Yeast 71B

[Andrew Lea]

Jason MacArthur wrote:
>> I don't know if you plan on adding a commercial yeast strain to this
>> cider or not, but there are some which degrade malic acid. The one I
>> am aware of is Lalvin 71B, and there may be others which also do this.
>> By the way, does anyone know what becomes of the malic acid, or what
>> it is converted into?

Yeasts are funny about malic acid. Some make it, some consume it. It is
said that Lalvin yeast 71B (actually a French yeast from INRA at
Narbonne) reduces malic acid in *grape wines* by about 20 or 30% (but
where malic is a minor acid). Does anyone have documented evidence for
it doing this in cider (where malic is the chief acid?). If so, by how
much does the acid actually reduce? Figures, please!

I do not know for sure the fate of the malic but from what I have read
it is converted in yeast to pyruvate and thence to CO2 and ethanol just
like sugars (as distinct from the malic to lactic pathway in bacteria).
In most yeasts this pathway is weak although it can be enhanced by a
little genetic modification ;-)

Andrew

--
Wittenham Hill Cider Page
http://www.cider.org.uk

[Claude Jolicoeur]

Andrew Lea wrote:
> said that Lalvin yeast 71B (actually a French yeast from INRA at
> Narbonne) reduces malic acid in *grape wines* by about 20 or 30% (but
> where malic is a minor acid). Does anyone have documented evidence for
> it doing this in cider (where malic is the chief acid?). If so, by how
> much does the acid actually reduce? Figures, please!

I made a few measurements for you today, Andrew.
But first, this is the general picture... Last fall, I had a juice
blend that included 30% bittersweet apples (Bulmer's Norman and Douce
de Charlevoix), some Brown's Apple and other N.American eating apples
such as McIntosh, Cortland, Lobo, and also some Dolgo crab. SG was
1.053, TA 0.8% as tartaric. I splitted this juice into 3 batches (5
gal. each) to be fermented with 3 different yeast strains, namely
Lalvain EC-1118 (Champagne), Lalvain 71B-1122 (subject of Andrew's
inquiry) and Wyeast 4783-Rudsheimer (Riesling type). For the Wyeast, I
did not use the package of yeast nutrients provided with the yeast.

Yeast was inoculated on September 28 2009, and all 3 batches started
to ferment rapidly.
On October 4 (after a discussion on this forum about pectic gel) I
added 1 teaspoonful of pectinase in each batch.
First racking was done on October 12. The SG was then 1.027 for the 2
Lalvain batches, and 1.022 for the Wyeast batch. Temperature in the
cider room was 13C.
On October 18, I noticed a pectic gel started to form in the 71B
carboy - by Oct 23, it was fully formed and occupying the top 1/4 of
the carboy, All the cider in the lower part of the carboy was
perfectly clear.
On March 15, I proceeded to bottle the 71B batch - the SG was 1.009
and had been pretty stable for over a month. I didn't add any priming
sugar nor yeast, assuming there would be some in-bottle fermentation
to make a sparkling cider. The SG of the 2 other batches were then
1.008 and 1.003 respectively for the 1118 and 4783 batches (but the
cider had not cleared in these 2).

Today, I opened one bottle from the 71B batch and took measurements of
SG and TA from the 3 batches:
71B: SG 1.002, TA 0.4% (Tartaric), cider very sparkling and slightly
fruity.
1118: SG 1.000, TA 0.5%, now has cleared and ready to bottle.
4783: SG 1.000, TA 0.55%, now has cleared and ready to bottle.

Conclusions:
The 3 batches have had important TA reduction, probably some MLF
naturally took place.
71B has lower TA than the other 2 - effect of yeast on malic acid???
71B has been the slowest fermenter, Wyeast 4783 the fastest.
1118 and Wyeast 4783 both fermented to dryness, while 71B has about .
5% residual sugar (but still considered dry).
71B really appears worthy of consideration for other tests. The Wyeast
4783 doesn't appear to have any advantage over the 2 Lalvain yeast
strains.

Claude

[Andrew Lea]

Claude Jolicoeur wrote:

> I made a few measurements for you today, Andrew.
>

> TA 0.8% as tartaric. I splitted this juice into 3 batches (5
> gal. each) to be fermented with 3 different yeast strains, namely
> Lalvain EC-1118 (Champagne), Lalvain 71B-1122 (subject of Andrew's
> inquiry) and Wyeast 4783-Rudsheimer (Riesling type).
>

> Today, I opened one bottle from the 71B batch and took measurements of
> SG and TA from the 3 batches:
> 71B: SG 1.002, TA 0.4% (Tartaric), cider very sparkling and slightly
> fruity.
> 1118: SG 1.000, TA 0.5%, now has cleared and ready to bottle.
> 4783: SG 1.000, TA 0.55%, now has cleared and ready to bottle.
>
> Conclusions:
> The 3 batches have had important TA reduction, probably some MLF
> naturally took place.
> 71B has lower TA than the other 2 - effect of yeast on malic acid???
> 71B has been the slowest fermenter, Wyeast 4783 the fastest.
> 1118 and Wyeast 4783 both fermented to dryness, while 71B has about .
> 5% residual sugar (but still considered dry).
> 71B really appears worthy of consideration for other tests.

