those questions.

This problem with Nottingham yeast is old old old and the company's response - claiming that the problem is fixed and sending a few replacement packets out to people who have lost lots of time, money and ingredients - simply sucks.

This has been going on for a long time and the response is inadequate. I used to like their product - quick, predictable and active, with good beers resulting. I'll use bread yeast before I use their product again.

 

[robertbartsch]

My 5 newly purchased packs of Notty are from this batch too - 1080961099V exp. 12 2011

Didn't they recall an earlier batch lot last year? Wow, they should check their quality control if this second batch is truly bad.

I was going to use this to brew this weekend, but now I will use 05 instead.

 

[Captain_Bigelow]

Danstar failed to respond when I emailed their customer service a few weeks back about a problem. As a result they I have lost my business. I will stick to liquid or Safale yeasts from now on.

 

[rayg]

Even without any supposed defect in the yeast, the product
description pdf file they have on their website describes a
pretty strange yeast. They essentially say that you can't
make a starter with it, that after hydrating it you can't let
it cool by sitting, you have to mix portions of wort with it
and let it cool in 5 minute intervals that way...No wonder
people are having problems with it.

Ray

 

[ArcaneXor]

My 5 newly purchased packs of Notty are from this batch too - 1080961099V exp. 12 2011

Didn't they recall an earlier batch lot last year? Wow, they should check their quality control if this second batch is truly bad.

I was going to use this to brew this weekend, but now I will use 05 instead.

They recalled a batch that they replaced with a faulty batch (the infamous satchels with holes in them). The new satchels should be ok. It's a great yeast when it works, but they definitely have had some QC issues and questionable customer support over it (they never acknowledged the second bad batch IIRC).

 

[Ridemywideglide]

Even without any supposed defect in the yeast, the product
description pdf file they have on their website describes a
pretty strange yeast. They essentially say that you can't
make a starter with it, that after hydrating it you can't let
it cool by sitting, you have to mix portions of wort with it
and let it cool in 5 minute intervals that way...No wonder
people are having problems with it.

Ray

User error can never be ruled out, but I'd have to stretch pretty far to say that this yeast could easily be screwed up by someone.

I use it repeatedly, 3 weeks ago for BM's Blonde in fact, and have never had any issues with it.
I rehydrate at ~80* while my boil is going, it sits there for a hour sometimes before I stir it and get it in the carboy. Even after sitting for that long there is still some floating on the water, that's what spoons are for.. Little stir and poor it in. I have added small amounts of wort and let it get "primed", but I have never worried about temp changes after it's hydrating. I've also made several staters with it that worked great.
I'll have to check the batch number, but I have 2 more pack from the same order and I expect them to just as well as the last 20 packs have.
If it's rehydration issues your having, I'd make sure to check the temp of your water.

 

[smizak]

User error can never be ruled out, but I'd have to stretch pretty far to say that this yeast could easily be screwed up by someone.

I use it repeatedly, 3 weeks ago for BM's Blonde in fact, and have never had any issues with it.
I rehydrate at ~80* while my boil is going, it sits there for a hour sometimes before I stir it and get it in the carboy. Even after sitting for that long there is still some floating on the water, that's what spoons are for.. Little stir and poor it in. I have added small amounts of wort and let it get "primed", but I have never worried about temp changes after it's hydrating. I've also made several staters with it that worked great.
I'll have to check the batch number, but I have 2 more pack from the same order and I expect them to just as well as the last 20 packs have.
If it's rehydration issues your having, I'd make sure to check the temp of your water.

I've used Nottingham in the past with zero trouble rehydrating. I also have never had >24 hr lagtimes with Nottingham. Hell, it had a reputation for being a fast-starting yeast!

I used 90F water, it sat for 45min-1hr. I put the yeast and water in my temperature control box to keep it at 90F. Still almost no dissolving of the grains. Even after being in my fermenter overnight, it was sitting on the bottom of my carboy, still in the hard little granules that came out of the satchet.

