Wyeast American Ale II and Northwest Ale

[pnh2atl]

Any opinions on the American Ale II (1272) yeast vs the American Ale yeast. How do they compare to Nottingham? Also Wyeast's Northwest Ale (1332). Any experience with this one? I'm brewing an American Pale and a Hoppy Brown with they two different yeasts. I normally use Notti for both of these.

Thanks

 

[Agent Brew]

I have been using mostly US-05 with my pale ales, recently brewed two batches with Am Ale II (1272). I find the 1272 gives me a "tartness" in the beer that I didn't get with US-05 or Notti. After the using 1272 twice, I switched back to US-05 for my current Pale ale.

 

[pnh2atl]

What temp did you ferment it? Why do you prefer the 05 vs the Notti. We have been using Notti and it is great but I can't seem to leave well enough alone.

 

[shamrockdoc]

1272 and 1056 are fantastic flocculators and drop very clean. I highly suggest them in any pale or even a even an IPA. There super simple to top crop or yeast wash. I can get at least 6-7 brews on one smackpack!

 

[Agent Brew]

I fermented at 68 degrees. It's not that I prefer 05 over notti, both are great for pale ales. I only stopped using Notti after several bad packets of yeast.

 

[HoppedIPA]

I have a pack of 1272 for when i do my next american pale/ipa always use 1056 for these so far.. TOmorrow i am going to brew another ESB with the 1026 brittish cask yeast Wyeast

 

[kanzimonson]

1272 and 1056 are fantastic flocculators and drop very clean. I highly suggest them in any pale or even a even an IPA. There super simple to top crop or yeast wash. I can get at least 6-7 brews on one smackpack!

1056 is a TERRIBLE flocculator... one of the worst. I refuse to use this yeast because I can't stand the flavor of yeast bite.

1272 on the other hand, I love it. Great flocculation, barely sweeter finish, a little fruitier.

You'll find a lot of homebrewers who think that the slightest bit of sweetness in the finished beer is the worst sin, but I really like that. It makes for a richer beer, and I can always balance it out with more hops.

 

[Mattbastard]

1056 is a TERRIBLE flocculator... one of the worst. I refuse to use this yeast because I can't stand the flavor of yeast bite.

1272 on the other hand, I love it. Great flocculation, barely sweeter finish, a little fruitier.

You'll find a lot of homebrewers who think that the slightest bit of sweetness in the finished beer is the worst sin, but I really like that. It makes for a richer beer, and I can always balance it out with more hops.

I roundly agree with these sentiments. I've been using US-05 for years, but just made an Amber Ale with 1272 and love the results. It finishes really clean, and does leave a bit of sweetness in the background. I notice it first during a sip, then the hop characteristics come through. I should note that it finished at 1.010, and there's still a sweetness.

 

[mithion]

1056 is a TERRIBLE flocculator... one of the worst. I refuse to use this yeast because I can't stand the flavor of yeast bite.

1272 on the other hand, I love it. Great flocculation, barely sweeter finish, a little fruitier.

You'll find a lot of homebrewers who think that the slightest bit of sweetness in the finished beer is the worst sin, but I really like that. It makes for a richer beer, and I can always balance it out with more hops.

I agree that 1056 isn't the best flocculator. The chico strain is claimed to be a medium-low flocculator after all. However, it's nothing a longer primary fermentation to let the yeast settle or a cold crash to drop the yeast can't fix. I brewed several batches with 1056 and never had a "yeast bite". Just let it sit longer and problem solved.

 

[kanzimonson]

Yeah, with a little gelatin and some patience 1056 doesn't leave a yeast bite, but it doesn't change the fact that I feel it's a little bland as well.

I never knew how flavorful and rich a homebrew could be until I started using 1968 on most of my ales.

1272 is a backup for me if I need better attenuation than 1968. One thing I'd like to try, however, is make a huge DIPA and pitch it with 1968 but add some 1056 when it's about 1/3 done. I'm curious if the 1968 will help the 1056 floc so it will clear better.

 

[rjwhite41]

I love 1272 but it does accentuate the sweetness a little more and is fruitier. I actually ferment it at 74 sometimes to get even more fruitiness out of it.

 

[Phunhog]

I have used Wyeast 1332 Northwest Ale for an IPA and two American Red's. They all came out great. It seems to flocculate really well. I think the beers turned a little more "malty", which I like.

 

[jmo88]

I've used 1332 twice. It reminds me a bit of Thames valley 1275. It is an English strain used by Hales in Seattle. Hales bottle conditions their beers and they are certainly more malt forward but they've proven that this strain works really well with hoppy west coast beers like reds and IPA's. It throws some interesting esters that work well with English beers but the esters mostly get covered up in late-hopped American styles.

 

[pkeeler]

My basement is usually around 60, so I've never used any of the British yeasts. I've used 1056 and 1272, both are great. I seem to have had better luck with 1056 flocculating than most, but it could be the colder temps I'm fermenting at. This summer I made an IPA with 1272 that was more around 68, and it came out great. I've made wheat beers, porters, IPAs, braggots and Ambers with both 1056 and 1272. You can't go wrong with either in any beer or low ABV mead. I'm now going to do some beers with 1007 (another 55-65 ale yeast) and see if I like that better.

I like to harvest the yeast from the first fermentation after the smack pack. Usually I get 6 of the small ball jars which I use for the next 6 beers. From what I've read, 1272 is more genetically stable than 1056 if you harvest yeast. But I wonder if that is just Wyeast disinformation to get people to buy more yeast LOL But it is a decent tie-breaker, so I will stick with 1272 or replace it with 1007.

1272 has an interesting habit of seeming to slow down, then blowing off. Don't take the blow off tube until you are sure it is dying down ;-)

 

[burdbrew]

I'm presently fermenting a split batch with both 1272 and 1332. I love 1272 and use it a lot. It makes hops shine, it flocs well. Useful. I just started using 1332. I have yet to taste the beer, but I will say I'm damn glad I used a blow off because that thing is filling the tube.

 

[pnh2atl]

Well I'm about to brew an APA today. I'm going to split the batch between 1272 and Notti. We have always used Notti for this recipe but I thought it might be worth giving a different yeast a try. I just smacked the pack so I need to get going. I;m going to do a hoppy brown on Friday and I'm going to split that batch too and use 1332 and Notti. I'll ferment both (or all 4) at 62F. Just weeks away from an opinion.

 

[Jenks829]

I'm presently fermenting a split batch with both 1272 and 1332. I love 1272 and use it a lot. It makes hops shine, it flocs well. Useful. I just started using 1332. I have yet to taste the beer, but I will say I'm damn glad I used a blow off because that thing is filling the tube.

Hey burdbrew, could you please post your taste results after you bottle/keg this batch? I've done a split batch with 1056 and 1272 recently and would be curious to hear your opinion on 1332.

 

[Jenks829]

Well I'm about to brew an APA today. I'm going to split the batch between 1272 and Notti. We have always used Notti for this recipe but I thought it might be worth giving a different yeast a try. I just smacked the pack so I need to get going. I;m going to do a hoppy brown on Friday and I'm going to split that batch too and use 1332 and Notti. I'll ferment both (or all 4) at 62F. Just weeks away from an opinion.

pnh2atl, could you please post your taste results also after you bottle/keg the APA? I've haven't used Notti in a while and might think about giving it another try.