Thanks for that Claude! You can always trust an engineer for figures ;-)

So starting at 0.8% it would appear that the ciders have dropped to 0.5
- 0.6% by spontaneous MLF. In addition to that the 71B has dropped the
acid further by around 20-30% - just what it says on the tin! Very
impressive!

Thanks for that information. What is also good to know is your
assessment of the aroma as slightly fruity which again chimes with what
is claimed (estery) in the literature for this yeast.

[Claude Jolicoeur]

Andrew Lea wrote:
> So starting at 0.8% it would appear that the ciders have dropped to 0.5
> - 0.6% by spontaneous MLF.  In addition to that the 71B has dropped the
> acid further by around 20-30% - just what it says on the tin!  Very
> impressive!

I agree - this is quite like what the book says. However, this is just
one run, we should have more data before stating final conclusions.

What is more curious in this comparative test is that the 71B seems to
have provoqued a spontaneous keeve relatively early in the
fermentation cycle - why??? What could have been different with the
71B to provoque formation of this gel?
Claude

[Andrew Lea]

Claude Jolicoeur wrote:
> Andrew Lea wrote:
>> So starting at 0.8% it would appear that the ciders have dropped to 0.5
>> - 0.6% by spontaneous MLF. In addition to that the 71B has dropped the
>> acid further by around 20-30% - just what it says on the tin! Very
>> impressive!
>
> I agree - this is quite like what the book says. However, this is just
> one run, we should have more data before stating final conclusions.

Agreed! A minimum of 9 replicates so we can get some means and SD's!
Then replicated on different sites by different cidermakers!

>
> What is more curious in this comparative test is that the 71B seems to
> have provoqued a spontaneous keeve relatively early in the
> fermentation cycle - why??? What could have been different with the
> 71B to provoque formation of this gel?

My guess (that's all it is) is that 71B has the ability to express a
pectin methyl esterase which other yeasts typically don't do.

The other interesting thing was the generally slow and incomplete
fermentation with 71B compared with the others. It does sound like it
might have a good bit going for it in cider making terms.

[Tony Lovering]

After reading below I thought I would try the Lalvin 71B yeast

I re hydrated the yeast as per the instructions and pitched it on 19th November. Today on 24ths November there is no activity and the juice is clearing. I have kept the juice at a constant 18 deg C. I heard you need to aerate the juice daily for this yeast is that correct?

Any suggestions?

Cheers

[Mark Evens]

I've used it for a couple of years and not found that there is any need for aeration. 18 degrees is warmer than my barn (even in most "summers" here in Cumbria), so maybe the pitching rate was low and you need to wait a bit longer?

Mark

[Tony Lovering]

I used a packet recommended for 25ltrs. The ph was high so used a couple more camden tabs. How long should I wait until I should think about trying something else?

[Andrew Lea]

What's the juice volume, what was the starting SG, what is it now, what was the pH and how many Campden tablets did you add in total?

What's the juice origin? Is it from big old low nutrient trees?

Andrew 

Wittenham Hill Cider Portal
www.cider.org.uk

--
--
Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
By joining the Cider Workshop, you agree to abide by our principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cider Workshop" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cider-w...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tony Lovering]

I have 6 x 25 ltr containers. The juice was a mixture of Gala eaters and Dabinets about 50/50. The starting SG was 1.061 and hasnt changed but its only been 6 days. I checked the PH and it was around 4.0 so added malic acid to bring it to 3.65ph.

I used 5 camden tabs in each container. I waited 24 hrs after pitching the tanbs then poured the juice from each container into another so as to mix everything up and get some oxygen in for the initial fermentation. I didnt add any nutrients and added 1/2 a dose of Pectolase

I pitched 2 x SN9 sweet wine yeast, 2 x SAFECIDER yeast and 2 x 71B-1122. The 71B-1122 was re hydrated at 40 deg C for 15 mins.

I have put all the containers in a polystyrene enclosure and its temperature controlled at 18 deg C. A bit low for the SN9. 

The SAFECIDER has taken off but not as fast as expected and I stirred the SN9 after 3 days as it looked a bit flat. Thats now also going. The 71B juice has cleared to almost see through and nothing on the surface of the juice at all. I did aerate it after 4 days but nothing happened

I plan to leave it another 5 days or so then add some nutrient and then leave it another week. If nothing at the has happened at the end of that. I'll pitch in some other yeast.