I understand a thread like this will attract a fair amount of people who messed up their beer and coincidentally used Nottingham. But judging from some of these posters comments there are some pretty experienced brewers who know what they're talking about having recent problems with this yeast. Me being one of them. It's too much of a coincidence to be a fluke.

 

[SteveM]

Been brewing for a decade, over a hundred of batches, not one failed batch in the lot of them. Sure, there could be some people commenting who screwed up, but this issue is not about brewers making mistakes. This is about a product that is not up to standard. It's a shame because I loved how the beers came out.

 

[Ridemywideglide]

I've used Nottingham in the past with zero trouble rehydrating. I also have never had >24 hr lagtimes with Nottingham. Hell, it had a reputation for being a fast-starting yeast!

I used 90F water, it sat for 45min-1hr. I put the yeast and water in my temperature control box to keep it at 90F. Still almost no dissolving of the grains. Even after being in my fermenter overnight, it was sitting on the bottom of my carboy, still in the hard little granules that came out of the satchet.

I understand a thread like this will attract a fair amount of people who messed up their beer and coincidentally used Nottingham. But judging from some of these posters comments there are some pretty experienced brewers who know what they're talking about having recent problems with this yeast. Me being one of them. It's too much of a coincidence to be a fluke.

Had you looked at the message I quoted, you'd see that I wasn't saying you experienced brewers screwed up..

I guess I've been lucky, since I can't say I'm experienced. I even left Notty sitting in garage for weeks in 90+ temps, and it still went off fine.
My point was to to rayg's comment about it sounding easy to screw up with this yeast, as I have found it pretty hard to screwup with it..
I'm sure you more experienced guys know what your talking about, and if you say it's a bad batch, I have to assume it's a bad batch.

 

[Slider46]

I just ordered 3 packs (about a week ago) and received the same crappy batch number

Just did a side-by-side comparison of the Notty and the cheap-o yeast that comes in the Mr. Beer kit

The notty stayed grainy and sunk to the bottom while the other kind looks like it got fully hydrated and stayed more suspended. Also smelled more like yeast than the notty.

Guess i'll go order some US-05.....

 

[smizak]

I just ordered 3 packs (about a week ago) and received the same crappy batch number

Just did a side-by-side comparison of the Notty and the cheap-o yeast that comes in the Mr. Beer kit

The notty stayed grainy and sunk to the bottom while the other kind looks like it got fully hydrated and stayed more suspended. Also smelled more like yeast than the notty.

Guess i'll go order some US-05.....

The bad Notty I had smelled very sour.

What's the real shame, as SteveM alluded to, it used to be a great yeast. It would attenuate a lot more than your standard English yeast, but would leave a nice soft malt profile and mouthfeel. US-05 is a fantastic strain for American ales, but it kills that Englishy malt character when you're forced to repitch with it like I had to.

 

[Brewfat]

I had posted before about my long lag time. The update is that it finally finished.
I had checked it 5 days in with no activity (confirmed with hydrometer reading). I left it alone for another week before checking again and at that time it had reached FG.

It's been another two weeks now and there are a lot of brown clumps floating on top which I assume to be yeast. Beer does not taste or smell very good. I'll let it go for awhile but was wondering if I should rack to secondary to get it away from the yeast.

Any opinions/suggestions?

 

[Randyl]

I experienced a failure of the Lallemand Nottingham lot 1080961099V exp 12 2011 yeast a few weeks ago. I always make a starter 24 hours in advance using 1 quart of sterile wort (1.055 SG wort pressure canned in a mason jars), so the problem was obvious before mash, allowing a different yeast to be used after a 1 day delay for the new starter. The bad starter showed no sign of activity even after 4 days at 70 degrees F and the yeast could be seen as individual grains on the bottom of the gallon jug. Tasted it before dumping and it was still sweet. Hurray for my sanitation procedures, boo for the lot 1080961099V.

