Buttery & Other problems
Buttery & Other problems
I racked last weekend's brew to secondary today. This was the Wyeast London III brew I noted here previously.
It was not clear, but then it's only been there a week.
It doesn't taste nice. It tastes buttery/butterscotch, in other words, there is probably diacetyl there which should go away with secondary conditioning.
I brewed another batch today and put it on top of the lees from the previous brew.
I have DOUBTS about this brew !
The photo below shows the FV after one whole week. The yeast is floating at the top. The description from Wyeast says this is "a true top cropping yeast".
It was not clear, but then it's only been there a week.
It doesn't taste nice. It tastes buttery/butterscotch, in other words, there is probably diacetyl there which should go away with secondary conditioning.
I brewed another batch today and put it on top of the lees from the previous brew.
I have DOUBTS about this brew !
The photo below shows the FV after one whole week. The yeast is floating at the top. The description from Wyeast says this is "a true top cropping yeast".
Hi FM,
The brew I made looked identical to the one you posted after 2 weeks ! (I don't think I've got a photo). I just skimmed it off before kegging (the gravity reading was around 12).
Some things I did notice about this yeast compared with Gervin ale (my usual):
1. It's slow to start, even with a good active starter (I'm wondering if this is an aeration problem)
2. It's slower to ferment (may need rousing??)
3. As long as the yeast is even slightly active, the wort is very cloudy
4. As soon as fermentation stops, the beer clears as if by magic
5. The only off-taste in mine (after about 1 1/2 weeks in the barrel) is an unpleasant bitterness on the back of the tongue, which I associate with immature brews.
The brew I made looked identical to the one you posted after 2 weeks ! (I don't think I've got a photo). I just skimmed it off before kegging (the gravity reading was around 12).
Some things I did notice about this yeast compared with Gervin ale (my usual):
1. It's slow to start, even with a good active starter (I'm wondering if this is an aeration problem)
2. It's slower to ferment (may need rousing??)
3. As long as the yeast is even slightly active, the wort is very cloudy
4. As soon as fermentation stops, the beer clears as if by magic
5. The only off-taste in mine (after about 1 1/2 weeks in the barrel) is an unpleasant bitterness on the back of the tongue, which I associate with immature brews.
QUOTE (jim @ Sep 5 2005, 03:43 PM)Hi FM,
The brew I made looked identical to the one you posted after 2 weeks ! (I don't think I've got a photo). I just skimmed it off before kegging (the gravity reading was around 12).
Some things I did notice about this yeast compared with Gervin ale (my usual):
1. It's slow to start, even with a good active starter (I'm wondering if this is an aeration problem)
2. It's slower to ferment (may need rousing??)
3. As long as the yeast is even slightly active, the wort is very cloudy
4. As soon as fermentation stops, the beer clears as if by magic
5. The only off-taste in mine (after about 1 1/2 weeks in the barrel) is an unpleasant bitterness on the back of the tongue, which I associate with immature brews.
Jim,
Thanks for that.
How long did you ferment in the same primary ferment vessel ?
Any notes describing the 'secondarying' you did with this brew ?
I kept last weeks' brew in primary for 1 week, then I racked to one KEG and one 5 gallon fermentor under airlock. The keg is sealed. I'm going to leave the keg for at least 3 weeks.
One of my mistakes with using Liquid Yeasts is to look for characteristics I've seen using Safale and Nottingham. So for example, Safale goes off like a rocket and finishes within 1-3 days typically. Drops bright quickly. And is drinkable fairly soon, though requires maturation for a better taste. These liquid yeast are *different*
Darren
PS. I think I may start using my real name and not a nickname else I'll get mixed up myself
The brew I made looked identical to the one you posted after 2 weeks ! (I don't think I've got a photo). I just skimmed it off before kegging (the gravity reading was around 12).
Some things I did notice about this yeast compared with Gervin ale (my usual):
1. It's slow to start, even with a good active starter (I'm wondering if this is an aeration problem)
2. It's slower to ferment (may need rousing??)
3. As long as the yeast is even slightly active, the wort is very cloudy
4. As soon as fermentation stops, the beer clears as if by magic
5. The only off-taste in mine (after about 1 1/2 weeks in the barrel) is an unpleasant bitterness on the back of the tongue, which I associate with immature brews.
