Danstar London ESB Dry Ale Yeast - Anyone use it yet?

[Miraculix]

I wonder how a dual pitch of London ESB and S-04 would taste in an ESB? And if it would give greater attenuation and exhibit a greater degree of flocculation and yeast compaction vs. London ESB alone?

After rereading this thread again, I was wondering the same.

However, I just used this yeast unintentionally in a historic ipa recipe and it turned out to be one of the best beers, if not the best, I've brewed so far.

I used nbs classic English ale yeast, thought it would be mauribrew 514 but turned out to be a rebranded version of London esb instead.

I did not take a final gravity reading yet but the beer was on the dry side and most definitely not cloyingly sweet. Maybe my accidentally low mash temperature saved the beer, I think it was in the region of 60c, If i remember correctly. I used gelatin for fining and the bottles do clear quite well. Had better clearing yeasts but it is definitely not as horrible for me as it is described in this thread at some points.

Next time I try co pitching with 04.

 

[Shenanigans]

After rereading this thread again, I was wondering the same.

However, I just used this yeast unintentionally in a historic ipa recipe and it turned out to be one of the best beers, if not the best, I've brewed so far.

I used nbs classic English ale yeast, thought it would be mauribrew 514 but turned out to be a rebranded version of London esb instead.

I did not take a final gravity reading yet but the beer was on the dry side and most definitely not cloyingly sweet. Maybe my accidentally low mash temperature saved the beer, I think it was in the region of 60c, If i remember correctly. I used gelatin for fining and the bottles do clear quite well. Had better clearing yeasts but it is definitely not as horrible for me as it is described in this thread at some points.

Next time I try co pitching with 04.

Sounds like the old trick of using Notti and windsor yeasts together.
Haven't done it myself but should give nice results.
Just keep in mind that 2 packs of dry yeast almost cost as much as a vial of liquid yeast. Still more convenient of course.

 

[Sawwal]

I split a 6.5 gallon bitter batch using two packets re-hydrated Nottingham on half and the same, but ESB, on the other half. Temp was at 74F after wort 'chilling'. Pitched then and with-in 4 hours 1/2 inch white krausen on Nott and the yeast in the ESB was preparing to go. Chilled as much as I could with ice baths and t-shirts and got it down to 68. 48 hours later the Nott is at 1.012 and the ESB is at about 1.010. Both taste about right, yeasty, bitter, and clean. Both are starting to clear. 11 lbs Maris and 6 oz amber mashed at 150F for about 1 hour.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It's worth mentioning here that on one crude DNA fingerprinting technique, Windsor and ESB come out looking very closely related - that work needs to be repeated though. Recent genome sequencing puts Windsor as near-identical to Fermentis S-33 (traditionally thought to be the old EDME strain important in British homebrewing back in the 1980s), and in the "mixed" group of yeasts that includes the bread yeasts and some distilling yeasts. That means they're relatively unrelated to other brewing yeasts apart from a few weird ones like WLP036 Alt and Fermentis T-58.

T-58 seems to be very active in biotransformation, so it might be worth doing a test of a hoppy beer (something like a Chinook SMaSH) with different yeasts that included T-58 and Windsor or ESB, up against yeasts that don't biotransform well. I know Mangrove Jack M36 isn't great at it, but I suspect that any yeast with a reputation for "preserving hoppiness" is probably bad at biotransformation, so you could probably use one of the US yeasts like Chico.

 

[Sawwal]

Fascinating work you've posted. I had no idea people were doing work like this, but it makes sense that if someone can find an unknown first cousin using ancestry.com, that folks could work out genetic relationships among organisms which reproduce by budding. What a chart, too. Thanks for sharing.

So, ESB and Fermentis S-33 are likely 'siblings' as well?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

If anything it's the other way round - yeast was the first non-bacterial organism to be sequenced, it was something of a trial run for the original Human Genome Project. These days if you have the (not cheap) equipment, it's <$1000 to sequence a genome so it's pretty much routine these days.

