30 replies to this topic

[Big Nake]

After this 7th and final batch of Bayern Lager (a dunkel) this weekend, I'm going to smack a pack of 1028 and make some ales.  An ESB is in the works and probably a pale ale with some of these off-the-map hops I still have... Loral, El Dorado, Ella, Lemon Drop.  Any other suggestions are welcome.  I might make a batch of MLPA with it too.  Here's a fun fact... the characteristics of 1028 are exactly the same as 1056.

 

 

[HVB]

El Dorado goes well with Citra and Mosaic. 1:1 will work good and you could do a simple bittering hop and the the hop blend in the wp and dh for a nice APA.

[jayb151]

Funny to see that stats are the same. I haven't side by sided them, but I did side by side Saf 05 and 04. Both beers turned out great, but were noticeably different. 

 

Was a stout, the 05 was dryer and a little more roasty. The 04 was a bit "smoother" and easier to drink. that said, I LIKED the flavor of the 05 more.

[HVB]

Funny to see that stats are the same. I haven't side by sided them, but I did side by side Saf 05 and 04. Both beers turned out great, but were noticeably different.

Was a stout, the 05 was dryer and a little more roasty. The 04 was a bit "smoother" and easier to drink. that said, I LIKED the flavor of the 05 more.

This is why I co-pitch s-05/s-04. I find I get a better beer than if I used either one solo.

[Big Nake]

Clearly 1056 is very neutral and 1028 is probably the most neutral of the English strains, right?  Occasionally I have beers made with both strains in kegs and I actually have to check my notes on which yeast was used in whatever beer I'm drinking so they're clearly very close but slightly different in the flavor profile.  I was just surprised that the numbers are IDENTICAL.  

[neddles]

In my experience 1028 does not floc nearly as well as 1056. Not that 1056 is great but its a decent floccer whereas 1028 is not. Again just my experience having used them both.

[Big Nake]

In my experience 1028 does not floc nearly as well as 1056. Not that 1056 is great but its a decent floccer whereas 1028 is not. Again just my experience having used them both.

I agree that 1028 is no 1968, 1098, 1099 or 1469 in terms of floccing.  But those other strains probably have lower attenuation numbers too.  I had a run of 1469 beers earlier this year and a run of 1056 beers in the spring so I wanted something else so I just grabbed 1028.  The ESB will be a recipe I have made many times before... anything else I make could be a beer that I typically use 1056 for and I seem to be able to get it clear with a small gel solution injection.  

[neddles]

I agree that 1028 is no 1968, 1098, 1099 or 1469 in terms of floccing. But those other strains probably have lower attenuation numbers too. I had a run of 1469 beers earlier this year and a run of 1056 beers in the spring so I wanted something else so I just grabbed 1028. The ESB will be a recipe I have made many times before... anything else I make could be a beer that I typically use 1056 for and I seem to be able to get it clear with a small gel solution injection.

Its a fine yeast and gel will clear it up. Im just saying 1056 has always cleared a good bit better IME, whereas Wyeast says they are both low-med floccers.

[Big Nake]

Its a fine yeast and gel will clear it up. Im just saying 1056 has always cleared a good bit better IME, whereas Wyeast says they are both low-med floccers.

Yeah, actually that stat alone was a surprise to me.  The fact that all the numbers are identical was a surprise but I've always been able to get both strains clear so that low-to-med floccing stat had me all Whaaaaat? 

[Big Nake]

I was on my bike yesterday afternoon and my mind was wandering towards these 1028 beers.  I came up with 1) a late-hopped pale ale with some of these off-the-map hops (probably a combo of Loral, Ella, El Dorado and Lemon Drop), 2) my Signature Ale which is a dark-amber beer with 30 IBUs of bittering hops (usually Northern Brewer and whatever else I have, maybe Nugget), 3) an ESB with pale ale malt, british crystal, torrified wheat, a bittering hop (not sure yet) and then late Styrian Goldings and... 4) a pale-colored pale ale using Crystal and Glacier late in the boil.  I've made that beer before and it's a nod to a nice pale ale brewed and served in a brewpub in Bloomington, IN.  I just ordered some Nugget, Glacier, Mt. Hood and Northern Brewer.  Cheers brothers.