Jim,
Thanks for that.
How long did you ferment in the same primary ferment vessel ?
Any notes describing the 'secondarying' you did with this brew ?
I kept last weeks' brew in primary for 1 week, then I racked to one KEG and one 5 gallon fermentor under airlock. The keg is sealed. I'm going to leave the keg for at least 3 weeks.
One of my mistakes with using Liquid Yeasts is to look for characteristics I've seen using Safale and Nottingham. So for example, Safale goes off like a rocket and finishes within 1-3 days typically. Drops bright quickly. And is drinkable fairly soon, though requires maturation for a better taste. These liquid yeast are *different*
Darren
PS. I think I may start using my real name and not a nickname else I'll get mixed up myself
Heh, Just use your name is your signature, Your user name is class, don't change it!
Re the yeast:
Yeast for the first batch of beer came straight from the 1/2 gall starter I made from the smackpack. That took ages to get going, so I added more yeast from the same 1/2 gall batch. The rest of the 1/2 gall was split between 6 small plastic bottles & went in the fridge.
That first batch of beer kept going for 2 weeks, and really wasn't quite done when I barrelled it. I keep taking small tasters from it, and it is improving; I'm 90% confident that this will turn out better than anything I've made using dried yeast (going on the flavour so far).
I've just made a second batch (yesterday); the starter for this was made as follows:
Took one of the 6 bottles out of the fridge and left for 2 days.
Made up a pint and a half of malt extract solution and added the small bottle's contents (after shaking it up).
Left for 2 more days, at which point the wort was ready and the starter was going like the clappers.
Pitched
It still took 24 hours to get going properly (there's a thickish crop of yeast over the whole surface now).
I'm expecting to wait 2 weeks before barrelling this one.
Oh, the temperature was around 20C for all stages.
Re the yeast:
Yeast for the first batch of beer came straight from the 1/2 gall starter I made from the smackpack. That took ages to get going, so I added more yeast from the same 1/2 gall batch. The rest of the 1/2 gall was split between 6 small plastic bottles & went in the fridge.
That first batch of beer kept going for 2 weeks, and really wasn't quite done when I barrelled it. I keep taking small tasters from it, and it is improving; I'm 90% confident that this will turn out better than anything I've made using dried yeast (going on the flavour so far).
I've just made a second batch (yesterday); the starter for this was made as follows:
Took one of the 6 bottles out of the fridge and left for 2 days.
Made up a pint and a half of malt extract solution and added the small bottle's contents (after shaking it up).
Left for 2 more days, at which point the wort was ready and the starter was going like the clappers.
Pitched
It still took 24 hours to get going properly (there's a thickish crop of yeast over the whole surface now).
I'm expecting to wait 2 weeks before barrelling this one.
Oh, the temperature was around 20C for all stages.
Just realised that I didn't answer your question! :rolleyes:
I always go straight from primary fermenter into barrel. I don't rack off into an intermediate vessel as some people do.
I generally leave the beer for 2 weeks in the primary, then into the barrel, a week in the warm, then into the cold (the garage) until it's ready to drink.
And I agree with your statement; these yeasts require a totally different approach.
I always go straight from primary fermenter into barrel. I don't rack off into an intermediate vessel as some people do.
I generally leave the beer for 2 weeks in the primary, then into the barrel, a week in the warm, then into the cold (the garage) until it's ready to drink.
And I agree with your statement; these yeasts require a totally different approach.
We are not alone:
From http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/2311.html#2311-3:
"Tom Gaskell discusses Wyeast London strains
>From what I have heard about Ringwood yeast, I am beginning to believe
>that London Special (1968) is a relative of Ringwood. They both have
>fairly low attenuation, produce diacetyl, flocculate like mad, and
>need plenty of oxygen. In each case, I think Ringwood takes these
>behaviors to the extreme, while 1968 is the less radical step-child.
