# Benefits to Combining Yeast?



## Adame

Does anyone have any experience combining yeasts? I would think there would be benefits to this but i am very inexperienced and didn't know if there could potentially bad results.


----------



## jamesngalveston

first question is why...
second, which two yeast are you wanting to combine...most will take over the dominate strain.


----------



## ibglowin

You don't combine yeast as one will dominate over the other so you are not getting what you had hoped for. You ferment 2 batches of wine separately with different yeast and then combine them together after they have fermented to dry. You get the full benefit of the two different yeast strains in that way.


----------



## jamesngalveston

nice websit, the chateau, very nicely done.


----------



## Deezil

ibglowin said:


> You don't combine yeast as one will dominate over the other so you are not getting what you had hoped for. You ferment 2 batches of wine separately with different yeast and then combine them together after they have fermented to dry. You get the full benefit of the two different yeast strains in that way.



Ferment separate & blend on the back end, is a way commonly used

But it can be done the way IB said not to 
(Not recommending it, just sharing)

The secret to doing it that way, is to research enough on the yeast strains to figure out if one is a 'killer' strain and one isnt, or if they both are. If they both are, you have to ferment separate and blend, but if one isnt... 

Some yeast actually secrete a protein that inhibits the ability of more susceptible yeasts, this is that "killer" trait

You start the fermentation with the non-"killer", and then pitch the "killer" strain mid-fermentation. It's a larger shot in the dark, as you don't really have any control of the proportions of expression from each individual yeast strain and are basically just "along for the ride". 

I've done some reading into this, mostly in how it pertains to using non-saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast strains in fermentations


----------



## jamesngalveston

Deezil, I am reading this thread, but I am wondering, what would the benefit be of using two different yeast strains. 
I understand the blending part. 
Maybe he ran out of one yeast and did not have another of the same.
Thanks.


----------



## Deezil

No two yeasts are the same.

Some are dominant, some arent.

Some contribute more aromatic notes

Some bring more mouthfeel/body

Some highlight certain characteristics - spice, fruit, etc

Some take more nutrients than others

Some make more SO2 than others - can impact the MLF-ability of the wine post-ferment

Some have higher ABV tolerances

They've all been isolated from different areas - France, Germany, Italy, Austrailia, California - and yeasts from these different regions tend to lend well to those area's traditional styles

When you take all these different facets, and align them with the fermentation you have in mind, you can start to see how some of the more "traditional" yeast blends have came to be...

Like D254 + D80, in 'larger' red wines

Or say you're making a fruit wine (Apple?), and you want a decent amount of body from the yeast, but also want to reduce malic acid content and enhance the fruity aromas of the wine.. What to do?

Split the batch per your % of fruity-to-mouthfeel
Pitch 71B-1122 for malic acid reduction and enhancement of fruity esters
Pitch D-47 for its mouthfeel/body enhancing ability

Both have roughly the same ABV & nutritional requirements
D-47 doesnt create enough SO2 to inhibit MLF

When you blend them correctly, you end up with the 'best of both worlds' - fruity aromatics, a slightly reduced malic sharpness, enhanced body/mouthfeel texture, the ability to follow-up with MLF if malic acid wasnt reduced enough..

This is just a simple example... But you can see how learning about as many different yeast strains as you can, is just adding more tools to your toolbox, as Joe would say.


----------



## jamesngalveston

I think i have a lot more reading to do on yeast...Thanks deezil for the lesson, appreciated, and never thought of before.....


----------



## Pumpkinman

Deezil, exactly! The head winemaker at a local winery suggested using two strains of yeast to bring out the characteristics that you would like, you can create a very unique wine that will be hard for others to duplicate.
I've been doing this for some time now.


----------



## Adame

This is exactly what I was getting at.


----------



## robie

Adame said:


> This is exactly what I was getting at.



But you don't have to combine the yeast in the same container. Divide the batch into two and add a different yeast to each.

Yes, some of the experts do combine more than one co-habitable yeast in the same container, but they have done it before and know exactly what to expect. That's just not something most home wine makers know how to do or should even try.


----------



## Pumpkinman

Why shouldn't they try? 
Isn't the goal of WMT to help winemakers and promote thinking outside of the box

I'm very surprised to see that posted, telling others that it shouldn't be tried is a major disservice. 

Based on other posts, you obviously do not agree with adding two different yeasts nor do you believe it can actually produce a wine with unique characteristics, and that is fine, but to tell everyone that it shouldn't be done is counter productive, furthermore, if it isn't tried, how will they ever know if it works?

If we don't take s few chances and try new methods or techniques, we might as well hang it all up and drink boxed wine.

I encourage everyone to step outside of their comfort zone and try a new technique.
As long as you do your research, and you are aware of the pros and cons, take a leap of faith.
If we don't, we will end up hitting a brick wall.
You have an enormous safety net here at WMT, there will be someone that has tried what you are attempting, just ask, Google it, email manufacturers, whatever it takes.
If we didn't do this throughout history, we'd still be living in caves.