I have 6 containers of natural fermentation from the same juice going strong and also the keeving going on. (pics in my other post).

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Also what gravity is 4grms/litre? It says in the instructions for the MALOCID i am trying for MLF

Cheers

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:13:31 UTC, Andrew Lea wrote:

What's the juice volume, what was the starting SG, what is it now, what was the pH and how many Camden tablets did you add in total?

[Andrew Lea]

As far as I can see you have done everything 'by the book'. Since your other two fermentations have already taken off I would expect the 71B to follow suit pretty soon. Your strategy of waiting some more and then adding nutrients if it fails to take off seems sound to me. 

It is curious how so many people in the UK this season are reporting slow starts to fermentation. It's almost as if there is an unknown common factor we've all overlooked ;-)

 4 grams per litre of residual sugar is hardly anything. It's roughly SG 1.000 or maybe a tad below. 

Andrew 

Wittenham Hill Cider Portal
www.cider.org.uk

[Claude Jolicoeur]

Le jeudi 24 novembre 2016 10:26:11 UTC-5, Andrew Lea a écrit :

It is curious how so many people in the UK this season are reporting slow starts to fermentation. It's almost as if there is an unknown common factor we've all overlooked ;-)

Yes, maybe something like: "A container of Lalvin products has beel forgotten in a storage that sustained very high temperature while the air conditioning was broken down"   
Maybe something like this, or some other quality control problem, which has nothing to do with the cider makers, could explain it ???

[Tony Lovering]

Thanks for the re assurance Andrew. I'll post an update in a week or so

Maybe the common factor is so many noobs like myself making cider and have unrealistic expectations..Its also a lot colder this year. We didnt have a frost last year until after Christmas.

Cheers

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 15:26:11 UTC, Andrew Lea wrote:

As far as I can see you have done everything 'by the book'. Since your other two fermentation have already taken off I would expect the 71B to follow suit pretty soon. Your strategy of waiting some more and then adding nutrients if it fails to take off seems sound to me. 

[Brent Klassen]

I have some new experiences with 71B as well. I have 4 X 1000 litres of the same apple blend (Courtland, Jonagold, Golden Russet, and Northern Spy) and before I pitched yeast, the pH was 3.45, TA was 4.8 mg/l of malic, and SG was 1.056. I pitched 4 different yeasts, one into each of the four totes: 71B, AWRI-350, EC-1118, and DV10.

A day or two after the other three had really gotten going, the 71B was still very slow off the mark. Of greater concern was a distinct rotten egg smell from the 71B tote, which I assumed to be H2S.

My notes suggest that adding nutrient can diminish the H2S smell, so I added Fermaid K at 250 mg for 1000 litres. 

The next day the 71B tote had taken off as well. There is still a bit of a H2S smell but it is fermenting happily and the juice certainly doesn't taste off.

So my questions: 1) has anyone else had issues with H2S production with 71B yeast? and 2) why does adding yeast nutrient diminish the H2S production? Just curious.

Thanks,

Brent

[J Davis]

Brent

I'm very interested in your tasting notes as your test batches come along. On a much smaller scale I have a test going with 71B and AWRI350 from last year - still aging. My notes on the 71B batch don't reflect any lag outside what I expected (< 24 hrs) at about 16C. It is supposed to do well with a low nutrient requirement and isn't supposed to produce much for SO2 so your experience is a bit puzzling. I like what 71B is doing to the overly acidic juice I made last year (mostly Arkansas Black, winesap, jonathan and some gala) - though I'll still have to blend it.

I've got some bittersweet/bittersharp juice coming soon (Kingston Black, Harry Masters Jersey, Porters Perfection, Stoke Red, and Dabinett) and will try 71B, WLP775 and QA23 on it.

Jim Davis

Mi Queso Es Su Queso y Mi Sidra Es Su Sidra y Mi Aguamiel Es Su Aguamiel

[Andrew Lea]

You will find the answer in any standard winemaking textbook. When yeasts are short of nutrient, they break down amino acids to get at the amino nitrogen they need for growth. If they break down sulphur-containing amino acids, then sulphur compounds like H2S are generated as a by product. You don't need much, since they are odour active at only parts per billion and hence a little goes a very long way.

That is the received wisdom anyway. In practice it's quite a bit more complicated than that. If you want to know more, check out Linda Bisson's work at UC Davis. Her lecture notes on yeast and sulphur taints can be found online.