>I actually saw a brewpub, which uses Ringwood, place submersible pumps
>into their open fermenters, and rouse and aerate the yeast by pumping
>the green beer up a tube resembling a racking cane, which sprayed the
>beer in a fan pattern back down into the rest of the beer in the
>fermenter. The beer was sprayed with enough force to raise one hell
>of a head, and to entrain a lot of air into the brew.
Wheeler's "Brew Your Own Real Ale" discusses what he calls "Northern
Style" English ale yeast, also referred to as "Yorkshire" yeast. He
terms these yeast strains inappropriate for home brewing because of
their need for additional aeration and/or rousing. Ringwood yeast
originated in an old Yorkshire brewery.
Wheeler also describes how the old "Yorkshire squares" stone fermenters
actually accomplished an effective rousing through their design. Wyeast
1968 and 1318 seem to be among this family of yeast strains, although
as Tom notes,. not as severe as Ringwood in their Yorkshire
characteristics. Yeast Labs A09 "English" is allegedly Ringwood.
My experience with London III, 1318, was a sluggish two week
fermentation and less than optimal attenuation. I've since switched to
a pure O2 aeration setup. 1318 has a higher listed temp range (to 74f)
than most Wyeast strains. A while back on r.c.b. a number of brewers
compared notes. Those who used the yeast at the lower ends of the range
were disappointed with its performance, while those who brewed with it
above 70 degrees had no complaints of sluggishness. I plan to try it
again this summer as my warm weather yeast, when I brew in the 71-74
degree range.
Chris"
My italics,
Jim
From http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/2311.html#2311-3:
"Tom Gaskell discusses Wyeast London strains
>From what I have heard about Ringwood yeast, I am beginning to believe
>that London Special (1968) is a relative of Ringwood. They both have
>fairly low attenuation, produce diacetyl, flocculate like mad, and
>need plenty of oxygen. In each case, I think Ringwood takes these
>behaviors to the extreme, while 1968 is the less radical step-child.
>I actually saw a brewpub, which uses Ringwood, place submersible pumps
>into their open fermenters, and rouse and aerate the yeast by pumping
>the green beer up a tube resembling a racking cane, which sprayed the
>beer in a fan pattern back down into the rest of the beer in the
>fermenter. The beer was sprayed with enough force to raise one hell
>of a head, and to entrain a lot of air into the brew.
Wheeler's "Brew Your Own Real Ale" discusses what he calls "Northern
Style" English ale yeast, also referred to as "Yorkshire" yeast. He
terms these yeast strains inappropriate for home brewing because of
their need for additional aeration and/or rousing. Ringwood yeast
originated in an old Yorkshire brewery.
Wheeler also describes how the old "Yorkshire squares" stone fermenters
actually accomplished an effective rousing through their design. Wyeast
1968 and 1318 seem to be among this family of yeast strains, although
as Tom notes,. not as severe as Ringwood in their Yorkshire
characteristics. Yeast Labs A09 "English" is allegedly Ringwood.
My experience with London III, 1318, was a sluggish two week
fermentation and less than optimal attenuation. I've since switched to
a pure O2 aeration setup. 1318 has a higher listed temp range (to 74f)
than most Wyeast strains. A while back on r.c.b. a number of brewers
compared notes. Those who used the yeast at the lower ends of the range
were disappointed with its performance, while those who brewed with it
above 70 degrees had no complaints of sluggishness. I plan to try it
again this summer as my warm weather yeast, when I brew in the 71-74
degree range.
Chris"
My italics,
Jim
QUOTE (full malty @ Sep 4 2005, 08:13 PM)I racked last weekend's brew to secondary today. This was the Wyeast London III brew I noted here previously.
It was not clear, but then it's only been there a week.ÂÂ
It doesn't taste nice. It tastes buttery/butterscotch, in other words, there is probably diacetyl there which should go away with secondary conditioning.ÂÂ
I brewed another batch today and put it on top of the lees from the previous brew.
I have DOUBTS about this brew !
The photo below shows the FV after one whole week. The yeast is floating at the top. The description from Wyeast says this is "a true top cropping yeast".
An update on this brew... it was racked into secondary on Sunday, 4 days ago.
I took a peek inside the 5 gallon fermenter and another thick cake of yeast has formed on top of the brew... so there's plenty of life in it and it's bubbling away.