----------



## vernsgal

Deezil said:


> No two yeasts are the same.
> 
> Some are dominant, some arent.
> 
> Some contribute more aromatic notes
> 
> Some bring more mouthfeel/body
> 
> Some highlight certain characteristics - spice, fruit, etc
> 
> Some take more nutrients than others
> 
> Some make more SO2 than others - can impact the MLF-ability of the wine post-ferment
> 
> Some have higher ABV tolerances
> 
> They've all been isolated from different areas - France, Germany, Italy, Austrailia, California - and yeasts from these different regions tend to lend well to those area's traditional styles
> 
> When you take all these different facets, and align them with the fermentation you have in mind, you can start to see how some of the more "traditional" yeast blends have came to be...
> 
> Like D254 + D80, in 'larger' red wines
> 
> Or say you're making a fruit wine (Apple?), and you want a decent amount of body from the yeast, but also want to reduce malic acid content and enhance the fruity aromas of the wine.. What to do?
> 
> Split the batch per your % of fruity-to-mouthfeel
> Pitch 71B-1122 for malic acid reduction and enhancement of fruity esters
> Pitch D-47 for its mouthfeel/body enhancing ability
> 
> Both have roughly the same ABV & nutritional requirements
> D-47 doesnt create enough SO2 to inhibit MLF
> 
> When you blend them correctly, you end up with the 'best of both worlds' - fruity aromatics, a slightly reduced malic sharpness, enhanced body/mouthfeel texture, the ability to follow-up with MLF if malic acid wasnt reduced enough..
> 
> This is just a simple example... But you can see how learning about as many different yeast strains as you can, is just adding more tools to your toolbox, as Joe would say.


Nice post Deezil thanks!



Pumpkinman said:


> Why shouldn't they try?
> Isn't the goal of WMT to help winemakers and promote thinking outside of the box
> 
> I'm very surprised to see that posted, telling others that it shouldn't be tried is a major disservice.
> 
> Based on other posts, you obviously do not agree with adding two different yeasts nor do you believe it can actually produce a wine with unique characteristics, and that is fine, but to tell everyone that it shouldn't be done is counter productive, furthermore, if it isn't tried, how will they ever know if it works?
> 
> If we don't take s few chances and try new methods or techniques, we might as well hang it all up and drink boxed wine.
> 
> I encourage everyone to step outside of their comfort zone and try a new technique.
> As long as you do your research, and you are aware of the pros and cons, take a leap of faith.
> If we don't, we will end up hitting a brick wall.
> You have an enormous safety net here at WMT, there will be someone that has tried what you are attempting, just ask, Google it, email manufacturers, whatever it takes.
> If we didn't do this throughout history, we'd still be living in caves.


I totally agree. I think thats how great wines come to be. As Joe is always saying,you really do have to think outside the box.


----------



## RCGoodin

I agree...................Think outside the box. I have purchased kit wines from Amazon and I know some of these techniques and advice from Joe will make these kit wines awesome. In fact, I have not received any bad reviews from the kits I have made.


----------



## robie

Pumpkinman said:


> Why shouldn't they try?
> Isn't the goal of WMT to help winemakers and promote thinking outside of the box
> 
> I'm very surprised to see that posted, telling others that it shouldn't be tried is a major disservice.
> 
> Based on other posts, you obviously do not agree with adding two different yeasts nor do you believe it can actually produce a wine with unique characteristics, and that is fine, but to tell everyone that it shouldn't be done is counter productive, furthermore, if it isn't tried, how will they ever know if it works?
> 
> If we don't take s few chances and try new methods or techniques, we might as well hang it all up and drink boxed wine.
> 
> I encourage everyone to step outside of their comfort zone and try a new technique.
> As long as you do your research, and you are aware of the pros and cons, take a leap of faith.
> If we don't, we will end up hitting a brick wall.
> You have an enormous safety net here at WMT, there will be someone that has tried what you are attempting, just ask, Google it, email manufacturers, whatever it takes.
> If we didn't do this throughout history, we'd still be living in caves.




There is such a thing as wisdom. Wisdom says I don't have to stick my hand to a hot stove to accept it will burn me. I can, instead, learn from others and spare myself the pain. Lack of wisdom says I have to touch it for myself before I accept it will burn me.

I think WMT is into the former and not the later.

Same for trying expensive wine experiments that have already been proven to be of little or low success, other than in special circumstances.

Others have tried it and with few exceptions, it doesn't work well to combine yeast strains. Instead, if one likes the characteristics of more than one yeast strain, divide the batch and ferment each piece separately on one desired yeast. Then, blend and receive the best of all combined.

It is also the goal of WMT to help people avoid costly or time consuming mistakes. It has been proven that with few exceptions combining yeast strains in the same fermenter is not productive. Much research has been done to determine which yeast strains CAN co-ferment and which CAN'T. I don't think we should try to ignore that knowledge, which is readily available on the web sites of the yeast providers.

I am not encouraging anyone to not experiment. I AM encouraging them to learn from other's successes and failures.


----------



## Pumpkinman

> Next time you decide you want to blast me from atop your high horse, I would suggest you do it via PM.


