London Ale Yeast= Danstar Windsor?

[elkdog]

I'm about to order ingredients for a porter, and want to use a dry yeast that is similar to a WLP013 london ale yeast (I'm cheap and lazy, and I don't want to make a starter if I can avoid it). Is Windsor a good approximation, or would Safale S-04 be better?

 

[Funkenjaeger]

I have never used WLP013, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but...

I used windsor yeast once and I was very disappointed with it. Very poor attenuation and flocculation. I wound up pitching S-04 on it to finish it off. It wound up much cloudier than I would have liked, and tasted weird. The taste could have been due to other factors, but regardless, I don't plan to use windsor again anytime soon.

Based on the description of WLP013 including the word "dry" and listing "medium" flocculation, I don't think windsor would really fit the bill. I'd go with S-04 if I were you. If you can get Nottingham, that'd likely be a good choice as well.

 

[Orfy]

I'd go for Danstar everytime.

 

[derogg]

Reading on the Danstar web site , I would say go with Windsor. - Dirk

 

[david_42]

Windsor is a good yeast for a porter. The lower attenuation means more body and a sweeter finish.

 

[FlyGuy]

London ale is one of my favourite yeasts. Personally though, I don't think either the Windsor or the S-04 are entirely substitutable. Both are fine yeasts, but the Windsor doesn't attenuate nearly as well as the WLP013/Wyeast1028, and I gave up on S-04 because I was having trouble with some off flavours (although admittedly, I may have been having some temperature problems).

If I had to chose between the two dry yeasts only, I would go with the Windsor hands down, and just recognize that I am going to get less attenuation and a sweeter beer, and adjust the brew accordingly.

 

[moger777]

Can't speak for London yeast but I've used Windsor twice and both times I felt that the beer was too wet and had some strange off flavors. Granted thats not exactly a scientific evaluation for a yeast I don't plan on using it again.

 

[Madtown Brew]

Dare I suggest that you get the liquid yeast and just don't make a starter?

Seriously, I've made plenty of brews with just one smackpack and no starter and they have turned out great. IMO, a starter is just a little extra insurance that things will turn out right (attenuation, esters, off-flavors). They wouldn't call it a "pitchable" yeast pack if it really wasn't.

I think you may be sacrificing more by going with dry yeast than just getting the liquid and not making a starter.

 

[elkdog]

Just to close the matter, I ended up using Windsor, and the beer is pretty darn sweet; too sweet for my liking. I suspect that the combination of Windsor and extract is leading to poor attenuation (about 66%) and overly sweet beer. Might try it again after I go AG. For now, I'll probably make a starter or pitch Nottingham for my next porter.

 

[mr x]

In the December BYO Jamil has a recipe that calls for WLP013, Wyeast 1028, or Danstar Nottingham. IIRC, I have seen other recipes using 1028 that recommended Nottingham as well.

 

[Ol' Grog]

Windsor always seems sweeter and Nottinghams always seemed crisper and a tad dryer.