Andrew

Wittenham Hill Cider Portal
www.cider.org.uk

> On 25 Nov 2016, at 00:19, Brent Klassen <brentkla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So my questions: 2) why does adding yeast nutrient diminish the H2S production? Just curious.
>
>

[Mike Rose]

Attached my data from last year's 71B use.

Started on 24/11/15. Pitched 8 grams 71B into 13 gallons. 1.060, 8.5 TA, 3.45 PH

Bottled on 12/5/16. 1.007 with with 15ppm (0.6g) of DAP. Three racks total. 

I just drank a bottle the other day. I didn't measure the sugar or TA again yet. Guessing from the carbonation it's probably around 1.003 or 1.004. TA taste like it's still around 8. I will test both officially next week and report back.

My Cote des Blanc blend dropped almost 10pts with the same 15ppm DAP dose, so 71B is certainly a slow fermenter. :)

[Tony Lovering]

I checked the 71B batch today and there was some gell forming in one of them and was smelling a bit funky. I decieded not to wait and pitch in some nutrient and also pitched in another batch on 71b yeast. Lets see how this goes.

Cheers

[Brent Klassen]

Andrew - thanks for the explanation.

I guess I have a bit of a philosophical question. As I read Claude's book, he seems to be advocating for creating complexity and body through low-nitrogen - using apples from unfertilized orchards, racking frequently to reduce available nitrogen, avoiding nutrients, etc. Anything to slow the fermentation process down. This approach made sense to me.

However, if a typical result of fermenting in a low-nitrogen environment is the production of H2S, then the approach would seem a bit risky.

Is this just one of those trade-offs that experienced cider makers navigate intuitively on a batch-by-batch basis? Or have I misunderstood something about the low-nitrogen, slow-fermentation approach?

Thanks,

Brent

[Andrew Lea]

On 25/11/2016 23:39, Brent Klassen wrote:

>
> However, if a typical result of fermenting in a low-nitrogen environment
> is the production of H2S, then the approach would seem a bit risky.

The issue really only applies to cultured wine yeasts, many of which
have been selected for high nutrient environments. But if you look
around you will also find cultured wine yeasts which have been selected
for low H2S production eg AWRI 350. My original explanation was
simplified because it's not just about nutrients, it's also about the
presence / absence of certain enzyme pathways and how they work on those
nutrients. Hence my reference to Dr Bisson's work.

If you work mostly with wild yeast successions, as Claude and I do, H2S
is rarely a problem. But if you starve a yeast which has been highly
selected, you run a greater risk of H2S problems.

Andrew



--
near Oxford, UK

[Claude Jolicoeur]

Le vendredi 25 novembre 2016 18:39:29 UTC-5, Brent Klassen a écrit :

I guess I have a bit of a philosophical question. As I read Claude's book, he seems to be advocating for creating complexity and body through low-nitrogen - using apples from unfertilized orchards, racking frequently to reduce available nitrogen, avoiding nutrients, etc. Anything to slow the fermentation process down. This approach made sense to me.

However, if a typical result of fermenting in a low-nitrogen environment is the production of H2S, then the approach would seem a bit risky.

Is this just one of those trade-offs that experienced cider makers navigate intuitively on a batch-by-batch basis? Or have I misunderstood something about the low-nitrogen, slow-fermentation approach?

The way I see this is that H2S production is essentially a problem of yeast overpopulation in relation to nutrition availability.

Take any population of living organisms, whether animal (including humans) or fungus (e.g. yeast), if you have a population which is in balance with the environment and the nutrition naturally available, things are likely to go smoothly. However, in a situation of overpopulation, problems will arise if there is not enough food - hence the necessity to feed this population. Take for example fishes in an aquarium. This is an overpopulation situation, and there is a need to feed the fishes otherwise they will fight and kill one another if necessary to get the little food available. Or think of an overpopulation of humans in a confined area, and in a situation where there isn't enough food for everyone, it's gonna stink...

Now let's come back to our cider. When racking, we reduce the yeast population. And since the yeast contains 10% nitrogen in its biomass, this consequently also reduces the nutrients. But we first reduce the yeast population, thus reducing the need for food also... In my opinion, the fundamental reason we don't see H2S problems in wild yeast fermentations is that things are in natural equilibrium. Micro-organism populations are not in excess for the availability of natural nutrients.

On the other hand, when pitching yeast, we induce artificially an overpopulation of yeast. And if additionnally we add some nutrients like DAP, this is rapidly used for yeast multiplication. And then, as all the DAP has been used to increase the yeast population, the natural nutrients cannot suffice anymore to feed this large population. You then need to keep on feeding the yeast otherwise problems (like H2S production) will start.

Claude

[Tony Lovering]

...or reduce the population by racking. Anyway I added some nutrient and re pitched the yeast and it took off.

[Brent Klassen]

Claude - that's a very helpful analogy. Thanks.