44 replies to this topic

[JReigle]

Aren't WLP002 and WY1968 the same thing, basically the Fullers strain? Out of curiosity, how do you get proper attenuation out of that strain for American ales, especially AIPAs, very low mash temps?

That is my understanding as well that those two are the same. I've used 1968 for DIPAs mashed at 148 or so and had it attenuate to 78%. This is an excellent strain as well, great for American and English ales, and would likely make an excellent house strain for these styles as well.

[jayb151]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but couldn't you just buy a $6 smackpack and start growing it to the size you need? Kind of a wierd question I know, but is it feasable?

[Salsgebom]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but couldn't you just buy a $6 smackpack and start growing it to the size you need? Kind of a wierd question I know, but is it feasable?

It has come to mind. I'd have to build it up to 3 gallons of pure slurry, and be sanitary enough to trust it in a $1000 batch of beer. I think I'd rather pay Wyeast to do that for me!

[MtnBrewer]

I get the impression from the original poster that the intent here is to use a single yeast strain for many difference styles. Is that a common choice? Can knowing your yeast's "personality" trump using a strain that is theoretically more appropriate for the style?

You would only do that if you were making a bunch of styles that were fairly similar, as in this case. Obviously you wouldn't be making Trappist styles with your 1968 house yeast. Just FYI, most breweries have a house yeast that they use to ferment all or most of their beers. For example, here in town Bristol Brewing uses Ringwood for all of their standard ales: Laughing Lab, Warlock, Red Rocket, etc. They obviously don't use that yeast for their lagers or their Skull & Bones series, which are Belgian in concept and sometimes wild-fermented. So if you wanted a house yeast for pale ales (including IPAs), browns, porters and stouts, you could get away with a single strain for all of those. If your usual lineup was pale ale, tripel, altbier and Bohemian pilsner, you couldn't.

[stellarbrew]

I've only used the 1968 strain a few times, and I found it makes wonderful English style beers, and quickly flocculates out to make sparkling clear beers. But for me, it has always given a distinctive English character, very malt forward, with a good amount of fruitiness. It seems to me that if you tried to use it for an APA, you would end up with a beer that would taste more like an an English bitter or pale ale than an American pale ale. The conversation through this thread has me wondering: Is it possible to tweak the variables in your recipe, mash and fermentation enough while using this yeast to make an APA or an AIPA that gives your beer the distinctive hop forward, clean American profile you would want for these styles?

[Slainte]

I would pick 1272, as it will work very well in all of the styles you listed, except maybe ESB (if you want it to be true to style). In that case, you can sorta Americanize it, or get 1968 for that particular beer (and reuse that a couple times as well if it's a popular batch).

[Salsgebom]

I would pick 1272, as it will work very well in all of the styles you listed, except maybe ESB (if you want it to be true to style). In that case, you can sorta Americanize it, or get 1968 for that particular beer (and reuse that a couple times as well if it's a popular batch).

Logical answer, but unfortunately ESB is the primary beer I want to brew next to an APA. I have 3 versions of Bitter fermenting right now with 1272 so we will see how they turn out.I hear so much about 1968, which I LOVE in ESBs, but what about the diacetyl? I'm guessing breweries that use this yeast often are considered to have a diacetyl problem?

[djinkc]

Stuck with that list I would go with 1272 but 1098 would be a consideration too. You might give drewseslu a shout. I know he has a propagation system set up at Mattingly.

[weave]

Either of the Whitbreads would be my choice here.Have you considered WY1728? When fermented low it is very clean for American styles (and Scottish ales as well). But can pass for an English strain when fermented in the mid 60's. It is also rather alcohol tolerant should you choose bigger styles at some point. The only drawback might be attenuation but you should be able to help that with lower mash temps.

[cj in j]

It's more than cost savings, although that's certainly a factor. It really helps to get to know one yeast strain inside and out and how to make it perform the way you want it to. Each strain has its own personality, if you will, and to make the most effective use of any yeast, you need to know that personality well.

Exactly. When Wyeast was still regularly selling 1026 British Cask Ale, that was my house yeast -- I used it for almost everything. It made great British style beers and fantastic American IPAs, browns, pales, ambers, etc. If I ever started my own brewery, that would be the strain I'd go with.

Have you considered WY1728? When fermented low it is very clean for American styles (and Scottish ales as well). But can pass for an English strain when fermented in the mid 60's. It is also rather alcohol tolerant should you choose bigger styles at some point. The only drawback might be attenuation but you should be able to help that with lower mash temps.

Attenuation in 1728 is consistently in the mid to upper 70s, so I don't think that would be a problem. Very flexible yeast that doesn't get the props it deserves.