Nottingham was used for 11 batches of ale in the last year and gave good results for 10 of them. The problem batch was due to the last known bad Nottingham lot. Until the problem batch, I had pitched the hydrated yeast directly into the primary without problems. Never again.

Nottingham normally starts fast, with obvious activity in 12 hours, especially when using a starter. It gives a fairly clean and dry fermentation as long as the primary temperature is kept below 65 degrees F.

The owner of the LHBS told me that he recently had to open all of their beer ingredient kits to replace the 1080961099V with another brand of yeast. He was quite upset with Lallemand and was sending back hundreds of lot 1080961099V packets.

Here is my starter procedure (in case anyone is wondering if I'm just doing it wrong):

- Sanitize equipment (gallon jug, screw cap, air lock, drilled cap, thermometer, glass measuring cup, funnel, SS spoon, quart jar of sterile wort) using StarSan (1/12 teaspoon per cup of water).

- Boil water to drive off chlorine an sterilize it.

- Use boiled water to rinse equipment just before use (to remove surfactant residue).

- Pour 1/2 cup boiled water into measuring cup, place tip of thermometer into water, cover measuring cup with plastic film.

- Wait for water to cool to 88 degrees F, add yeast, wait 15 minutes, stir.

- Add 1/4 cup of sterile wort (at 70 degrees F), wait 5 minutes.

- Add 1/2 cup of sterile wort (at 70 degrees F), wait 5 minutes.

- Use funnel to pour remaining sterile wort (at 70 degrees F) into gallon jug, cap, shake to aerate. Use funnel to pour yeast mixture into jug

- Cap with drilled cap and air lock.

Update:

I have 3 more packet of the Danstar/Lallemand Nottingham lot 1080961099V exp 12 2011. Made a starter last night with one of them and it looks good. The yeast dissolved correctly and this morning it showed signs of fermentation (foam on top and a few bubbles in the airlock). Plan is to use the starter tonight to brew an American IPA.

This must mean that only a percentage of the packets are bad. I compared the bad packet appearance to the good packet, but could not detect any obvious differences.

Update:

Good signs of activity in the primary 8 hours later, the airlock is bubbling away. Added a couple of frozen gallon jugs of water to the bin holding the primary to start dropping the temperature from the current 70 degrees F to the 60-65 degree F range.

 

[jjones17]

I experienced a failure of the Lallemand Nottingham lot 1080961099V exp 12 2011 yeast a few weeks ago. I always make a starter 24 hours in advance using 1 quart of sterile wort (1.055 SG wort pressure canned in a mason jars), so the problem was obvious before mash, allowing a different yeast to be used after a 1 day delay for the new starter. The bad starter showed no sign of activity even after 4 days at 70 degrees F and the yeast could be seen as individual grains on the bottom of the gallon jug. Tasted it before dumping and it was still sweet. Hurray for my sanitation procedures, boo for the lot 1080961099V.

Nottingham was used for 11 batches of ale in the last year and gave good results for 10 of them. The problem batch was due to the last known bad Nottingham lot. Until the problem batch, I had pitched the hydrated yeast directly into the primary without problems. Never again.

Nottingham normally starts fast, with obvious activity in 12 hours, especially when using a starter. It gives a fairly clean and dry fermentation as long as the primary temperature is kept below 65 degrees F.

The owner of the LHBS told me that he recently had to open all of their beer ingredient kits to replace the 1080961099V with another brand of yeast. He was quite upset with Lallemand and was sending back hundreds of lot 1080961099V packets.

Here is my starter procedure (in case anyone is wondering if I'm just doing it wrong):

- Sanitize equipment (gallon jug, screw cap, air lock, drilled cap, thermometer, glass measuring cup, funnel, SS spoon, quart jar of sterile wort) using StarSan (1/12 teaspoon per cup of water).

- Boil water to drive off chlorine an sterilize it.

- Use boiled water to rinse equipment just before use (to remove surfactant residue).

- Pour 1/2 cup boiled water into measuring cup, place tip of thermometer into water, cover measuring cup with plastic film.

