Dry Yeast, Liquid Yeast Equivalents

dmtaylor · Sep 14, 2023

hilljack13 said:
Thanks. I'm trying, or more like I have been meaning to, build a list of dry yeast equivalents. On the chart I am bit confused. For instance, most of my searches equate 34/70 to Diamond and/or M76.

On the chart, lines 91 & 92, the three above show they are not equivalent to neither of the White Labs/Wyeast strains listed? Is this correct?
Line 95 list Diamond and M76 as equivalent to the listed liquid. Would this imply the two as similar dry strains? Why would 34/70 not be?

Line 115 you ( or Langdon and Suregork) have 34/70 as equivalent to an American Lager. Not arguing since I still have to do my own testing, but all other things I read have this as a German Lager. Just the first time I've see it otherwise.

I could probably find some sources showing others opinion the three dry are similar, I'm just too lazy right now, which was already established!

You are parroting the wisdom of the distant past from 10-30 years ago. A lot of genetic testing has been completed over the last 5 years or so which called into question everything we thought we knew about yeast origins and equivalencies. Which is one of my reasons for spending hundreds of hours sifting through all the data to come up with a new table.

Genetic testing shows that W-34/70 (the dry version) is most closely related to something no one would have guessed: Wyeast 2035 American Lager. More than likely, it is the “American” lager that has an unfortunately misleading name, as we would all hope we could believe that W-34/70 was sourced from the Weihenstephan bank and that that was not a mistske or a lie.

In truth, all lager yeasts are very closely related and with few exceptions I would generally have no qualms about subbing any one for another.

AmarikinBrew · Sep 14, 2023

dmtaylor said:
10 years later...

I'll just leave this here.

YEAST MASTER Perma-Living by Yours Truly

That's why it's good info. Genetics and we can compare and drill to the core.
So yea, leave it here then.

AmarikinBrew · Sep 14, 2023

dmtaylor said:
You are parroting the wisdom of the distant past from 10-30 years ago. A lot of genetic testing has been completed over the last 5 years or so which called into question everything we thought we knew about yeast origins and equivalencies. Which is one of my reasons for spending hundreds of hours sifting through all the data to come up with a new table.

Genetic testing shows that W-34/70 (the dry version) is most closely related to something no one would have guessed: Wyeast 2035 American Lager. More than likely, it is the “American” lager that has an unfortunately misleading name, as we would all hope we could believe that W-34/70 was sourced from the Weihenstephan bank and that that was not a mistske or a lie.

In truth, all lager yeasts are very closely related and with few exceptions I would generally have no qualms about subbing any one for another.

To me, the genetics are just showing how yeasts were passed from brewery to brewery. When does a strain become a new one? Do we get a new "genetic" after mutations of how many thousands of gallons of use? That was the old way. Now are "they" just inserting or removing traits from these same cells to make a name for themselves and a new "genetic" yeast?
Why not just let nature take it's course in the old way instead of "tailoring" for some fad style?
The yeast world goes mad then like the rest of the world.
An old list like this tells me what we used to use the "core" genetics to a style, like what brewery it came from.
So yea let leave it here, or mebbe place in a bronze tube and cover over with the bricks in the wall of a new brewery being built.
Information never dies... it "transforms".

dmtaylor · Sep 14, 2023

AmarikinBrew said:
To me, the genetics are just showing how yeasts were passed from brewery to brewery. When does a strain become a new one? Do we get a new "genetic" after mutations of how many thousands of gallons of use? That was the old way. Now are "they" just inserting or removing traits from these same cells to make a name for themselves and a new "genetic" yeast?
Why not just let nature take it's course in the old way instead of "tailoring" for some fad style?
The yeast world goes mad then like the rest of the world.
An old list like this tells me what we used to use the "core" genetics to a style, like what brewery it came from.
So yea let leave it here, or mebbe place in a bronze tube and cover over with the bricks in the wall of a new brewery being built.
Information never dies... it "transforms".

Genetic modification (GMO) is happening, but not much quite yet. None of the yeast strains listed on my table or any others are GMO. Maybe in a few more years there will be a few.

A strain becomes a "new one" pretty much the moment it is pitched. Yeast are mutating naturally all the time. After a couple of repitches into multiple batches of the same wort, you can end up with different beers. This is also why we should always talk about "equivelencies" as being approximations... none of these yeasts can be truly equivalent, except where they are repacks (e.g., Mangrove Jack). Otherwise, they are truly just "equivalent for most intents & purposes".

Regarding data and information... I originally started with Kristen England's equivalency table from MrMalty.com, then my table grew from there. But it is based on many many inputs... you might notice that "KE" is barely a source reference anymore. His data has indeed largely become obsolete, for various reasons, a big one being genetics but that's not the only one either.

mac_1103 · Sep 14, 2023

AmarikinBrew said:
An old list like this tells me what we used to use the "core" genetics to a style, like what brewery it came from.

No it doesn't. It tells you that the information people were able to piece together before genome sequencing, like what brewery it came from, was often incorrect.

mac_1103 · Sep 14, 2023

dmtaylor said:
A strain becomes a "new one" pretty much the moment it is pitched. Yeast are mutating naturally all the time. After a couple of repitches into multiple batches of the same wort, you can end up with different beers.

FWIW, this has been posted here before.

dmtaylor · Sep 14, 2023

mac_1103 said:
No it doesn't. It tells you that the information people were able to piece together before genome sequencing, like what brewery it came from, was often incorrect.

*Was USUALLY incorrect.

AmarikinBrew · Sep 14, 2023

Yea, I'm old skool, I can't spell "GMO" lest remember where to apply the moniker. So that's where I was going I guess.

AmarikinBrew · Sep 14, 2023

dmtaylor said:
*Was USUALLY incorrect.

Was it incorrect? Or just an approximation of where a certain taste on beers/aroma/ect as a snapshot in time at that particular brewery? Then the yeast morphed and we got cornfused <sp intentional>, then another brewery grabbed it and decided it now was a fit to their style? As we see now, we weren't tracking a brewery, but traits of a mutation IMO.
GMO, IMO will make that time snapshot impossible to follow eventually.
I like following history, even if it's just beer yeast.
I'm tired, rambling, I work mid shift and need to get some sleep.

mac_1103 · Sep 14, 2023

AmarikinBrew said:
GMO, IMO will make that time snapshot impossible to follow eventually.

What? The deliberate introduction of a known mutation into a known genome makes it easier to follow the genetics, not harder. There are reasons to be anti-GMO, but this isn't one of them.

AmarikinBrew said:
Was it incorrect?

Yes. Demonstrably so.

Dry Yeast, Liquid Yeast Equivalents

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy

AmarikinBrew

LOOK! He's diving into that can of beer AGAIN!

AmarikinBrew

LOOK! He's diving into that can of beer AGAIN!

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy

mac_1103

Supporting Member

mac_1103

Supporting Member

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy

AmarikinBrew

LOOK! He's diving into that can of beer AGAIN!

AmarikinBrew

LOOK! He's diving into that can of beer AGAIN!

mac_1103

Supporting Member

Similar threads

Latest posts