Do Belgian Yeasts vary much? Worth the extra cost?

So today I picked up my ingredients to make my Belgian Ale. I was meaning to get the Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale, but as I was ordering i drew a blank. I ended up getting Safbrew S-33... was told it would work. Later I read about it and realized that it is not like Wyeast 1388.

So, my experimentation will begin... because I can't take the S-33 back now. I did order the Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale and also a pack of Safbrew T-58 Ale Yeast.

This is what I plan to do (let me know if you have any experience with the differences).

I am going to make 3 separate batches.

1 with Safbrew S-33 (5 gallon)
1 with Safbrew T-58 (just because I want to know the difference... might be a 3 gallon deal in my old Mr. Beer)
1 with Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale (5 gallon. I plan to just go ahead and order this for the experiment).


My recipes will be:

10 lbs Pilsen Light LME
1.5 lbs Cane Sugar
2 oz Saaz
Safbrew S-33

10 lbs Pilsen Light LME
1.5 lbs Cane Sugar
2 oz Saaz
Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale


10 lbs Pilsen Light LME (or equivalent for 3 gallon batch)
1.5 lbs Cane Sugar
2 oz Saaz
Safbrew T-58


Thoughts? Past experiences?

at Northern Brewer the cost runs like this:

Safbrew T-58 Ale Yeast $1.99
Safbrew S-33 $1.99
Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale $6.50

I am wondering if the first 2 will taste close enough so i won't need to spend the extra money in the future...

I have not heard of a dry yeast equivalent for WY 1388, the Duvel strain. But I could be wrong, if so, some one will chime in.
I believe the three yeasts you listed are all different. Your experiment should help determine which you like best.
good luck!

Also, make sure you do a starter for the liquid yeast. search around here for the how to's if you haven't done one before.

It's likely you won't notice much of a difference. I've used S-33 quite successfully on Tripels as well as WLP530 & 550. All of them produce the phelonics/funk flavors under warm brewing conditions around 65-75f.

It looks like you are only changing the yeast with each recipe, which is the best way to figure out exactly what the yeast difference will do. Let us know how they turn out. My first brew next month is going to be a double brew of my porter recipe, with half using chocolate malt and the other half using Roast Barley. Everything else will be identical. Changing only one variable gives a better feel for that individual ingredient.

1388 produces pear esters. The other two don't.

aiptasia said:

It's likely you won't notice much of a difference.

Click to expand...

i disagree

s-33 is an english strain, it won't be like the other 2

t-58 is pretty spicy/peppery and highly attenuating

1388 is also quite high attenuator, but more fruity than the t-58

The good news is, I end up with 15+ gallons of Belgium Strongs... I don't see much of a drawback. I love this style of beer anyway.

From this baseline, I will start adjusting the hops and maybe a slight amount of specialty grains for different tastes.

Funny thing is, I bought 33lbs of Pilsen LME for this, and will pretty much use it all for just 3 batches.

In the grand scheme of things, it's still gonna work out in my favor.

2 oz Saaz @ 1.50------------= $3
Yeast (dry pack)-------------= $1.99
10 lbs Pilsen -----------------= $18.18 (59.99 for 33 lbs LME)
------
$23.17 or ~ $5.35 a twelve pack.


2 oz Saaz @ 1.50--------= $3
1388 Yeast--------------= $6.50
10 lbs Pilsen-------------= $18.18

$27.68 or ~ $6.39 a twelve pack.

Belgian strongs. Not Belgium strongs.

Enjoy the experiment.
I think you'll find that the S-33 isn't "Belgian" at all and might throw some fruity flavors at a higher temp but nothing like Belgian yeasts do, the T-58 will be very phenolic/peppery, and the 1388 will be the winner with fruity/pear/apple flavors. Be sure to give them all time to finish up and warm up the 1388 toward the end so it gets those last few points.

pdxal said:

Enjoy the experiment.
I think you'll find that the S-33 isn't "Belgian" at all and might throw some fruity flavors at a higher temp but nothing like Belgian yeasts do, the T-58 will be very phenolic/peppery, and the 1388 will be the winner with fruity/pear/apple flavors. Be sure to give them all time to finish up and warm up the 1388 toward the end so it gets those last few points.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the advice.