- Wait for water to cool to 88 degrees F, add yeast, wait 15 minutes, stir.

- Add 1/4 cup of sterile wort (at 70 degrees F), wait 5 minutes.

- Add 1/2 cup of sterile wort (at 70 degrees F), wait 5 minutes.

- Use funnel to pour remaining sterile wort (at 70 degrees F) into gallon jug, cap, shake to aerate. Use funnel to pour yeast mixture into jug

- Cap with drilled cap and air lock.

Update:

I have 3 more packet of the Danstar/Lallemand Nottingham lot 1080961099V exp 12 2011. Made a starter last night with one of them and it looks good. The yeast dissolved correctly and this morning it showed signs of fermentation (foam on top and a few bubbles in the airlock). Plan is to use the starter tonight to brew an American IPA.

This must mean that only a percentage of the packets are bad. I compared the bad packet appearance to the good packet, but could not detect any obvious differences.

Update:

Good signs of activity in the primary 8 hours later, the airlock is bubbling away. Added a couple of frozen gallon jugs of water to the bin holding the primary to start dropping the temperature from the current 70 degrees F to the 60-65 degree F range.

Hoping to help you save some time....

I am surpised to hear you use a starter with Dry yeast, as it is not nessecary at all in any circumstance given the energy reserves of dry yeast. I am too lazy to search the numerous sources on HBT to prove my point, but starters are only nessecary with liquid yeast 99% of the time. To save you a bit of money, time, and just to avoid doing something you definately do not need to do - try rehydrating your yeast instead. It works awesome, since I started doing that I have never had any issues. Pitching onto the wort directly is just asking for trouble, and using a starter with dry yeast is like wearing a helmet while sleeping.

BUT - Do not take my word for it, research it yourself if you care. If not, brew away I am sure your beer is awesome.

 

[jjones17]

Even without any supposed defect in the yeast, the product
description pdf file they have on their website describes a
pretty strange yeast. They essentially say that you can't
make a starter with it, that after hydrating it you can't let
it cool by sitting, you have to mix portions of wort with it
and let it cool in 5 minute intervals that way...No wonder
people are having problems with it.

Ray

Are you referring to the rehydrating/attempering process? You are supposed to do that with all yeast - brewing yeast, baking yeast, etc - for the best results possible. It might seem wierd to you, but trust me its a basic standard in safe yeast handling practices.

I am NOT saying you cannot directly pitch all dry yeast on to wort, but since I started rehydrating I have never had a problem. To each their own though. Brew on. :rockin:

 

[goose1873]

actually shouldn't make starter w/ dry yeast. just rehydrate and sprinkle...it's a waste of time and counterproductive...

buy fermentis yeast if you like dry...it's worth the extra 1.50....

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

actually shouldn't make starter w/ dry yeast. just rehydrate and sprinkle...it's a waste of time and counterproductive...
.

Except when dealing with certain batches of Nottingham which ruined a batch of my beer.

No Campden tablets... just a bunch of holes in the foil packet that exposed the yeast to moist air and caused it to die. A starter would have meant I was out a cup of DME and 20 min of work. But I didn't know that... instead I rehydrated and pitched and was out $35 of ingredients and about 4 hours of my life...

PLUS... I'm out the taste buds I burned off trying the dreck that resulted.

 

[goose1873]

notty yeast is poo...you get what you pay for. some people still use it. but one spoiled batch and headaches are not worth it...

us-05/s-04...or liquid

also...why didn't you just re-pitch when nothing after 72 hrs?

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

notty yeast is poo...you get what you pay for. some people still use it. but one spoiled batch and headaches are not worth it...

us-05/s-04...or liquid

also...why didn't you just re-pitch when nothing after 72 hrs?

My story:

Was brewing that day. LHBS out of US-05. Guy there recommended Nottingham as a substitute.

It was my 6th batch ever.

