Planning To Pitch Champagne

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

AZCoolerBrewer

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
897
Location
Cave Creek
So my partigyle has gone south on me. The small beer worked out great but the big beer didn’t prime. I think the yeast reached its limit and went dormant. I introduced the sugar in my bottling bucket, but after 3 weeks, nothing is happening. My plan is to open the Wee Heavy bottles and pitch some champagne yeast. One bottle I will transfer to a plastic 12oz. bottle and monitor for carbonation. When carbonated, I will refrigerate and consume within two weeks. If this is a bad idea, let me know. Otherwise, this is my plan.
 
Yesterday I went to the LHBS and got some champagne yeast. I’m replying to my thread because when I had read on here about this and the suggestion was to drop a few grains in the bottle.

The LHBS guy though made a point that the dry yeast would suck the beer into the cells to rehydrate and my 12% Wee Heavy would kill off quite a few of the cells, so rehydrating with water first is a good idea. I thought I would put that out there since it seems like a good idea and is what I decided to do.
 
It’s been 4 weeks. The beer finished high too. It started at 1.120 and finished at 1.038. Wyeast 1728. When I opened the bottle today it hadn’t progressed at all since bottling.
 
I add fresh yeast to any beer I’m bottling regardless of alcohol. Granted I only bottle Saisons or mixed ferment beers that have generally been aging for a minimum of a month. Yes there is generally enough yeast so you can just add sugar to anything and it most likely will prime and carbonate. But adding a small amount of fresh yeast will pretty much guarantee a successful refermentation regardless. You’re much less likely to get any off flavors from a less than ideal refermentation.

You don’t necessary need Champagne yeast, there are lots of yeasts available that work well. Most wine yeasts (not all), champagne yeast, or yeasts made specifically for bottling conditioning (CBC-1, F2) are highly alcohol tolerant, most are somewhat more acid tolerant, but most importantly won’t consume the complex wort based sugars left in the beer just the priming sugar added at bottling.

I always rehydrate but I’ve also never dosed individual bottles. I’ve seen it done with Brett using and eye dropper or pipette of some sort. I’d just make sure you’re super diligent about your sanitation especially with thy high of a FG. I might think about not only Star San on the bottles/opener but also flaming it with some alcohol.
 
I like lallelmand CBC-1 for cask conditioning higher ABV beers, it can tolerate the alcohol but won't over-attenuate the way champagne yeast can. If it's seriously sweet, maybe pour them all into a fermenter and pitch a diastaticus strain? IMHO, the only thing worse than a bone-dry beer is an under-attenuated syrupy mess of a sweet beer.
 
I’m with Jay on this one. Lallemand CBC-1 is the correct answer.

I bottle a lot of mixed fermentation beers and have tried using EC-1118 with largely inconsistent results—sometimes it takes a long time to carb, sometimes pellicles form. Never experienced an under carbed beer or pellicle with CBC-1 and it’s reportedly good to 12% ABV.
 
I like lallelmand CBC-1 for cask conditioning higher ABV beers, it can tolerate the alcohol but won't over-attenuate the way champagne yeast can. If it's seriously sweet, maybe pour them all into a fermenter and pitch a diastaticus strain? IMHO, the only thing worse than a bone-dry beer is an under-attenuated syrupy mess of a sweet beer.

I don't get the thinking that Champagne yeast will over attenuate something. The two most popular champagne yeasts that you'd find
at a home-brew shop can't process the complex sugars from malt (maltotriose specifically).

I think there is this feeling out there that because Champagne is so dry that this yeast will do the same thing to beer, but it won't. It would
if your beer was all simple sugars like wine/champagne.

I used to use CBC-1 for everything but have since switched to T-58. But again I never brew anything that's high in ABV.
 
It’s been 4 weeks. The beer finished high too. It started at 1.120 and finished at 1.038. Wyeast 1728. When I opened the bottle today it hadn’t progressed at all since bottling.
Oh yeah that's nowhere near enough time. For my beers I usually give them 3 months. That being said, champagne yeast won't hurt anything, but ymmv.
 
I don't get the thinking that Champagne yeast will over attenuate something. The two most popular champagne yeasts that you'd find
at a home-brew shop can't process the complex sugars from malt (maltotriose specifically).

I think there is this feeling out there that because Champagne is so dry that this yeast will do the same thing to beer, but it won't. It would
if your beer was all simple sugars like wine/champagne.
I didn't know that, thanks for setting me straight!
 
I used Red Star Premier Blanc. It was only 99¢ for a 5g packet. I rehydrated and and poured a teaspoon or so in each of the bottles. My plastic bottle definitely shows that the yeast is working to prime. Judging by squeezing, I would guess that the beer will be primed in a week. I think the original yeast may have pooped out before all the sugar was used, so after priming, I’m not going to save these. I make small batches, so there’s only 7 including the plastic bottle.

I drank one of these when I opened the first bottle to see if it was done. It was really good. The higher IBUs and sweetness covered the alcohol bite. I’m very pleased with this beer except that it was a little more work for just a few beers.
 
Most wine yeasts...or yeasts made specifically for bottling conditioning (CBC-1, F2) are highly alcohol tolerant

As a rule, they're the same thing. I've seen it suggested that CBC-1 is just repackaged Lalwine D21, it's certainly plausible.
 
Back
Top