I will try to keep the same process for each, while also taking OG and FG readings. I have heard of the stalling which requires the temp to be adjusted over time to reach FG. Luckily I have a temp controlled fridge.

I also learned through reading that I will def need blow off tubes for this style in the first week.

Any suggestions on pitch temps?

Suggestions on temperatures?
To be 'scientific' you could keep the temps the same for all 3, then have a very direct, controlled, comparison. In reality, though, starting all around 64 and ramping the 1388 up after 4-5 days to 75-80 would be good, ramping the S-33 and T-58 to around 70 should do it. You'll find that the S-33 doesn't flocculate at all and will have to be cold crashed, the T-58 will with time, and the 1388 will probably drop with time or can be sped up with a cold crash.
Cheers.

Dumb question. .. what will cold crashing achieve for fermentation? I always thought that that was for beer clarity.

rmb said:

at Northern Brewer the cost runs like this:

Safbrew T-58 Ale Yeast $1.99
Safbrew S-33 $1.99
Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale $6.50

I am wondering if the first 2 will taste close enough so i won't need to spend the extra money in the future...

Click to expand...

Nope, the first 2 are not even in the ballpark of the 3rd.

Denny said:

Nope, the first 2 are not even in the ballpark of the 3rd.

Click to expand...

Great. Then I should taste the differences just by the yeast alone.

It will be an interesting taste off.

I just need to freshen up on proper taste and response techniques.

Maybe I should get with my local brewing chapter and volunteer a mini taste test event to help describe the results more accurately.

If you want to make a proper Belgian beer, you need proper Belgian yeast. Which doesn't come dried.

I did a Belgian dubble with T-58. Can't remember the entire recipe off the top of my head but I think it was mostly 70% pale malt, 20% munich malt and tiny amounts of special b, aromatic malt, some wheat, some caramel, (1-2% or less each) and about 1lb of candi sugar.

I think it got northern brewer as FWH and a hop stand of Saaz from memory. Beer is awesome after extending conditioning. Rich, fruity, slightly spicy yet very smooth and drinkable when chilled down. I was happy with it and can detect the character of the yeast.

stz said:

I did a Belgian dubble with T-58. Can't remember the entire recipe off the top of my head but I think it was mostly 70% pale malt, 20% munich malt and tiny amounts of special b, aromatic malt, some wheat, some caramel, (1-2% or less each) and about 1lb of candi sugar.

I think it got northern brewer as FWH and a hop stand of Saaz from memory. Beer is awesome after extending conditioning. Rich, fruity, slightly spicy yet very smooth and drinkable when chilled down. I was happy with it and can detect the character of the yeast.

Click to expand...

Thank you! This is the kind of feedback I am looking for.

Well... I found an excellent read here about this topic.


http://byo.com/stories/item/1664-yeast-strains-for-belgian-strong-ales

rmb said:

Great. Then I should taste the differences just by the yeast alone.

It will be an interesting taste off.

I just need to freshen up on proper taste and response techniques.

Maybe I should get with my local brewing chapter and volunteer a mini taste test event to help describe the results more accurately.

Click to expand...

Here's an excerpt from the chapter of my book about evaluating beer. Maybe it will help.


