So perhaps it is in the stage of hoping the extract, that is giving the inconsistencies ? There is some sort of QC issue with Muntons that is not happening with other kit producers. And it is a shame as they are producing, when they don't stick, some well balanced kit beers.David Edge wrote:Quoth CrownCap:
>Can't believe its the water so it must be the extract.
It's the same extract as Brupaks kits - how do people find them?
The Muntons stick strikes again!
-
prodigal2
Whilst Brupaks do state that Muntons make their LME (and quite prossibly kit extract), they are keen to state that it is produced exclusively for Brupaks (and quite possibly Cederex according to some).
Something IS clearly different between the Muntons/Woodfords and Brupaks ranges, the number of complaints regarding stuck fermentations in the Muntons camp is huge compared to those for Brupaks - and we all know that people are quick to complain when something is wrong (myself included) and slow to to give praise when something is right.
Disclaimer - I have no afiliation to Brupaks, Muntons or any other manufacterer
Something IS clearly different between the Muntons/Woodfords and Brupaks ranges, the number of complaints regarding stuck fermentations in the Muntons camp is huge compared to those for Brupaks - and we all know that people are quick to complain when something is wrong (myself included) and slow to to give praise when something is right.
Disclaimer - I have no afiliation to Brupaks, Muntons or any other manufacterer
Last edited by CrownCap on Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Next Up : Something for the summer
Primary : Nothing
Secondary / Conditioning : Nothing
Drinking : Mosaic IPA
Primary : Nothing
Secondary / Conditioning : Nothing
Drinking : Mosaic IPA
-
David Edge
CrownCap:
Brupaks attribute their success to their yeast strain. This ties in with something I was told by Keith Thomas of Brewlab some years ago. His theory was that the standard homebrew advice to throw away the kit yeast and replace it with something better is possibly flawed because kit manufacturers select yeasts that tolerate the low oxygen regime in beer kits.
Another yeasty point: I recently tasted a Headcracker kit made by a homebrew shop as a demonstrator. After two weeks it was autolysed - had yeast bite - a feat that takes me over a year. The yeast supplied with that particular kit clearly wasn't up to the job. I can't say whether it would have been ok when it left the factory, of course. But then one wonders if Brupaks kits are on the whole sold by shops with higher turnover / better storage?
Has anyone got an A-level student in the family who could persuade a lab technician to do a yeast count and viability test at school?
Finally, are people who are cheesed off with Muntons trying Brupaks and then getting good results?
No affiliation either, but keen to get to the bottom of this...
Clive at Brupaks confirms that the extracts are from Muntons. It seems unlikely that with Brupaks being one of the smaller outfits that the exclusivity is anything other than the blend that goes into the can from the various base malts and hop extracts (supposition only).Whilst Brupaks do state that Muntons make their LME (and quite prossibly kit extract), they are keen to state that it is produced exclusively for Brupaks
Has anybody sampled Brupaks kits used and Brupaks complaints (nil) and Muntons kits used and Muntons complaints? If someone can do the numbers I'll do the chi-sq test. I think to have some confidence in this hypothesis it would be necessary to show the problem wasn't just because Brupaks sales are, regrettably, rather lower.Something IS clearly different between the Muntons/Woodfords and Brupaks ranges, the number of complaints regarding stuck fermentations in the Muntons camp is huge compared to those for Brupaks
Brupaks attribute their success to their yeast strain. This ties in with something I was told by Keith Thomas of Brewlab some years ago. His theory was that the standard homebrew advice to throw away the kit yeast and replace it with something better is possibly flawed because kit manufacturers select yeasts that tolerate the low oxygen regime in beer kits.
Another yeasty point: I recently tasted a Headcracker kit made by a homebrew shop as a demonstrator. After two weeks it was autolysed - had yeast bite - a feat that takes me over a year. The yeast supplied with that particular kit clearly wasn't up to the job. I can't say whether it would have been ok when it left the factory, of course. But then one wonders if Brupaks kits are on the whole sold by shops with higher turnover / better storage?
Has anyone got an A-level student in the family who could persuade a lab technician to do a yeast count and viability test at school?
Finally, are people who are cheesed off with Muntons trying Brupaks and then getting good results?
No affiliation either, but keen to get to the bottom of this...
Certainly on this site there seems to be a good proportion of Brupaks to Muntons kit brewers (although still in Muntons favour). And you certainly get the feeling that the Brupaks camp get an easier ride. However, as David rightly says, a finger in the air is not statistical proof.
Given what you say about yeasts David, it would be interesting to try some Muntons kits with the Brupaks yeast. However, I have a suspicion even that may turn out to be Muntons Gold (judging by the sachets I have had in various kits).