So, ESB and Fermentis S-33 are likely 'siblings' as well?

I deliberately didn't say that, because the evidence for ESB/Windsor is far less solid than for the S-33/Windsor link, but the current evidence points that way.

The other possibility is that ESB is a blend of Windsor with something else - we know Lallemand do that with Nottingham, and the ESB/Windsor link is based on just one colony so wouldn't tell the full story if it was a blend. It's certainly curious that they would be selling separate products that appear to be so closely linked.

 

[Sawwal]

To close the circle on my little experiment...I thought both parts of the split batch were done, with the Nott at .009 and the ESB at .012 (I had mixed it up in my prior post), so I checked each for flavor. There was a noticeable difference, with the ESB tasting a little fruitier. But the next day, the ESB started up again in an odd way. It got very cloudy and had pinprick sized bubbles surfacing. This went on and on for some days. I worried about a wild yeast strain, but was dreading that somehow some brett had made it in from a kriek I had brewed in 2017, even though I like to think I rigorously sanitize. The most likely possibility was that somehow I crossed contaminated the ESB portion with yeast from the Nott portion, most likely when I was tasting, although I am very careful about contamination, always using an isopropyl spray and swabbing the neck of both carboys with separate paper towels laden with the isopropyl spray.
Losing patience, I just kegged it all together; sometimes you just have to sail into the unknown. WWCD? (What would Columbus do?) Two weeks later the beer has just about cleared and I have a very flavorful ordinary bitter of about 25 IBU and 4% alcohol. Nice, yeasty, fruity nose and a bready sort of flavor. No errant wildness from renegade yeast, and thankfully, no brett. It's a simple and plain beer reveling in its unsophisticated youth, a happy outcome. Two things I don't like about it: It has a lot of head and the carbonation leaves solution very quickly, but I'm pretty new to kegging, so my inexperience might be affecting things there.
Lessons to share: 1) Marris Otter is great. 2) The kegged outcome was similar to pitching Nott for a drier finish after having let the ESB get a jump on things to capture the ESB fruitiness, but I just went about things indirectly. 3) No matter how careful one is with sanitation, to err is human, but yeast is pretty forgiving. 4) If I'm going to split batches with different yeasts in the future, I'm going to keep the fermenters in separate rooms and not use the same sanitation tools on both fermenters. 5) Get a fridge.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Two things I don't like about it: It has a lot of head and the carbonation leaves solution very quickly, but I'm pretty new to kegging, so my inexperience might be affecting things there.

5% torrified wheat is your friend for head retention.

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself, kegging just doesn't really suit British bitters. Kegging a style meant for cask is a bit like watching a movie on a TV when it's meant to be seen in the cinema. You can fuss all you like with an ever-bigger TV and better surround sound and proper popcorn makers - but at the end of the day, it's still watching a movie on a TV.

 

[Sawwal]

5% torrified wheat is your friend for head retention.

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself, kegging just doesn't really suit British bitters. Kegging a style meant for cask is a bit like watching a movie on a TV when it's meant to be seen in the cinema. You can fuss all you like with an ever-bigger TV and better surround sound and proper popcorn makers - but at the end of the day, it's still watching a movie on a TV.

Nice analogy. I didn't think of that. So the result was as it was meant to be. I like that!

 

[Sawwal]

And I'm still enjoying the yeast family tree. Thanks for that. I have a colleague at the office who is really into yeast, so I shared it with her.

 

[lasultana]

Has anybody tried this yeast in a NEIPA?

 

[Sansnom]

I thought I’d share my results with it:

I had a packet of it kicking around for a while. I realized it was nearly expired, so I decided to do something with it. I brewed a strong bitter with 5% crystal and 7% kilned malt. I mashed at 149F, 1.050 OG.

I re-hydrated as per the instructions and pitched at 68F. Fermentation started within 8 hours, I was very surprised, considering that it was basically expired. It’s quite possibly the quickest to finish yeast I’ve used; it stopped very abruptly 24 hours after it got going. It produced a ton of heat during fermentation, I actually had trouble controlling it. It hit 75f before I realized. When the fermentation stopped, it gave off a very strong sulphur odour for a couple of days, but it did go away.

I kegged it after 13 days. FG was 1.014, 71% apparent attenuation. The smell is estery, not overly fruity. Flocculation was somewhat poor, but not much worse than US-05. The taste is estery and somewhat fruity, the flavour profile is what you would expect for an English ale yeast. I think it would be better if I had controlled the temperature better. Also, the yeast cake was very small, like half the size I’m used to.

Overall, I liked it. I don’t know if I like the character as much as say WLP002, but then again I botched the temp control, so I can’t say that for sure. I will be using it again. My results didn’t mirror the results many other people had with it. I was pleasantly surprised by it.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

The fact you made a small cake implies cell division was being inhibited, which would stress the yeast and in turn make it throw more off-flavours. I'd look at better aeration and maybe some yeast nutrient - and 68F is a touch on the warm side for British yeasts, maybe let it free rise from 64F?

Have a good read of this big thread : https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/...emps-and-profiles-cybi-other-thoughts.221817/

 

[Sansnom]

The fact you made a small cake implies cell division was being inhibited, which would stress the yeast and in turn make it throw more off-flavours. I'd look at better aeration and maybe some yeast nutrient - and 68F is a touch on the warm side for British yeasts, maybe let it free rise from 64F?

Have a good read of this big thread : https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/...emps-and-profiles-cybi-other-thoughts.221817/

68f is about as low as I can get it during this time of year, my tap water is just too warm. Since summer is nearly over, I'll probably wait until next year to invest in a better chilling setup. When it's cool out, I have no problem getting the wort to 64 or below. Aeration is something that I'm really interested in, it'll probably be one of the next things I invest in (I really want a pH meter though).

FWIW, I really liked the beer. I don't think I have any real complaints about the yeast. I do think it would be better without the flaws in my process. I'm gonna read through the thread you linked. Thanks for the advice!

 

[WestMichBrewer]

I bought this yeast yesterday at the LHBS on a whim when my recipe calls for WY 1968...Thought I'd give it a try and maybe save a few bucks in the process. Glad I checked here, but wish I had done so BEFORE shopping!
Oh well. I am brewing "I'm not bitter, I'm thirsty" (Best Bitter) from BCS.
I'm going to mash low and hope for the best!

 

[WestMichBrewer]

I bought this yeast yesterday at the LHBS on a whim when my recipe calls for WY 1968...Thought I'd give it a try and maybe save a few bucks in the process. Glad I checked here, but wish I had done so BEFORE shopping!
Oh well. I am brewing "I'm not bitter, I'm thirsty" (Best Bitter) from BCS.
I'm going to mash low and hope for the best!

I brewed this on the 27th and pitched yeast at 4:25 at 68*. By about 11pm I saw some foam appearing.
By morning it was going strong. It raged on through the afternoon and by bedtime yesterday the high kreusen had fallen and it was back to a small surface foam. The yeast goes to work!
Is it even possible for this one packet of yeast to chew through 3.5 gallons of 1.048 wort in 24 hours? I haven't measured yet, but doesn't seem likely.
I've been bumping the temp and it sits at about 73* hoping to keep it from sleeping entirely.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Is Lallemand/Danstar London ESB yeast less estery than Windsor? The Lallemand technical data sheets flavor profile diagrams show it to indeed be less estery than Windsor. I find Windsor to be generally rather dull. Does this make London ESB even more dull?

 

[dmtaylor]

Is Lallemand/Danstar London ESB yeast less estery than Windsor? The Lallemand technical data sheets flavor profile diagrams show it to indeed be less estery than Windsor. I find Windsor to be generally rather dull. Does this make London ESB even more dull?

Great questions, which unfortunately I cannot yet answer. I just bought some London ESB and will form opinions on that later. In the meantime, you might want to try Munton's ale yeast, which is very similar, very low attenuator like the others, but has a huge fruity ester thing going on like tutti fruitti.

 

[WestMichBrewer]

I brewed this on the 27th and pitched yeast at 4:25 at 68*. By about 11pm I saw some foam appearing.
By morning it was going strong. It raged on through the afternoon and by bedtime yesterday the high kreusen had fallen and it was back to a small surface foam. The yeast goes to work!
Is it even possible for this one packet of yeast to chew through 3.5 gallons of 1.048 wort in 24 hours? I haven't measured yet, but doesn't seem likely.
I've been bumping the temp and it sits at about 73* hoping to keep it from sleeping entirely.

I've bottled the beer and can report that the flavor is good and I don't really detect much residual sweetness, if any.
The yeast doesn't floc well as others have stated, but if a bottle sits in your fridge a couple days, it should pour mostly clear.

The problem I am having is that the carbonation just didn't come through after 2+ weeks of waiting.
I just double-checked the priming sugar I used and it is adequate (1.5 oz corn sugar for 3.25 gallons).
I have the bottles sitting at ~70F currently where they were downstairs in the low 60's.
Maybe that will help, but currently the beer is pretty flat.
Maybe the yeast?

 

[WestMichBrewer]

I've bottled the beer and can report that the flavor is good and I don't really detect much residual sweetness, if any.
The yeast doesn't floc well as others have stated, but if a bottle sits in your fridge a couple days, it should pour mostly clear.

The problem I am having is that the carbonation just didn't come through after 2+ weeks of waiting.
I just double-checked the priming sugar I used and it is adequate (1.5 oz corn sugar for 3.25 gallons).
I have the bottles sitting at ~70F currently where they were downstairs in the low 60's.
Maybe that will help, but currently the beer is pretty flat.
Maybe the yeast?

Nope, waited 3 weeks or so and still no carb.
Due to all the concern over flocculation I cold crashed this prior to bottling and probably killed the yeast with the cold.
I uncapped all the bottles and poured them into an empty keg and threw in some 34/70 from a batch of Munich Dunkel I just put to secondary for some lagering time.
The keg is pressurized now, so I think it'll be fine.

 

[thehaze]

1.5 oz sugar for 3.25 gallons is definitely not adequate to produce pleasent carbonation, at least for my taste. I use around 5.5 oz table sugar ( beet or cane ) for 6 gallons. That's around 2.55 vol CO2. Works well for many styles of beer. I used 6.9 oz table sugar for 6.35 gallons of Hefeweizens, giving me a 2.85 vol CO2, which was OK. My latest Biere de Garde used 6.5 oz table sugar for 6.5 gallons of beer giving me around 2.75 vol CO2. I was shooting for 2.9, but I ended up with 0.5 gallons more beer. I tasted it. It needed more and I will go higher next time.

Your 1.5 corn sugar, which you need to use more than table sugar for the same purpose, will have given you around 1.7 vol CO2, which is why you didn't experience any " noticeable " carbonation levels. It's not an yeast problem, especially for one that does not flocculate well. I think the amount of corn sugar used was way too little.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Great questions, which unfortunately I cannot yet answer. I just bought some London ESB and will form opinions on that later. In the meantime, you might want to try Munton's ale yeast, which is very similar, very low attenuator like the others, but has a huge fruity ester thing going on like tutti fruitti.

Would that make Munton's ideal for juicy-fruity IPA's? There are two Munton yeasts. Which one are you referencing here. Standard or Gold?

 

[dmtaylor]

Would that make Munton's ideal for juicy-fruity IPA's? There are two Munton yeasts. Which one are you referencing here. Standard or Gold?

I'm referring to Standard. I am not familiar with the Gold, haven't seen it around here.

I think it would work well in a milkshake style IPA. Attenuation is terrible at about 55-60%, but in a milkshake, so much the better.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Munton's ordinary is a close relative of S-33 and Windsor and seems to be widely white-labelled in kits.

Munton's Gold hasn't been sequenced but may well be a Nottingham derivative.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Munton's ordinary is a close relative of S-33 and Windsor and seems to be widely white-labelled in kits.

Munton's Gold hasn't been sequenced but may well be a Nottingham derivative.

Is Gold as clean finishing and as highly attenuating as Nottingham? If so, that's good to know.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I've never used it - it's certainly meant to be higher attenuating than the ordinary, which is mainly geared to two-can kits with lots of simple sugars.

The Notty thing is just based on some of the slightly complicated Munton corporate history, and the fact that they white-label what is claimed to be a Notty derivative for Wilko, a retail store here. Could be a derivative of eg S-04 though.

 

[govner1]

I’ve used it several times and have an ESB in 1° now using the dry ESB in half and WY1968 London ESB in the other. I rehydrated the dry yeast as usual & oxygenated the liquid post pitch.
Both showed activity within 12 hours. The dry yeast really took off faster but both now seem to be at about the ame point activity & krausen wise after 3 days. I’m fermenting at 67°F and will raise the temp to 70-72°F in a couple of days.
My previous uses of the dry have yielde very good beers.

 

[WestMichBrewer]

1.5 oz sugar for 3.25 gallons is definitely not adequate to produce pleasent carbonation, at least for my taste. I use around 5.5 oz table sugar ( beet or cane ) for 6 gallons. That's around 2.55 vol CO2. Works well for many styles of beer. I used 6.9 oz table sugar for 6.35 gallons of Hefeweizens, giving me a 2.85 vol CO2, which was OK. My latest Biere de Garde used 6.5 oz table sugar for 6.5 gallons of beer giving me around 2.75 vol CO2. I was shooting for 2.9, but I ended up with 0.5 gallons more beer. I tasted it. It needed more and I will go higher next time.

Your 1.5 corn sugar, which you need to use more than table sugar for the same purpose, will have given you around 1.7 vol CO2, which is why you didn't experience any " noticeable " carbonation levels. It's not an yeast problem, especially for one that does not flocculate well. I think the amount of corn sugar used was way too little.

I think it's potentially both. I got the 1.5 oz from Brewers Friend priming calculator, hitting somewhere in the middle of British Style Ales. Maybe a bit on the low side in comparison to other styles but shouldn't be flat.
However, after adding only the yeast to the beer in the keg, the yeast pressurized the beer in the keg. To me this indicates the the 34/70 ate the sugar that the ESB yeast failed to.

 

[Miraculix]

I think it's potentially both. I got the 1.5 oz from Brewers Friend priming calculator, hitting somewhere in the middle of British Style Ales. Maybe a bit on the low side in comparison to other styles but shouldn't be flat.
However, after adding only the yeast to the beer in the keg, the yeast pressurized the beer in the keg. To me this indicates the the 34/70 ate the sugar that the ESB yeast failed to.

If you add a yeast with higher attenuation after one with lower attenuation, than the second yeast will eat what the first left over. This does not necessarily have to be the priming sugar. Especially english strains can leave big amounts of sugar behind which are unfermentable for them, but perfectly fine for other strains.

 

[Wuggly Ump]

Just to add my experience:
I brewed a session IPA (1.046 OG) with this yeast 4 days ago. It took off like a rocket after I added the rehydrated yeast: within 10 hours a small krausen and airlock activity. The next day it was going bananas. After 24 hours or so it settled down, and today I checked and the gravity is at 1.011. The sample tasted great. So I might bottle this on the weekend, just a week after brewing.

 

[dmtaylor]

The London ESB yeast won me a gold medal for my London brown ale. Went from 1.051 to 1.018 in 36 hours flat, just as I expected. It stayed on the bottom of the fermenter the entire time -- blasted right through sitting down on the bottom the entire time. "Fizzed" like mad but no krausen.

 

[Steveruch]

I recently used this in an ordinary bitter that I was happy with. It went from 1.040 to 1.012 and dropped quite clear.

 

[Miraculix]

Just to add my experience:
I brewed a session IPA (1.046 OG) with this yeast 4 days ago. It took off like a rocket after I added the rehydrated yeast: within 10 hours a small krausen and airlock activity. The next day it was going bananas. After 24 hours or so it settled down, and today I checked and the gravity is at 1.011. The sample tasted great. So I might bottle this on the weekend, just a week after brewing.

I brewed quite the same once, it was really good.

I actually have to brew it again.

 

[FlyDoctor]

If you add a yeast with higher attenuation after one with lower attenuation, than the second yeast will eat what the first left over. This does not necessarily have to be the priming sugar. Especially english strains can leave big amounts of sugar behind which are unfermentable for them, but perfectly fine for other strains.

This strain is well documented to be unable to ferment maltotriose - whereas those higher attenuating yeasts can do it.

In my experience with this yeast - it doesn’t leave the beer sweet - but only with a more full mouthfeel. It can though leave an alarmingly high FG.

 

[Miraculix]

This strain is well documented to be unable to ferment maltotriose - whereas those higher attenuating yeasts can do it.

In my experience with this yeast - it doesn’t leave the beer sweet - but only with a more full mouthfeel. It can though leave an alarmingly high FG.

It's a typical English strain. You have to mash accordingly and probably also want to include some fully fermentable sugar like Lyle's golden syrup in the recipe.

 

[Wuggly Ump]

Just to add my experience:
I brewed a session IPA (1.046 OG) with this yeast 4 days ago. It took off like a rocket after I added the rehydrated yeast: within 10 hours a small krausen and airlock activity. The next day it was going bananas. After 24 hours or so it settled down, and today I checked and the gravity is at 1.011. The sample tasted great. So I might bottle this on the weekend, just a week after brewing.

So I’m an idiot: it looks like I misread my refractometer and my actual FG ended up at 1.018 or 17, which is right where a lot of other folks’ beers have stopped. It’s carbonating now.

 

[user 263363]

I just read through this whole thread because I picked up a pack of this on a whim at the LHBS. I am planning to brew a dark mild tomorrow with an OG of (hopefully) around 1.038.

Since this is fairly low OG, do I need to adjust my mash temps for the ESB yeast? I’m planning on mashing at 158, btw.

 

[dmtaylor]

I just read through this whole thread because I picked up a pack of this on a whim at the LHBS. I am planning to brew a dark mild tomorrow with an OG of (hopefully) around 1.038.

Since this is fairly low OG, do I need to adjust my mash temps for the ESB yeast? I’m planning on mashing at 158, btw.

Well if you mash that warm your ABV will only be like 2%. Whatever floats your boat. I would suggest adding more malt or brew a smaller batch to raise OG and thus ABV. Mash temp is less a worry than the OG methinks.

 

[user 263363]

Well if you mash that warm your ABV will only be like 2%. Whatever floats your boat. I would suggest adding more malt or brew a smaller batch to raise OG and thus ABV. Mash temp is less a worry than the OG methinks.

I’m in no position to really question anyone as I am barely above a beginner status. But, I am copying the recipe called Reaper’s Mild here on HBT and he said mash at 158. The point of a mild is to be, well, mild.

I only asked this question specific to this yeast because I don’t want my beer to go from 1.038 to like 1.025. Obviously that’s an exaggeration but people have had some issues but it seems as most have been with higher OGs. Oh well, it will be beer either way. Cheers

 

[dmtaylor]

I’m in no position to really question anyone as I am barely above a beginner status. But, I am copying the recipe called Reaper’s Mild here on HBT and he said mash at 158. The point of a mild is to be, well, mild.

I only asked this question specific to this yeast because I don’t want my beer to go from 1.038 to like 1.025. Obviously that’s an exaggeration but people have had some issues but it seems as most have been with higher OGs. Oh well, it will be beer either way. Cheers

If you do want more ABV without changing the recipe very much at all, you could always just add 10-15% of any simple sugar, including cane sugar, brown sugar, demerara, honey, whichever. One pound of any of these in a 5-gallon batch will raise ABV by about 1%.