A long shot - wyeast1945 in 2023

[Lacasse93]

I never had a chance to try wyeast1945 since it was discontinued before I started brewing. I know it’s closely related to 1318 but what exactly is it?

Better yet is there a source available out there anywhere?

 

[Brewskey]

http://beer.suregork.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Brewing_yeast_family_tree_nov_2018_v11.pdf
I'm not an expert by any means but according to this, 1945 and 1318 are closely related to Whitbread dry, Wy1098/WLP017. People say 1318 is the Boddington strain...but if it is, why is it called London Ale III?

@Northern_Brewer is the man to talk to imho.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2018/02/lets-brew-wednesday-1971-boddington-ip.html1945 and 1318 are closely related to Whitbread dry, Wy1098/WLP017.

And there's a gazillion breweries using Whitbread derivatives, so I wouldn't get too excited about matching any one in particular - why exactly do you want to use 1945 in particular?

I don't know the origin of that one other that it was produced exclusively for Northern Brewer (no relation!) and the name of NeoBritannia suggests a link with Connecticut or maybe ??New Albion??

People say 1318 is the Boddington strain...but if it is, why is it called London Ale III?

Boddies had a long-running connection with Whitbread, who first took a minority stake in 1961 and finally bought out the family in 1989, before being bought in turn by InBev in 2002. But 1318 doesn't seem much like the classic Boddies Tadcaster yeast which was diastatic - in the 1970s they were getting apparent attenuations of over 90%. But the classic Boddies yeast was obviously "fussy" - when InBev contracted out cask production to Hyde's they ended up using the Hyde's yeast as the old yeast just fell apart in the new conditions.

I don't know anything about the Hyde's yeast but my suspicion is that at some point after 1989 products were sold under a Boddies label that were made in a Whitbread brewery with the usual Whitbread yeast, and that's what was harvested to lead to 1318. It's evolved a bit along the way, but it's essentially just a Whitbread derivative. Whitbread are originally from London, hence LA3.

 

[Lacasse93]

why exactly do you want to use 1945 in particular?

I’m just curious about it. 1318 I enjoy a lot so if 1945 is similar I’d like to try it. It also seems strange to me why they would stop producing it outright? I understand ending the exclusive deal with northern brewer but to totally give it up? Also in a world where NEIPAs are big money makers and this strain being similar to 1318 seems like a good way to market and make money so I’m just trying to figure it out.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I’m just curious about it. 1318 I enjoy a lot so if 1945 is similar I’d like to try it. It also seems strange to me why they would stop producing it outright? I understand ending the exclusive deal with northern brewer but to totally give it up?

They've got form with ending production of yeasts that turn out to be "copies" of other strains in their catalogue - 1792 Fat Tire Ale turned out to be a Chico, and 1742 Swedish Porter turned out to be a Ringwood, neither have been seen lately.

Also in a world where NEIPAs are big money makers and this strain being similar to 1318 seems like a good way to market and make money so I’m just trying to figure it out.

Each extra strain is a cost - not just in production, but in inventory etc which is a problem for something with a relatively short shelf life. There's just no point producing it if it's not bringing something significantly different to the party. Arguably there's already too many Whitbread yeasts kicking around the yeast labs, which are keeping more interesting yeasts out of production.

 

[bierhaus15]

I've brewed with it 6-7 times over the years, as I have a frozen culture in my yeast bank.

It is not the exact same as 1318, but similar. It finishes with a light candy sweetness and the 1318-softness, although I've found it more mineral, dry, and bready. It definitely tastes like a Whitbread B yeast and might just be a 1318 subvariant, hence why they dropped it.

 

[rtstrider]

They've got form with ending production of yeasts that turn out to be "copies" of other strains in their catalogue - 1792 Fat Tire Ale turned out to be a Chico, and 1742 Swedish Porter turned out to be a Ringwood, neither have been seen lately.

Each extra strain is a cost - not just in production, but in inventory etc which is a problem for something with a relatively short shelf life. There's just no point producing it if it's not bringing something significantly different to the party. Arguably there's already too many Whitbread yeasts kicking around the yeast labs, which are keeping more interesting yeasts out of production.

Which variant of Chico would 1792 be closer too? Say the WLP001 side or the Wyeast 1056 side or is that just splitting hairs?

Edit: Looking at this it seems it may actually be closer to US-05/1056

http://beer.suregork.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brewing_yeast_tree_Oct_2019.pdf

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Which variant of Chico would 1792 be closer too? Say the WLP001 side or the Wyeast 1056 side or is that just splitting hairs?

Edit: Looking at this it seems it may actually be closer to US-05/1056

http://beer.suregork.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brewing_yeast_tree_Oct_2019.pdf

Just as a general comment I'm sure that Suregork would be the first to say that you shouldn't rely too much on a "big picture" chart like his for fine detail, it's a bit like using a world atlas to navigate to your local pub.