"The best way to evaluate a beer objectively is to use what’s known as blind triangle tasting. In a nutshell, you have someone else pour 2 samples of one of the beers you want to evaluate and one sample of another. The objective is to pick out the sample that’s different. If you can’t do that, then you know that whatever you’re testing for doesn’t really matter. If you can pick out the different sample, then you can go ahead and use the techniques discussed above to evaluate it. If you want to get all super sciency when you’re using a tasting panel, you may want to use weighting to determine how many panelists are likely to choose the odd beer simply by chance. An example of a spreadsheet to help you do that is at http://www.wetnewf.org/pdfs/Brewing_articles/Triangle.xls .
Cathy Haddock is a Sensory Specialist at Sierra Nevada Brewing Company in Chico, California. Part of her job is to conduct blind triangle tastings of the beers produced by Sierra Nevada. Sometimes it’s to evaluate new recipes being considered for production and sometimes it’s for quality assurance, in order to make certain a batch of beer meets Sierra Nevada’s high standards and is consistent with previous batches. Cathy has a few tips for homebrewers who want to conduct a blind triangle tasting….
“Proper protocol needs to be followed in order to trust your results. Proper protocol includes following procedures in which a taster’s response is not biased or influenced due to any psychological factors or environmental conditions. Those psychological/environmental factors that can influences a taster’s response when doing a triangle test are numerous, but I will sound off on a few that I feel are most important. We will not tell the tasters anything about the samples they are tasting in a triangle test other than the brand so that they do not have any information to bias there response. We serve the samples in a frosted glass to help eliminate visual cues biasing a taster’s response. All samples are poured the same amount of beer, with careful attention as to not have one beer more foamy than the others. If that is not enough, I also ask that they not even look at the samples, just simply grab the glass noting its 3 digit code and evaluate the sample. This way, we can have confidence the tasters are not biased by any visual cues. We also run the triangle tests in a random balance order to help elimination what is termed as First Order effect where the first sample evaluated is perceived stronger-whether negatively or positively, therefore, may be chosen as the odd sample out. This type of presentation format employs that the odd sample out is in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd position in a 3-sample triangle set evenly. I also allow tasters to re-taste if necessary. Other external controls we employ to help offset bias is that other tasters in the tasting area do not verbalize, whether through speech or body language, any opinions on the samples they are tasting in triangle test. I could go on, but these are some key elements to help ensure a researcher’s triangle test results are not biased or sensitivity reduced.”

Hey that is a great excerpt about the Sierra Nevada taste specialist.

Yeah, she's a real nice lady. Met her when I was there for Beer Camp and she set us up with blind tastings of early versions of Ruthless. I know a guy who works in the QA lab with her, so he put me in touch and she was kind enough to contribute that. I've worked a lot on the chapter about beer evaluation for the book, so I hope that when it comes out it will be valuable to people.

Denny said:

Yeah, she's a real nice lady. Met her when I was there for Beer Camp and she set us up with blind tastings of early versions of Ruthless. I know a guy who works in the QA lab with her, so he put me in touch and she was kind enough to contribute that. I've worked a lot on the chapter about beer evaluation for the book, so I hope that when it comes out it will be valuable to people.

Click to expand...

I do think the evaluation of the beer is the most inacurrate part of determining beer brewing results from most people. I always see canned responses that are merely a regurgitation of the run of the mill hop or yeast definitions that prevalently repeat themselves across the board.
It is nice to read about how SN actually creates their taste tests.

It would be neat to have a taste meter on what a beer should taste like vs a mistake in the process. Of well... thats what makes it all the more fun to do.

rmb said:

So today I picked up my ingredients to make my Belgian Ale. I was meaning to get the Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale, but as I was ordering i drew a blank. I ended up getting Safbrew S-33... was told it would work. Later I read about it and realized that it is not like Wyeast 1388.

So, my experimentation will begin... because I can't take the S-33 back now. I did order the Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale and also a pack of Safbrew T-58 Ale Yeast.

This is what I plan to do (let me know if you have any experience with the differences).

I am going to make 3 separate batches.

1 with Safbrew S-33 (5 gallon)
1 with Safbrew T-58 (just because I want to know the difference... might be a 3 gallon deal in my old Mr. Beer)
1 with Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale (5 gallon. I plan to just go ahead and order this for the experiment).


My recipes will be:

10 lbs Pilsen Light LME
1.5 lbs Cane Sugar
2 oz Saaz
Safbrew S-33

10 lbs Pilsen Light LME
1.5 lbs Cane Sugar
2 oz Saaz
Wyeast 1388 Belgian Strong Ale


10 lbs Pilsen Light LME (or equivalent for 3 gallon batch)
1.5 lbs Cane Sugar
2 oz Saaz
Safbrew T-58


Thoughts? Past experiences?

Click to expand...

Okay... I am almost a week in. .. I pitched last Friday night.

I had nice activity for 4 days at 68. I just raised the temp to 71 after 5 days to get it going again.

My final recipe was with 3 oz of saaz boiled at 45 mins for each batch.

The first 2 yeast strains were Wy 1388 and Safbrew 33.

My next batch will be with the T-58.

Should I dry hop with more saaz or will that be overkill?

Pretty sure dry hopping is not typical in the style.

signpost said:

Pretty sure dry hopping is not typical in the style.

Click to expand...