****** I HAD IT DRILLED INTO MY HEAD BY THIS BOARD THAT IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL TO NOT SEE FERMENTATION FOR 72 HOURS. ******

When I got home from work on the third day there was a thin layer of krausen forming that looked kind of funny but was there. That's when I fount this thread.

 

[smizak]

****** I HAD IT DRILLED INTO MY HEAD BY THIS BOARD THAT IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL TO NOT SEE FERMENTATION FOR 72 HOURS. ******

I love this board, it's taught me a lot, but that drives me nuts.

Barring cold-pitching a lager, if you don't see fermentation in 24 hrs. then you need to review your procedures.

 

[Randyl]

Hoping to help you save some time....

I am surpised to hear you use a starter with Dry yeast, as it is not nessecary at all in any circumstance given the energy reserves of dry yeast. I am too lazy to search the numerous sources on HBT to prove my point, but starters are only nessecary with liquid yeast 99% of the time. To save you a bit of money, time, and just to avoid doing something you definately do not need to do - try rehydrating your yeast instead. It works awesome, since I started doing that I have never had any issues. Pitching onto the wort directly is just asking for trouble, and using a starter with dry yeast is like wearing a helmet while sleeping.

BUT - Do not take my word for it, research it yourself if you care. If not, brew away I am sure your beer is awesome.

I agree that rehydrating dry yeast is enough and a starter is not required. But the extra $1 that the pressure canned starter costs to make is worth it to me. It provides high probability that the yeast is good (cheap insurance against a ruined batch) and the fermentation is well underway in 6-8 hours.

It take less than an hour to make 7 quarts of sterile wort for starters. Just boil 2 lbs of DME in 6 quarts of water, pour it into 7 clean quart canning jars, seal the jars and process in the pressure canner for 30 minutes at 10 PSI.

 

[jjones17]

I agree that rehydrating dry yeast is enough and a starter is not required. But the extra $1 that the pressure canned starter costs to make is worth it to me. It provides high probability that the yeast is good (cheap insurance against a ruined batch) and the fermentation is well underway in 6-8 hours.

It take less than an hour to make 7 quarts of sterile wort for starters. Just boil 2 lbs of DME in 6 quarts of water, pour it into 7 clean quart canning jars, seal the jars and process in the pressure canner for 30 minutes at 10 PSI.

Well, whether or not there is any benefit of the starter I guess is not all that important. What IS important, is it sounds like you enjoy doing it... I know that if I had a pressure canner, I would make sterile wort to use as a starter for the times I use liquid yeast or draw from my yeast bank.

All the power to ya.

 

[Rover]

Well, whether or not there is any benefit of the starter I guess is not all that important. What IS important, is it sounds like you enjoy doing it... I know that if I had a pressure canner, I would make sterile wort to use as a starter for the times I use liquid yeast or draw from my yeast bank.

All the power to ya.

I like the idea of making a bunch of starter wort like that.

I don't think it's so much of an enjoyment thing but it sounds like a great insurance policy.

 

[goose1873]

if use use good yeast i.e. safale it will always work. always.

 

[rayg]

****** I HAD IT DRILLED INTO MY HEAD BY THIS BOARD THAT IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL TO NOT SEE FERMENTATION FOR 72 HOURS. ******

It IS perfectly normal when using dry yeast. Just not GOOD!

Ray

 

[goose1873]

It IS perfectly normal when using dry yeast. Just not GOOD!

Ray

It is not normal. I have brewed 40-50 batches with dry yeast and it happened once...and that was with garbage notty yeast.

 

[jjones17]

if use use good yeast i.e. safale it will always work. always.

Yes, Safale has never failed to work by just pitching direction onto the wort for me too. Only 1 problem: Safale yeast makes my beer taste terrible. All except US-05 of course.

 

[jfr1111]

24 hours after pitching Notty, I have no krausen, no airlock activity not even a single bubble on top of wort. I can see clearly that the yeast all fell-out of suspension and are chilling (or dead) at the bottom of the carboy. I took the discarded package and tried to rehydrate (once again) and it still is flat at the bottom. Serves me for proofing and still pitching yeast that hadn't foamed.

