White Labs Yeast or US-05 or Notthingham for Imperial Stout
- Thread starter davidens
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
mjcoss
Active Member
I'm starting my imperial stout this weekend, and decided on White Labs WPL007, their Dry English Ale.
From White Labs site:
Clean, highly flocculent, and highly attenuative yeast. This yeast is similar to WLP002 in flavor profile, but is 10% more attenuative. This eliminates the residual sweetness, and makes the yeast well suited for high gravity ales. It is also reaches terminal gravity quickly. 80% attenuation will be reached even with 10% ABV beers.
My recipe has a OG of 1.103, and expected final of 1.021
From White Labs site:
Clean, highly flocculent, and highly attenuative yeast. This yeast is similar to WLP002 in flavor profile, but is 10% more attenuative. This eliminates the residual sweetness, and makes the yeast well suited for high gravity ales. It is also reaches terminal gravity quickly. 80% attenuation will be reached even with 10% ABV beers.
My recipe has a OG of 1.103, and expected final of 1.021
I have only brewed 2 stouts so far. Neither were Imperial. I used Nottingham for the first and Neobrittania for the second. Neobrittania is a Northern Brewer exclusive.
If you use liquid yeast I recommend making a properly sized starter.
I don't know what you mean by " I can't find it in a small package" They only sell large quantities to commercial brewers or vials to individuals. They are going to change from the vials to Mylar/foil pouches. I don't know how far along they are on this change. A single package/vial will not contain the required cell counts for an Imperial Stout. Thus the recommendation of making a starter.
If you use liquid yeast I recommend making a properly sized starter.
I don't know what you mean by " I can't find it in a small package" They only sell large quantities to commercial brewers or vials to individuals. They are going to change from the vials to Mylar/foil pouches. I don't know how far along they are on this change. A single package/vial will not contain the required cell counts for an Imperial Stout. Thus the recommendation of making a starter.
I have an imperial stout aging in secondary (going to be my New Year Brew).
I used 2 packets of Nottingham. Fermentation was crazy for three days.
From what I understand, the increased alcohol content can do a number on the yeast cells, and it is best to pitch double what you would for a session or midrange beer.
I used 2 packets of Nottingham. Fermentation was crazy for three days.
From what I understand, the increased alcohol content can do a number on the yeast cells, and it is best to pitch double what you would for a session or midrange beer.
mjcoss
Active Member
My Imperial stout started just fine with the WLP007, but like so many others who have tried an imperial stout...It blew the airlock. Installed a blow off tube, and things have finally settled down a bit. No matter what yeast you end up using I recommend a blow off tube
imo, US-05 is just too clean/neutral for any stout.
I'd at least opt for S04 if it had to be dry yeast...
Cheers!
I'd at least opt for S04 if it had to be dry yeast...
Cheers!
Imperial Stouts have a very strong flavor profile. How much flavor could you really perceive from a non-neutral yeast?
Apparently, more than you suspect.
Can you really not tell the difference between a beer brewed using a British ale yeast versus one using a California ale yeast?
I always keep a stout on tap, and prefer British ale yeast - because it's much more interesting than California ale yeast...
Cheers!
Can you really not tell the difference between a beer brewed using a British ale yeast versus one using a California ale yeast?
I always keep a stout on tap, and prefer British ale yeast - because it's much more interesting than California ale yeast...
Cheers!
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
If you do use S-04, mash really low (147-149). It's not the best attenuator and with such a high gravity beer full of complex sugars it'll need the extra umphh to get down to a reasonable gravity. IMO.
Edit: even a step to 158 after the low mash for 20 more minutes would help things out
Edit: even a step to 158 after the low mash for 20 more minutes would help things out
meatcleaver
Well-Known Member
I would say it depends on your fermentation temp. if you can keep the temps low I vote notty
Apparently, more than you suspect.
Can you really not tell the difference between a beer brewed using a British ale yeast versus one using a California ale yeast?
I always keep a stout on tap, and prefer British ale yeast - because it's much more interesting than California ale yeast...
Cheers!
Really? My current Imperial Stout is 9% ABV, strong coffee, chocolate, and PB flavors. No yeast flavor would be able to penetrate that!!!
My Black Friday 2013 (brewed On Black Friday while retail slaving wife is working) was all Notty. I felt it was missing the roast. On a Doctor Homebrew episode they judged a RIS and commented that a Cal Ale yeast version was roastier than an English strain one. So last fall I split the batch 3 ways with Notty, US05, and WLP007. The US05 was definitely drier sensing (FG within 1 point if the others) and roastier. The WLP007 was fruitier, and Notty was in the middle. I re blended them at kegging, but bottled individual samples of each which reinforced the initial impressions. I'll be keeping that as my standard practice, but mixing it up a bit with something new instead of WLP007 for variation.
cantrell00
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 840
- Reaction score
- 116
The last one I did was a combo of 007/S05/090
Iceman2197
Well-Known Member
+ 1 for WL 007. I have a imperial stout aging right now with this yeast and its excellent. this is a very versatile yeast its my go to anymore, ferment cool and its very clean and like English on the warmer side
Similar threads