I didn't intend to blast you, this is the way you took it, just because I disagree, doesn't mean it is a blast.

The whole tone of your reply is condescending, "There is such a thing as wisdom", I'm curious as to what you were referring to? Is this not a blast?
"trying expensive wine experiments that have already been proven to be of little or low success, other than in special circumstances." - This is nonsense, commercial wineries combine yeasts.

"I don't think we should try to ignore that knowledge, which is readily available on the web sites of the yeast providers." I agree, we should read it.

Robie, I'll end it here, and you can be reassured that I won't post anymore costly or time consuming posts, to be honest, I am shocked, and find it hard to believe that the rest of the mods would agree with "I think WMT is into the former and not the later".

Later folks.


----------



## robie

Tom,

Sorry, I don't know if the other moderators agree with me or not.

Out of my respect for you, you can have the last word. Let's just end it at that and move on.


----------



## jamesngalveston

for testing purposes...i started my 3 gallon batch of pineapple .
1st day i pitched yeast (Cote des Blancs) to get the fruit aroma...as much as possible, I started wiht sg of 1.110...
after two days, i pitched red star premier curvee, to get the abv up.
its at .990 today, and still has a strong smell of pineapple, and the abv is way up there.
so i got the fruit taste, aroma from the blanc
and got the high abv from the curvee.


----------



## Adame

Thanks for the replies. Glad I had a question worthy enough of an argument. Thanks for all the input!


----------



## RCGoodin

jamesngalveston said:


> for testing purposes...i started my 3 gallon batch of pineapple .
> 1st day i pitched yeast (Cote des Blancs) to get the fruit aroma...as much as possible, I started wiht sg of 1.110...
> after two days, i pitched red star premier curvee, to get the abv up.
> its at .990 today, and still has a strong smell of pineapple, and the abv is way up there.
> so i got the fruit taste, aroma from the blanc
> and got the high abv from the curvee.


 
I like this. This is a perfect example of combining two yeasts in the primary, at different times, to get results from both. Great example.

Pumpkin, hang in there. You were right on. Robie, many of us learn more by doing. However, your words of caution are good to hear also.


----------



## Donz

I am actually planning to use 2 yeasts on this years crush. I have 4 fermentation tanks, all will have the same grape combination, 2 of the tanks will be pitched with BM4x4 and the other 2 tanks will pitch K1-v1116. Once fermentation is complete, I will combine and press all together. 

I saw a video of Duckhorn Vineyard in Cali and the lead winemaker always uses this method to bring out different characteristics with the different yeasts.


----------



## winemanden

Now you've read everyones views it's down to you. 
Only word of caution I will add, try it on a small scale first and let us know how it turns out. Your wine, you're the judge.


----------



## Trick

Some WE kits provide two different yeasts and instruction doesn't say you must either split into small batches or pitch at different time. That mean is kit manufacture's mine that the mixed yeast can work.
Many professional winemakers are pushing natural fermentation with native yeasts to improve complexity. These wild yeast are mixed with various of strains.
So co-fermentation can be an approach to go since for kit winemaking, we cannot use wild yeast, however we can try mixed yeast to mimic the wild yeast. Remember, the commercial yeasts were all *separated* from the mixture in the first place. They know how to survive with other strains. They are not created by human.
Think out side of the box. I would not make a conclusion before trying.
Some competition can be expected between the yeast strains. But that happens after the population is large enough. The minority can still produce some unique matter in the wine before they die out. That can control part of complexity.
Using small batches with different yeast is a good approach however it makes process too complicated and sometime it is not worth the effort if a lazy way can achieve the similar result.


----------



## Deezil

Thinking outside the box, as it's said around here, can get you in trouble.

Kit manufacturers can send two yeasts with their kits because they've tested the fermentation process with that juice and those yeasts.
There's always the chance as well, that they are both offered because of customer feedback asking for a different yeast, so they include two as to give the winemaker a choice. If your choice is to co-ferment, you may actually void the warranty. Hard telling unless there's fine print. If it's a "one or the other" and you choose "C - both"... You'd be out in the breeze, on your own.

Professional winemakers may allow natural fermentation to happen, but to say that the business is "pushing" for it, is a stretch. They go this route because they understand the risks, they know what signs to look for, and they want to be original for their product to sell. 

They don't all know how to survive with eachother. Some yeast terminate other yeast strains; some compete for resources without being terminated, and will then lead to off flavors and aromas because the situation has become stressful. Correcting these issues isn't something one can just willy-nilly fix. 

The "unique matter" isn't always desirable.



Separated fermentations with blending on the back end is much safer.
If that's too complicated, then just make wine to be happy and have fun, and don't try to keep up or compare yourself with the commercial guys.
But recommending that people play with native yeasts is always tricky business, and not something I would just recommend to anyone that comes across my post on an open forum..


I lost 75lbs of blackberries to a native yeast that made the wine smell like gym socks and vomit.
Whole year's harvest got flushed because I wanted to play with native yeast.
Wasn't the complexity that I was hoping for.


----------