We've got a better idea of the fine structure of the Chico family from the Dunham lab family tree. 1792 has the recombination on one end of chromosome VII that is typical of the WLP001 subfamily, and in fact is the closest known relative of WLP001 - which fits with the oral history of Fat Tire.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Boddies had a long-running connection with Whitbread, who first took a minority stake in 1961 and finally bought out the family in 1989, before being bought in turn by InBev in 2002. But 1318 doesn't seem much like the classic Boddies Tadcaster yeast which was diastatic - in the 1970s they were getting apparent attenuations of over 90%. But the classic Boddies yeast was obviously "fussy" - when InBev contracted out cask production to Hyde's they ended up using the Hyde's yeast as the old yeast just fell apart in the new conditions.

I don't know anything about the Hyde's yeast but my suspicion is that at some point after 1989 products were sold under a Boddies label that were made in a Whitbread brewery with the usual Whitbread yeast, and that's what was harvested to lead to 1318. It's evolved a bit along the way, but it's essentially just a Whitbread derivative. Whitbread are originally from London, hence LA3.

It would seem very likely to me that the Boddingtons yeast was replaced before production went to Hydes. Whitbread yeast must surely have entered use at Strangeways between 1989 and 2002, when Whitbread owned it? I lived on the Fylde coast and drank little other than Bodds til late 1987. I still loved it. I lived in London for 2 years and got a taste for London Pride. Youngs didn't do it for me. I then moved to Manchester in 89. I never got back into Bodds. It wasn't the same thereafter, in my memory. I used to moan about Whitbread wrecking it.

 

[VikeMan]

Which variant of Chico would 1792 be closer too? Say the WLP001 side or the Wyeast 1056 side or is that just splitting hairs?

Edit: Looking at this it seems it may actually be closer to US-05/1056

http://beer.suregork.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brewing_yeast_tree_Oct_2019.pdf

Just as a general comment I'm sure that Suregork would be the first to say that you shouldn't rely too much on a "big picture" chart like his for fine detail, it's a bit like using a world atlas to navigate to your local pub.

We've got a better idea of the fine structure of the Chico family from the Dunham lab family tree. 1792 has the recombination on one end of chromosome VII that is typical of the WLP001 subfamily, and in fact is the closest known relative of WLP001 - which fits with the oral history of Fat Tire.

Aside from the genetics, I can add that I made a clone of Fat Tire for a homebrew club challenge about 3 years ago. I used US-05 and club members had trouble distinguishing between the clone and the real thing in informal blind tasting. We didn't do Triangle testing, because we didn't have enough people to provide significant power. But the tasting was enough to convince me that the New Belgium house strain and US-05 are close performance-wise, at least in that beer.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It would seem very likely to me that the Boddingtons yeast was replaced before production went to Hydes. Whitbread yeast must surely have entered use at Strangeways between 1989 and 2002, when Whitbread owned it?

In general breweries were loath to touch their yeast unless there was a problem, yeast was generally adapted to a particular brewing kit. The description of it "falling apart" at Hyde's sounds very much like a specialist multistrain not liking a new brewery, whereas Whitbread generally seems to have been used as a single strain (in late 20th century times anyway) and one reason it was liked was because it was so forgiving. So it feels like they were using *a* multistrain until Strangeways closed - whether that was the crazily diastatic Tadcaster yeast of the mid-20th-century is another matter.

I lived on the Fylde coast and drank little other than Bodds til late 1987. I still loved it. I lived in London for 2 years and got a taste for London Pride. Youngs didn't do it for me. I then moved to Manchester in 89. I never got back into Bodds. It wasn't the same thereafter, in my memory. I used to moan about Whitbread wrecking it.

Ron Pattinson has gone into a lot of detail with what happened to Boddies around 2 years ago (eg here), and read in conjunction with some of the CAMRA newsletters and personal memories of the time, it seems that the Boddington family were the main ones who wrecked it, in response to the recession of the early 80s. Changing to modern, less flavourful but cheaper varieties of barley like Triumph in 1980, using older hops, one of the old sugars not being made any more, it was death by a thousand cuts. And then there's talk of some kind of yeast change back ~1980 as well.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

In general breweries were loath to touch their yeast unless there was a problem, yeast was generally adapted to a particular brewing kit. The description of it "falling apart" at Hyde's sounds very much like a specialist multistrain not liking a new brewery, whereas Whitbread generally seems to have been used as a single strain (in late 20th century times anyway) and one reason it was liked was because it was so forgiving. So it feels like they were using *a* multistrain until Strangeways closed - whether that was the crazily diastatic Tadcaster yeast of the mid-20th-century is another matter.



Ron Pattinson has gone into a lot of detail with what happened to Boddies around 2 years ago (eg here), and read in conjunction with some of the CAMRA newsletters and personal memories of the time, it seems that the Boddington family were the main ones who wrecked it, in response to the recession of the early 80s. Changing to modern, less flavourful but cheaper varieties of barley like Triumph in 1980, using older hops, one of the old sugars not being made any more, it was death by a thousand cuts. And then there's talk of some kind of yeast change back ~1980 as well.

Yes it's possible the problem didn't happen til brewing moved to Hydes. But it's possible it happened before too. Bodds was still very good in 86 cos I had some great sessions around that time. I suspect good cellar and bar work was a factor. Cask ale that is well cared for and well served is always a good thing.

My first AG beer was in 2012 and I got the grain and yeast from Hydes brewery. I live near the old brewery, now apartments. Maybe i had the Bodds multistrain. I shudder to think....!!!