Austin Homebrew Supply Greenbelt v. WLP001 - The experiment begins...

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My impressions with this yeast ... Has spicy, earthy esters, especially in the aroma. Pretty clean ester flavor, slightly more esters than WLP001. Mutes the hop flavor slightly, but leaves a crisper, lingering hop bitterness on the back end. Definitely more flocculant than WLP001 -- when I use Cali ale I usually end up filtering, definitely not necessary with this yeast. When the beer is young, it will have an oniony flavor (seems to be the esters), but that seems to age out quickly. Accentuates the "cat piss" flavor and aroma of some American "C" hops.

Overall, it is most similar to Wyeast 1272. I still prefer Wyeast 1272, American Ale II, over this yeast for the beers I have sampled made with it (APA, Lake Walk), but I think it would be an excellent choice for a hoppy American IPA. I will give it another shot next time I brew up one of my IPAs.

In addition to American IPA, I think the ester profile and attenuation of this yeast would be ideally suited to an American Stout or Robust Porter style beer. The alcohol tolerance is listed at 10%, pretty low, so I would avoid using it on any of the imperials. In practice the alcohol tolerance of WLP001 is much greater at about 16%.
 
Not having much luck with this yeast. Made a nice big starter(750ml) as per usual, used yeast nutrient in the boil.

Over 24 hours to get going, which is slow by my standards. Last 3 batches on my new setup all were ripping after 12, and completely done within 4 days. On day 5, it's still at .024, crap. Krausen is almost dropped, but still a thick skin on top. I don't get it.
 
Not having much luck with this yeast. Made a nice big starter(750ml) as per usual, used yeast nutrient in the boil.

Over 24 hours to get going, which is slow by my standards. Last 3 batches on my new setup all were ripping after 12, and completely done within 4 days. On day 5, it's still at .024, crap. Krausen is almost dropped, but still a thick skin on top. I don't get it.

Wow. Total opposite for me. Stuff went crazy for me.... more than any other i've used.
 
Wow. Total opposite for me. Stuff went crazy for me.... more than any other i've used.

That's what I was expecting, I swear it left a heap of yeast in my starter, more than i've ever seen. Very disappointing thus far.
 
Any more impressions of the Greenbelt strain?

I have two IPAs entered into a state BCJP comp this weekend - 10 gallon batch, split into two fermenters: one with greenbelt, one with WLP001.

I'll post the judges tasting notes...
 
Well, I know what I'm brewing next- an IPA using Greenbelt. My father-in-law's lived in Austin for going on 45-50 years now, he's a huge IPA fan, and their house is like a quarter-mile from the Barton Skyway greenbelt entrance.
 
Other commentors in this post have given some good impressions of the differences...

Blind taste testers that are BJCP certified are much better judges than someone who knows which one was brewed with a different yeast. If they didn't really indicate any major differences, I have a hard time believing there is one.
Not to knock the yeast, I am sure it is great, but I don't order from AHS, and was thinking of doing so just for that yeast. No sense in that for me unless it makes a difference.
 
Blind taste testers that are BJCP certified are much better judges than someone who knows which one was brewed with a different yeast. If they didn't really indicate any major differences, I have a hard time believing there is one.
Not to knock the yeast, I am sure it is great, but I don't order from AHS, and was thinking of doing so just for that yeast. No sense in that for me unless it makes a difference.

I'll post the scores and comments from the certified judge :D

Greenbelt: 32

Aroma: Floral hop boquet, some sweet malt, grassy. Some yeast esters as it warms/settles (9)

Appearance: Muddly light brown, thich white head with excellent retention (1)

Flavor: Sharp hop bitterness, malt sweetness behind with a touch of crystal/caramel (15)

Mouthfeel: Medium body, highly carbonated, lingering astringency (3)

Overall: Base recipe has decent IPA character with perhaps a touch too much crystal. There is a lingering harshness which escapes explanation, possibly some grain flavors? (7)

WLP001: 39

Aroma: Sweet, midly floral, light hops (8)

Appearance: Hazy amber, thick head, good retention (3)

Flavor: Grapefruit, light malt, a touch sour, hint of metallic, finishes with a nice balance (16)

Mouthfeel: Medium-light body, highly carbonated, a little creamy (4)

Overall: Nice clean IPA, hops are sharp, sugars balance reasonably well by are not very notable. Quite a citrus-fest (8)



So - In this case, this judge preferred the beer made with WLP001.....
 
I brewed an IPA with Greenbelt shortly after it was released (I had an order with Austin and thought "why not"). I will have to review my notes to make certain, but my present recollection is that the results were good but not great and that I preferred 1056 or 1272 or definitely PacMan to Greenbelt. As another member mentioned, Greenbelt seemed to mute the hops somewhat and I always go heavy on the hops in my IPA/IIPA's.
 
I kind of did the same experiment, but with Greenbelt vs. 1272. I brewed 7 gallons and split it, both have been on the yeast cake for about 1.5 weeks now. Ill make a thread in about a month, about the two and the results.
 
Back
Top