[Bklmt2000]

Ken, if you have any Cascade on hand, I can attest that 1028 plays very nicely with Cascade.  Centennial, too.

 

Great Lakes using 1028 as one of their main ale strains (maybe the only one?) and their Burning River Ale uses it, along with Cascade as the flavor/aroma hop additions.

 

One of my all-time fav beers.

[Big Nake]

Ken, if you have any Cascade on hand, I can attest that 1028 plays very nicely with Cascade.  Centennial, too.

 

Great Lakes using 1028 as one of their main ale strains (maybe the only one?) and their Burning River Ale uses it, along with Cascade as the flavor/aroma hop additions.

 

One of my all-time fav beers.

I may have used all my Cascade but I'll check that.  I was thinking maybe I would drop some Citra () into the one pale ale with the off-the-map hops so that the flavor would be "familiar" but diluted with the others in the beer.  I just realized I have 2 ounces of Azzacca downstairs and my notes say to use it with a hop like Citra, Galaxy or Amarillo so there's that too.  After making so many lagers lately (and having plans to make more with 2278) I really have to adjust my brain towards ales. 

[denny]

I agree that 1028 is no 1968, 1098, 1099 or 1469 in terms of floccing.  But those other strains probably have lower attenuation numbers too.  I had a run of 1469 beers earlier this year and a run of 1056 beers in the spring so I wanted something else so I just grabbed 1028.  The ESB will be a recipe I have made many times before... anything else I make could be a beer that I typically use 1056 for and I seem to be able to get it clear with a small gel solution injection.  

 

You probably know this, but don't be fooled by the attenuation numbers of the yeast.  The composition of the wort makes far more difference.

[Bklmt2000]

You probably know this, but don't be fooled by the attenuation numbers of the yeast.  The composition of the wort makes far more difference.

 

To that point, I've also had no issues with 1028 dropping bright, pretty much along the lines of the high-floccers (1968, 1099, etc.).

 

I've read that some people have had issues with 1028 and clarity, but thankfully it never gave me any problems.

[Big Nake]

Yeah, I plan to be careful with it and make sure that the beer is fully attenuated and I might also slightly adjust my water with slightly higher SO4 to make sure the character has a bit more dryness and some of that minerally character.  In terms of clarity... I'm not concerned.  I have gotten 1028 beers very bright in the past.  

[Big Nake]

Okay, the string of 1028 beers will begin tomorrow afternoon starting with a "Crystal Glacier" pale ale.  Crystal.  Glacier.  I crack myself up.  Anyway, the 1028 has a date of June 13, 2018.  I smacked it on Monday thinking that was plenty of time.  Well the pack is 'swelling' but I expected it to be much firmer than it is.  It's rather flaccid.  So I'm making a starter.  For an ale yeast.  Ken is making a starter for an ale yeast.  Is anyone picking this up?  It's a small starter with 650ml of spring water with ½ cup of DME.  Still.  I haven't made a starter for an ale strain in forever.  Water will be filtered soon and grains will be weighed out shortly.  I plan to start brewing around 3pm Friday.  Cheers Beerheads.

[Poptop]

Small insurance policy man. Seems perfect! Good luck!

[Big Nake]

Made the starter yesterday afternoon.  I thought for sure it would be rocking this morning after the pack was smacked on Monday...

 

 

I'm really surprised that it's not more active.  June 2018.  Come on.  My original plan was to brew this afternoon which would have me pitching this thing around 7pm tonight give or take.  The plan B would be to brew tomorrow midday and pitch it around 4pm.  I don't think I've ever seen an ale yeast that's 4 months old be this stubborn.  

[positiveContact]

Clearly 1056 is very neutral and 1028 is probably the most neutral of the English strains, right?  Occasionally I have beers made with both strains in kegs and I actually have to check my notes on which yeast was used in whatever beer I'm drinking so they're clearly very close but slightly different in the flavor profile.  I was just surprised that the numbers are IDENTICAL.  

 

is WLP002 the same as 1028?  I just made two beers with 002 and they seem fairly neutral.

[Bklmt2000]

is WLP002 the same as 1028?  I just made two beers with 002 and they seem fairly neutral.

 

No, WLP002 is the White Labs version of Fuller's strain; 1028 is the WY version for Worthington's strain.