However, it would be even better if manufacturers/resellers were a little more verbose about the the contents of their kits. Indications of malts, hops and yeast used would be useful stuff for many aspiring home brewers.
As an aside - look at the Brupaks packaging compared to Muntons or Woodfords. I know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but you can see that when given the option people might choose to 'read' a Muntons.
Given what you say about yeasts David, it would be interesting to try some Muntons kits with the Brupaks yeast. However, I have a suspicion even that may turn out to be Muntons Gold (judging by the sachets I have had in various kits).
However, it would be even better if manufacturers/resellers were a little more verbose about the the contents of their kits. Indications of malts, hops and yeast used would be useful stuff for many aspiring home brewers.
As an aside - look at the Brupaks packaging compared to Muntons or Woodfords. I know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but you can see that when given the option people might choose to 'read' a Muntons.
Next Up : Something for the summer
Primary : Nothing
Secondary / Conditioning : Nothing
Drinking : Mosaic IPA
Primary : Nothing
Secondary / Conditioning : Nothing
Drinking : Mosaic IPA
-
J_P
I remember I had an issue with the Fixby Gold it got stuck at 1016 until I realised I was reading the hydro wrongDaaB wrote:I can only recall one instance of a report of a stuck fermentation with a Brupaks kit.
.I am drinking a perfectly good half of Muntons Gold Highland Heavy that went to 1014 in around 5 days courtesy of masses of aeration, Safale S04 and boiling the Muntons yeast up as fodder for the safale
They aint all bad uns-
David Edge
Daab:
Muntons Gold is a funny one. It wasn't a contender looking at the 2005 and 2006 results (100 entries total) but with the extra entries in 2007 (another hundred) it appears to be in with the good 'uns. An independent source suggests that since they got it packaged by the original yeast manufacturer its performance has improved.
Drinking: MX brown ale 1069 6.2% ABC; Vouvray demi-sec heaven knows!
I can ferment 40 litres with 11g of S-04 or Nottingham which is not what the books would lead you to suspect; but CBA's 2004 (me) and 2005 (son of) champions can vouch for that pitching rate. I think it's down to rehydration and freshness. Accoding to Moritz Kallemeyer http://www.draymans.com/articles/articles.html poor rehydration can kill half your cells; goodness knows what sitting in full sun in a shop window for a year will do!I have used 1 sachet of separately purchased Muntons Gold yeast to excellent effect where I should have pitched at least 2 so presumably the yeast isn't that bad ????
Muntons Gold is a funny one. It wasn't a contender looking at the 2005 and 2006 results (100 entries total) but with the extra entries in 2007 (another hundred) it appears to be in with the good 'uns. An independent source suggests that since they got it packaged by the original yeast manufacturer its performance has improved.
You are almost certainly as sick as me of sanctimonious twerps saying "of you ASSume u make an ASS of U and ME; but in this case it might actually be true. I never know quite what to make of the bulk HB market.late Autumn with people having problems with their Micro Brewery kits (ie a King Keg, Wherry, Sanitiser and Sparklet buld in a box) which I assume are a high turnover item for many shops.
Drinking: MX brown ale 1069 6.2% ABC; Vouvray demi-sec heaven knows!
-
David Edge
Sure; my main point is that such calculators work because they make an assumption about yeast viability. I think I get away with murder because of good aereation and storage. YMMV as our colonial chums say.This can be a tricky discussion, imo you have to put your stick in the ground somewhere and I tend to go with 'Jamils' (mrmalty.com) pitching rate calculator for any yeast calculations.
Once the brewer has a regime that works the main thing then is to scale it for gravity and give it a little extra boost above 1060. White Labs used to give some really daft advice about doubling the pitching rate for every ten degrees over 1060 (ie 32x at 1120!); can't find that now, but Wyeast's new site has the rather more sensible:
"A rough rule of thumb is to double pitch rates above 1.065 and triple pitch rates above 1.085. "
-
David Edge
You are indeed! Does it allow you to compensate for the thermal history of the package from the moment it left the factory to the moment you open it, supposing you knew it anyway? It is probably more use to people in the US who expect yeast to be refrigerated.I'm being pedantic now but the MrMalty calculator allows you to make adjustment to for the age of the yeast
cheers
-
David Edge
No need to take cover. It's just I'm afraid people might start taking pitching rate calculators too seriously as they do with IBU calcs. They turn off their taste buds and say 'the numbers are right - reality is at fault'.
I taste plenty of beers that bear the hallmarks of underpitching yet I know the brewer pitched at twice the rate that I do. So I conclude there's something wrong with their yeast storage or wort nutrients.