I am choosing a house yeast and I'd be curious to hear others opinions. The majority of my recipes are made with Marris Otter (ESB's, Browns, Foreign style Stouts and Porters). However, I will also be brewing some American styles (APA, IPA, Amber). My original choice was 1272 for its reliable and clean fermentation specs, but I'm starting to think that it might compromise my ESB's and Browns. What would your choice be?

Salsgebom, I voted for 1028, but I never really got to know that strain well. If I could anti-vote, it would be 1968 -- just too hard to get attenuation out of it. If you want to try a White Labs strain, we've been experimenting with 007 Dry English at the brewery, and so far it's very impressive -- great flocculation (like 1968), but also great attenuation. Or, contact Wyeast and get 1026 -- fan-freakin-fantastic yeast!

[NWPines]

If I could anti-vote, it would be 1968 -- just too hard to get attenuation out of it.

Totally agree, this is what I was getting at earlier. I really like that strain, but not for this purpose due to the lower attenuation.

If you want to try a White Labs strain, we've been experimenting with 007 Dry English at the brewery, and so far it's very impressive -- great flocculation (like 1968), but also great attenuation.

I'm pretty sure WLP007 and WY1098 are the same thing. Very similar flavor profile to WLP002/WY1968 but much higher attenuation. I know of a brewery that uses it for virtually all of their ales, and they make great beer.

[MolBasser]

My "house yeast" for homebrewing has always been WLP-001 as it is the most versitile yeast out there.BrewBasser

[cj in j]

We're also experimenting with 001.

[Patrick C.]

Have you considered using dry yeasts? You should at least make comparison brews with yeasts like Nottingham, Windsor, S-04, S-05, S-189 (lagers), T-58 (wit, belgian golden), etc. You'll need to tweak the recipes to get exactly what you want, but you'll have to do that for the liquid strains too. Make sure to have the beers taste tested by a wide range of potential customers, not just by beer geeks. You could also use one of the liquid strains as the 'house' yeast, and use dry yeast for the 'special' brews. This would allow you to have variety without breaking the bank.

[AAASTINKIE]

I just use the yeast that comes in the top of the can!!

[ThroatwobblerMangrove]

I just use the yeast that comes in the top of the can!!

[Salsgebom]

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone!

Stuck with that list I would go with 1272 but 1098 would be a consideration too. You might give drewseslu a shout. I know he has a propagation system set up at Mattingly.

I really like 007, so if 1098 really is the same or at least similar, I will have to give it a try. I think my next pilot batches will be fermented with 1968 and 1098 and compare them with the 1272 batches already fermenting.

Have you considered WY1728? When fermented low it is very clean for American styles (and Scottish ales as well). But can pass for an English strain when fermented in the mid 60's. It is also rather alcohol tolerant should you choose bigger styles at some point. The only drawback might be attenuation but you should be able to help that with lower mash temps.

I have used this strain many times, and it's nice for big malty beers. Between the slower fermentation at cooler temps and lack of hop accentuation, I don't think it's ideal.

Have you considered using dry yeasts? You should at least make comparison brews with yeasts like Nottingham, Windsor, S-04, S-05, S-189 (lagers), T-58 (wit, belgian golden), etc. You'll need to tweak the recipes to get exactly what you want, but you'll have to do that for the liquid strains too. Make sure to have the beers taste tested by a wide range of potential customers, not just by beer geeks. You could also use one of the liquid strains as the 'house' yeast, and use dry yeast for the 'special' brews. This would allow you to have variety without breaking the bank.

I've used most of those strains with pretty decent success. Re-hydrating three 500g bricks of dry yeast is kind of an awkward mess but it works alright. I very well may use dry yeast at times but still want to come up with a solid Wyeast strain to keep on hand.We will have all sorts of people taste test. People get enthusiastic about any beer you put in front of them, so we will have to try to get honest opinions. One way we do that is with blind tastings of our beer alongside other commercial examples of the style.

I just use the yeast that comes in the top of the can!!

Me too. While I am opening 200 cans of Coopers kits and pouring them into the kettle, you can start sprinkling the yeast packets into the fermenter

[Stout_fan]

I voted for 1028, but having read this thread, it's probably not the one you would want for a commercial beer. While it has a great ester profile, it's a bit temperamental to ferment with. Fermentation takes longer, and you generally have rouse the yeast to convince it to complete its job.A local brewery uses 001 and re-pitches 10x. And while 001 is a great clean yeast, it is lacking those esters we like in some beers.

[drewseslu]

007 and 1098 are pretty similar, but I seem to be getting a touch more fruitiness in my warmer ferments with the 007 and better flocculation, as well. Both are excellent worhorse strains for American and English Ales of all types. Attenuation is generally around 80% with each.