I do have a package of S-05 in the fridge. This beer has until after the Habs game to do something or the Safale gets pitched in. Seeing as I overshot my gravity by almost 20 points and I will be using a yeast that has nothing to do with the style (English Mild) I'll reserve my judgement and enjoyment of the recipe until I brew a new batch.

I also have the "bad" lot number and the 12/2111 exp. date.

 

[Hannable1975]

Crap. Wish I had seen this hours ago - just brewed today - and when I "proofed" the yeast - nothing. I figured it was just too cool - and pitched anyway.

How long should I give it beo=fore pitching the emergency sachet of US05 I keep on hand - or could I just go ahead and bite the bullet and pitch it - should the Nottingham be ok, just slow - will the two be OK together?

 

[DannyG]

So I was at my LHBS today, and was told that Danstar recently recalled all the store's Notty. This was the same store at which I had bought a sachet of Notty from this lot about a month ago (which worked just fine for me). Has anyone else heard about this?

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

Crap. Wish I had seen this hours ago - just brewed today - and when I "proofed" the yeast - nothing. I figured it was just too cool - and pitched anyway.

How long should I give it beo=fore pitching the emergency sachet of US05 I keep on hand - or could I just go ahead and bite the bullet and pitch it - should the Nottingham be ok, just slow - will the two be OK together?

Well... at my LHBS it is 2.75 for a sachet of US-05... knowing that nothing happened when you rehydrated the Nottingham, is it worth $3 to save the 3+ hours of work you have invested already? (Plus the value of the ingredients.)

Based on the poor rehydration, at a minimum, I'd consider pitching at the 18 hour mark if you don't see anything. (Yes, it can take up to 72 hours... blah blah blah... but given the already suspect yeast...)

Of course if it turns out to be the best beer you've ever made... to recreate it you'll need to pitch a crappy, recalled packet of Nottingham that doesn't proof, and then wait 18 hours to pitch US-05...

 

[trubled]

Crap. Wish I had seen this hours ago - just brewed today - and when I "proofed" the yeast - nothing. I figured it was just too cool - and pitched anyway.

How long should I give it beo=fore pitching the emergency sachet of US05 I keep on hand - or could I just go ahead and bite the bullet and pitch it - should the Nottingham be ok, just slow - will the two be OK together?

Pitch with emergency yeast immediately before the infected Notty yeast has time to establish.

 

[jfr1111]

The Notty probably isn't "infected" as much as "dead", but if the yeast didn't proof, you probably have your answer as to when to pitch: as soon as possible so other bugs don't take over. The problem might also be with their emulsifier or whatever they use to "foam" the yeast. Mine just stayed in whole intact pellets.

As for my English Mild, it is not looking good. When I repitched, the wort had a yeasty, spicy, farmhouse smell, not unlike unwashed sweaty balls after a marathon or the dreaded "Satan's anus". The thing was fabulous smelling yesterday when I brewed - gf even commented on it and thought I had baked a cake. I know that fermentation can give some off smells, but it hasn't been fermenting yet...

Well, not many things I can do except wait it out. The new yeast seems to be starting to ferment though, so I have hope. At least my other batch wich is very near bottling time smells awesome.

 

[trubled]

The Notty probably isn't "infected" as much as "dead", but if the yeast didn't proof, you probably have your answer as to when to pitch: as soon as possible so other bugs don't take over. The problem might also be with their emulsifier or whatever they use to "foam" the yeast. Mine just stayed in whole intact pellets.

I believe the package itself may be contaminated because:

(a) my 4 infected carboys over a 2 week period all had the same issue which in some cases started within 12 hours of pitching
(b) others have reported similar unsavory qualities with their bad notty ferments

I would like to hear if people had the same unique off-flavours in which case the contamination may have something to do with the packet as opposed to endemically induced infections.