Nottingham ale yeast boo boo

[Roy]

Looks like my kit has stuck at 1020 with this yeast...

I pitched the originl yeast that came with the kit and added some youngs yeast enhancer too. will check the gravity in a few days.

[dinger44]

Im having problems with this yeast as well. it seems to be starting to ferment slowly but most of it is lying at the bottom with a few clumps floating about. pitched dry last night. time will tell.

[Roy]

I just chucked a new sachet of yeast in and gave it a good stir. Went from 1020 to 1014 overnight so proof that the Nottingham was basically shit.

[Roy]

Checked the gravity yesterday and bottled at 1010.

There was no sludge with this yeast, it was pretty solid at the bottom of the FV; a bit like when you haven't got enough water when cooking rice- it was stuck to the bottom and took a fair amount of pressure from the shower head to budge it. Strange as I was syphoning via a bottling stick and I religiously leave a litre or so of beer in the bottom of the bucket as it always sucks a load of sludge up. i could have syphoned from the remnants in the bottom and pretty sure none of the yeastcake would have been sucked up!

I'm not going to use Nottingham again.

[Blackaddler]

Checked the gravity yesterday and bottled at 1010.

There was no sludge with this yeast, it was pretty solid at the bottom of the FV; a bit like when you haven't got enough water when cooking rice- it was stuck to the bottom and took a fair amount of pressure from the shower head to budge it. Strange as I was syphoning via a bottling stick and I religiously leave a litre or so of beer in the bottom of the bucket as it always sucks a load of sludge up. i could have syphoned from the remnants in the bottom and pretty sure none of the yeastcake would have been sucked up!

I'm not going to use Nottingham again.

Why not? That's how it should be....

[chris_reboot]

used it quite a few times now, and its been perfect every time, and attenuates lower than s-04, and sticks to bottles better for me.
moral of the story: dont write it off completely if you've had a duff 'un.

[Garth]

I picked up some newer looking packs of Nottingham when I was out the other day, they have the date printed on them rather than stamped, it's a different batch number as well.

I bought them in a HBS where the owner recieves the award for being the most miserable, moaning and unhelpful twat. All I can say is that it was in the North West.

[simple one]

I picked up some newer looking packs of Nottingham when I was out the other day, they have the date printed on them rather than stamped, it's a different batch number as well.

I bought them in a HBS where the owner recieves the award for being the most miserable, moaning and unhelpful twat. All I can say is that it was in the North West.

Leeds?

[Garth]

Nope, I would have said West Yorks. Do you know a miserable bugger in Leeds running a hbs as well?

oh, and on getting home I noticed the prepacked grain he had sold me was BBE Jan 2010, lovely.

edit: forgot to say, the new Nottingham that I got is batch no. 1080961099V exp 12/2011 and is produced in Austria

[simple one]

Exactly the same batch/lot number I used today on a APA. Still, I pitched 2 packs just in case I was to suffer from the dreaded long lag time.

[Scooby]

edit: forgot to say, the new Nottingham that I got is batch no. 1080961099V exp 12/2011 and is produced in Austria

Just keg a brew fermented with exactly that and it was fine

[SiHoltye]

I'm rehydrating 2 packs of Nottingham yeast Lot number 1080961099V exp 12.2011 at the mo. I tipped the packs out and thought it looked a little darker brown than usual. I googled 'bad nottingham yeast' and discovered others with problems re this batch number.

Screw pitching questionable yeast into 4 hours work so I'll use my US05 backup. Very annoying to be supplied by a poster on here with yeast of known questionable viability.

Edit

It smelt eggy

[RichardG]

I've also experienced misgivings with Nottingham. I used this in my last brew and rehydrated as usual. When I've done this in the past, with either Nottingham or SO4, the yeast has produced a nice milky liquid and/or foamed up. Following pitching I've usually had definate activity within around 12hrs. This time on rehydrating I was presented with a yellowish looking liquid, with no foam, which stank. I was frankly concerned, but having no spare packs (note to self, make sure you do next time!), felt I had to pitch. There was no discernable activity for 24hrs so I went out to get a packet of SO4(2 actually!) to re-pitch. When I was back I noticed that the brew appeared to be starting off, and from there on it fermented out nicely. I started at 1041 and finished at 1010 and got a lovely smelling beer at the end. It all worked out fine, but it weren't half a scary ride on the way. There's probably nothing wrong with these Nottingham batches, but they don't inspire confidence in me. I'd taken the decision to use wet yeast in the future and will now just keep a packet or two of SO4 for emergencies and any unforeseen brew days that come along.

[Blackaddler]

I've also experienced misgivings with Nottingham.

Presumably, you're using Danstar Nottingham. As an alternative, you can use Munton's Gervin English Ale Yeast. I bought some recently, and it was actually cheaper than Danstar.

See this thread, also.

[RichardG]

Yep, good point. I had seen that and it's easily available in the LHBS round my way.