My pessimism is perhaps unfounded as this brew is very immature and I am not handling it as carefully as I should. It does seem to require some extra agitation or aeration and I simply haven't been doing that.
Today, I had a much better WHIFF from the secondary fermentor. A good sign.
Thanks for all the help.
It was not clear, but then it's only been there a week.ÂÂ
It doesn't taste nice. It tastes buttery/butterscotch, in other words, there is probably diacetyl there which should go away with secondary conditioning.ÂÂ
I brewed another batch today and put it on top of the lees from the previous brew.
I have DOUBTS about this brew !
The photo below shows the FV after one whole week. The yeast is floating at the top. The description from Wyeast says this is "a true top cropping yeast".
An update on this brew... it was racked into secondary on Sunday, 4 days ago.
I took a peek inside the 5 gallon fermenter and another thick cake of yeast has formed on top of the brew... so there's plenty of life in it and it's bubbling away.
My pessimism is perhaps unfounded as this brew is very immature and I am not handling it as carefully as I should. It does seem to require some extra agitation or aeration and I simply haven't been doing that.
Today, I had a much better WHIFF from the secondary fermentor. A good sign.
Thanks for all the help.
Another bulletin on batch 2 (pictured above): -
I gave it another skimming and rousing last night (day 6). This time, a thick yeast head did not form again quickly, suggesting that fermentation is tailing off.
This morning it has a thin, foamy head of bubbles on it, and looks good!
Any update on your brews, Darren?
I gave it another skimming and rousing last night (day 6). This time, a thick yeast head did not form again quickly, suggesting that fermentation is tailing off.
This morning it has a thin, foamy head of bubbles on it, and looks good!
Any update on your brews, Darren?
QUOTE (Jaytee @ Sep 11 2005, 09:45 PM) This time, a thick yeast head did not form again quickly, suggesting that fermentation is tailing off.
Are you taking hydrometer readings to confirm wher fermentation is at ?
Actually, no. But I should really; in fact I'm going to take one tonight.
I'm so used to just leaving the fermentation to look after itself, and old habits die hard!
Are you taking hydrometer readings to confirm wher fermentation is at ?
Actually, no. But I should really; in fact I'm going to take one tonight.
I'm so used to just leaving the fermentation to look after itself, and old habits die hard!
QUOTE (jim @ Sep 12 2005, 05:21 PM) QUOTE (Jaytee @ Sep 11 2005, 09:45 PM) This time, a thick yeast head did not form again quickly, suggesting that fermentation is tailing off.
Are you taking hydrometer readings to confirm wher fermentation is at ?
Actually, no. But I should really; in fact I'm going to take one tonight.
I'm so used to just leaving the fermentation to look after itself, and old habits die hard!
I haven't taken any hydrometer readings with the last two brews using this Wyeast London III. I usually take hydrometer readings though.
As regards an update... One brew has been in primary for one week plus 2 days.
The other brew has been in secondary for the same amount of time.
And I haven't really given them much attention in terms of agitation etc.
Fingers crossed, I hope to brew again this weekend.
Cheers
D
Are you taking hydrometer readings to confirm wher fermentation is at ?
Actually, no. But I should really; in fact I'm going to take one tonight.
I'm so used to just leaving the fermentation to look after itself, and old habits die hard!
I haven't taken any hydrometer readings with the last two brews using this Wyeast London III. I usually take hydrometer readings though.
As regards an update... One brew has been in primary for one week plus 2 days.
The other brew has been in secondary for the same amount of time.
And I haven't really given them much attention in terms of agitation etc.
Fingers crossed, I hope to brew again this weekend.
Cheers
D
Gravity reading on day 9 of fermentation is still around 18. This yeast is slow!
I gave it another skimming and rousing, then turned the temperature up a bit (from 20C). I'll check the gravity again in a couple of days.
Looks like I picked a right awkward one here for my first go at liquid yeast cultures! :rolleyes:
I gave it another skimming and rousing, then turned the temperature up a bit (from 20C). I'll check the gravity again in a couple of days.
Looks like I picked a right awkward one here for my first go at liquid yeast cultures! :rolleyes: