troxerX
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2016
- Messages
- 171
- Reaction score
- 82
I was lucky when my neighbors brought me a few four packs of Double Citra this past October from their trip to Vermont. Curious enough, I decided to collect some dregs and get a starter going. I had a starter already set before a week from canning date so I’m presuming I collected sufficient viable healthy yeast. I noticed a few things from the starter that surprised me:
1. Yeast was extremely clean and neutral (minimum to no esters or phenols).
2. Yeast left no residual sugars, completely bone dry.
3. Yeast was a very slow fermenter and almost had no foaming (very thin surface foaming, I didn’t use a stir plate/no agitation though), I didn’t detect much aroma which is probably a result of been a slow fermenter,
4. Very subjective but by visual observation this yeast seems to do most of the work from the bottom and very slowly with minimum yeast in suspension.
5. Yeast cake looks a little bit darker (tan as opposite to off-light cream) than most ale yeasts I’ve seem in the past.
6. Also subjective but this Yeast seems to be a good flocculator
I’ve seen posts and other threads were there is a mention that HF’s house yeast might be London III or Conan. In my experience brewing with these yeasts, and what I noticed with the starter there seem to be a disconnect. This yeast was extremely clean with no esters at all, completely opposite to what a LIII produces (my experience with Conan is limited though). I’ve brewed with LIII for almost 10 years and I can tell from both the beer and starter that this is not LIII. Whatever this yeast is, it seems it was chosen as its characteristic and behavior are just for the purpose of retaining hop presence (low scrubbing) in the beer while maintaining a clean profile. I recognize the limitations of my sensory and I’m no way a yeast scientist but just sharing just in case someone has additional experience/information. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a 1056 or just any neutral clean ale yeast unless someone has more details that could match Conan.
Cheers
1. Yeast was extremely clean and neutral (minimum to no esters or phenols).
2. Yeast left no residual sugars, completely bone dry.
3. Yeast was a very slow fermenter and almost had no foaming (very thin surface foaming, I didn’t use a stir plate/no agitation though), I didn’t detect much aroma which is probably a result of been a slow fermenter,
4. Very subjective but by visual observation this yeast seems to do most of the work from the bottom and very slowly with minimum yeast in suspension.
5. Yeast cake looks a little bit darker (tan as opposite to off-light cream) than most ale yeasts I’ve seem in the past.
6. Also subjective but this Yeast seems to be a good flocculator
I’ve seen posts and other threads were there is a mention that HF’s house yeast might be London III or Conan. In my experience brewing with these yeasts, and what I noticed with the starter there seem to be a disconnect. This yeast was extremely clean with no esters at all, completely opposite to what a LIII produces (my experience with Conan is limited though). I’ve brewed with LIII for almost 10 years and I can tell from both the beer and starter that this is not LIII. Whatever this yeast is, it seems it was chosen as its characteristic and behavior are just for the purpose of retaining hop presence (low scrubbing) in the beer while maintaining a clean profile. I recognize the limitations of my sensory and I’m no way a yeast scientist but just sharing just in case someone has additional experience/information. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a 1056 or just any neutral clean ale yeast unless someone has more details that could match Conan.
Cheers