Okay... thanks.

Despite what the manufacturer says, I haven't found S-33 to produce anything recognizable as a Belgian style beer. It's been pretty reliably identified as a British yeast from Edme.

We shall see the taste difference in 6 weeks.

I expect a different taste as well. I recall once using the WL San Francisco Lager and oh man did that beer taste different.

And it makes sense, considering yeasties are the ones eating the sugar and pissing the alcohol.

I'm interested in how you get on with the S33. I picked it up as part of a big online order based on the description alone and put together an 'abbey' beer of my own devising.

After it took off at what must have been 105F+ it was done inside of 21 hours with a 67% attenuation. currently at 1.020 after sitting for 10 days.

I did some research after watching it basically boil itself alive within the first few hours of pitching and read all the mysteries of the origin, the EDME strain, the English providence etc, but I don't know why Fermentis would promote it as another thing. Plenty say it sucks, plenty say it made ok beer as long as you were prepared for it. I sort of agree with the 'abbey beer' description recommended for it. Try a Leffe Brune. They are fairly sweet and bar the strength from candi additions, wouldn't be far removed from an English mild.

You said "... it basically boiled itself alive." That is pretty funny.

I wonder if they can suffocate each other (yeast) or boil themselves with that aggressive activity?

Anyway, this is week #4 (Fri/Sat to be exact) on the primary. I am going to keg this weekend and let it sit for another month.

I will take FG tests to see where they stand. I did gradually raise the temp from 68 to 78 over the course of 2 weeks but let it sit in the 60s for at least 6 days.

Wy1388 was the most active all the way through... its like it doesn't even want to stop and this is week 4. S-33 was active early but then just stopped. It may have picked up a bit when the temp went up but it is a 2 pump chump ... where as Wy 1388 has stamina like a porn star.

Cant wait to start with the taste tests come late Sep through Oct.

Oh and T-58 is up next... I'll pitch that this weekend.

Wow. So both the Wy1388 and S-33 yeasts ended up at 1.20 FG... both the same. I just put both in the secondary. .. the keg. I didnt use much priming sugar... like 1/4 cup.

I wonder if the LME extract has anything to do with both having the same FG? I used the same LME from the same 33 lb jug. Same temp chamber so they had the same exact temps in 4 weeks.

What was most interesting was that the Wy 1388 is much lighter than the S -33. They look like 2 entirely different beers. I never kbew a yeast change could change the color of a beer? S-33 was darker.

I will do an initial taste test in 2 weeks, but I do plan to let sit in the keg for at least a month to 2 months.

Next up, I just pitched T-58 in 11.8 lbs of Pilsen LME with 3 oz of Saaz. It will be quite interesting to see how these all play out.

1.020 sounds too high for 1388. 1.010 is typical.

rmb said:

Wow. So both the Wy1388 and S-33 yeasts ended up at 1.20 FG... both the same. I just put both in the secondary. .. the keg. I didnt use much priming sugar... like 1/4 cup.

I wonder if the LME extract has anything to do with both having the same FG? I used the same LME from the same 33 lb jug. Same temp chamber so they had the same exact temps in 4 weeks.

What was most interesting was that the Wy 1388 is much lighter than the S -33. They look like 2 entirely different beers. I never kbew a yeast change could change the color of a beer? S-33 was darker.

I will do an initial taste test in 2 weeks, but I do plan to let sit in the keg for at least a month to 2 months.

Next up, I just pitched T-58 in 11.8 lbs of Pilsen LME with 3 oz of Saaz. It will be quite interesting to see how these all play out.

Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head. Extract usually has a relatively high unfermentable content. If the wort is unfermentable, it doesn't matter how attenuative the yeast is.

Also, the target according to the online calculators were 1.018 or 1.019. The secondary might finish it up just in case.

I was surprised about the color difference between the 2 yeasts.

rmb said:

Also, the target according to the online calculators were 1.018 or 1.019. The secondary might finish it up just in case.

I was surprised about the color difference between the 2 yeasts.

Click to expand...

NO calculator can accurately predict FG. Just forget about it.

So based on those results should I expect the T-58 to only get to 1.020 as well because of the LME limits?

rmb said:

So based on those results should I expect the T-58 to only get to 1.020 as well because of the LME limits?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.