Liquid yeasts are perhaps even more vulnerable than dried due to their transaltlantic journey.
There are tests like:
- do I smell acetaldehyde
- did I fail to reach expected FG
- do my beers autolyse quickly
- is there a long lag time
if the answer is yes, pitch more yeast!
cheers
I taste plenty of beers that bear the hallmarks of underpitching yet I know the brewer pitched at twice the rate that I do. So I conclude there's something wrong with their yeast storage or wort nutrients.
Liquid yeasts are perhaps even more vulnerable than dried due to their transaltlantic journey.
There are tests like:
- do I smell acetaldehyde
- did I fail to reach expected FG
- do my beers autolyse quickly
- is there a long lag time
if the answer is yes, pitch more yeast!
cheers
-
David Edge
-
delboy
I don't think a lag time is always a consequence of simply cell numbers, the yeasts have to go through an adaptive stage where they get used to their environment and express more of the proteins they need while reducing the amount of superflous ones etc.
I think you even give an example where you say someone pitched twice the amount of yeast you did but still encountered problems. That would kind of suggest that getting the yeast up to speed by rehydrating correctly or by hydrating and priming the yeast with the actual wort they are going to ferment (in the case of DaaBS starter method) are the key points and not simply cell number.
From a microbial growth standpoint this would seem to make sense.
Not sure how relevant this is but i've also seen the odd thread were some homebrewer brought home a jar of brewery yeast and expected explosive fermention like the 'real brewers' only to be completely underwhemed by the activity.
Maybe the wort they were fermenting is sufficently different from the brewery wort that the yeast has to go through the whole adaptive phase something the yeast wouldn't need to do when being constantly repitched into identical wort time after time.
Thats my tuppence
I think you even give an example where you say someone pitched twice the amount of yeast you did but still encountered problems. That would kind of suggest that getting the yeast up to speed by rehydrating correctly or by hydrating and priming the yeast with the actual wort they are going to ferment (in the case of DaaBS starter method) are the key points and not simply cell number.
From a microbial growth standpoint this would seem to make sense.
Not sure how relevant this is but i've also seen the odd thread were some homebrewer brought home a jar of brewery yeast and expected explosive fermention like the 'real brewers' only to be completely underwhemed by the activity.
Maybe the wort they were fermenting is sufficently different from the brewery wort that the yeast has to go through the whole adaptive phase something the yeast wouldn't need to do when being constantly repitched into identical wort time after time.
Thats my tuppence
-
David Edge
Agreed; but it's a warning sign - not necessarily dangerI don't think a lag time is always a consequence of simply cell numbers
Just so; somewhere in this lotMaybe the wort they were fermenting is sufficently different from the brewery wort
http://craftbrewing.org.uk/bcpdf/BC5-3_sep2005.pdf
someone whose name will seem strangely familiar says "Fresh yeast can be a revelation, producing a flavour explosion. It can also be a disappointment if the yeast needs attention that your system can’t provide, for example frequent rousing or oxygenation using pure oxygen. Try it by all means – but on half a batch so you can evaluate the results a little more scientifically."
The article "Back to basics - Yeast" is probably worth a look, it's a pity I've probably bored everybody rigid with this thread so nobody will see the plug!
-
delboy
David it certainly hasn't bored me, i also enjoyed your contibution on the link that you provided.David Edge wrote:Agreed; but it's a warning sign - not necessarily dangerI don't think a lag time is always a consequence of simply cell numbers
Just so; somewhere in this lotMaybe the wort they were fermenting is sufficently different from the brewery wort
http://craftbrewing.org.uk/bcpdf/BC5-3_sep2005.pdf
someone whose name will seem strangely familiar says "Fresh yeast can be a revelation, producing a flavour explosion. It can also be a disappointment if the yeast needs attention that your system can’t provide, for example frequent rousing or oxygenation using pure oxygen. Try it by all means – but on half a batch so you can evaluate the results a little more scientifically."
The article "Back to basics - Yeast" is probably worth a look, it's a pity I've probably bored everybody rigid with this thread so nobody will see the plug!
-
Vossy1
-
prodigal2
Not bored, and very much interested to hear more.David Edge wrote:
The article "Back to basics - Yeast" is probably worth a look, it's a pity I've probably bored everybody rigid with this thread so nobody will see the plug!
David for the VERY first time EVER I wish I still lived in the East midlands
Yet another stick for I wish I started brewing 10 years ago I only started brewing in december, and yeast is still a real voodoo as yet, but I have found this thread highly illuminating.
Thank you to you and DaaB for educating me
