Dry yeasts identified - your opinions please!

[dmtaylor]

MJ M41: Temperature range 18-28 deg C; attenuation 82-88%; flocculation medium, sedimentation medium, alcohol tolerance 12%, clove flavours (i.e. POF+)

BE-256: Temp. range 12-25C; attenuation 90%; flocculation high, sedimentation high, alcohol tolerance 11%, POF-

Lallemand Abbaye: Temp. range 17-25C, attenuation high, flocculation med-high; sedimentation unspecified; ABV 14%, spicy phenols (i.e. POF+)

So Lallemand Abbaye seems a much better candidate than BE-256. Temperature ranges and flocculation/sedimentation specs are somewhat flexible, but POF+ vs. POF- is not.

My five cents...

EDIT: The comment I had here previously was deleted because now I need to think about whether M47 really is T-58, vs. Lallemand Abbaye. Hmm..........

 

[frankvw]

Thanks! Perhaps you should edit post #17.

Done!

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

That said, I have my doubts about Lallemand Abbaye being Chimay (WLP500) in dried form. I seem to remember that WPL500 didn't take kindly to being dried and performed poorly after rehydration. Perhaps Lallemand Abbaye is close to WLP500 in flavour profile; that I can believe. References to the Lallemand/Chimay connection would be appreciated.

The reference is here: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/danstar-abbaye.629611/#post-8019167

 

[moreb33rplz]

I'm interested to know what that opinion is based on. I'm basing mine on published product data, but I'm not necessarily right.

It just doesn't pass the sniff test. Discussions I've read about Lallemand New England East Coast Ale suggest it is a dried Conan - very different from Chico. East Coast, and especially New England, names imply a british/conan yeast. It would be like calling a traditional german lager yeast California Lager, it just doesn't make sense.

Are you basing this chart on published flocculation/attenuation/temp range info of the various strains? If so, I don't trust the results. That information is a good data point but won't tell you everything - there are tons of yeasts with similar published characteristics that still differ widely in how they behave and what kind of flavor components they produce.

Or if I'm wrong please enlighten me how the list is compiled

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

OK, this thread led to my emailing Lallemand today in regard to the nature of Lallemand Abbaye. To summarize the response I received from one of their technicians (along with his permission to summarize it in public):

1) Lallemand's genetic analysis confirms that their Abbaye is very similar to other popular commercial strains that claim to be the Chimay strain.

2) Lallemand Abbaye is POF+

3) Several popular commercial strains which (mainly anecdotally) claim to be Chimay yeast are in fact genetically different.

 

[filthyastronaut]

OK, this thread led to my emailing Lallemand today in regard to the nature of Lallemand Abbaye. To summarize the response I received from one of their technicians (along with his permission to summarize it in public):

1) Lallemand's genetic analysis confirms that their Abbaye is very similar to other popular commercial strains that claim to be the Chimay strain.

2) Lallemand Abbaye is POF+

3) Several popular commercial strains which (mainly anecdotally) claim to be Chimay yeast are in fact genetically different.

Was about to chime in with RPIScotty's post about their claim of similarities to Wyeast and White Labs Chimay Strains:

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=29575.15

That one specifically said it was sourced from a Trappist brewery. It's conjecture, but I believe some of the major differences in Abbaye (it flocculates quite well compared to WLP500/WY1214) could be due to the time it was sourced, and just the possibility that the specific isolate at the time had slightly different properties. In my experience, it is quite similar to those yeasts in flavor, perhaps less prone to extreme banana esters.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The Lallemand tech. that I emailed implicitly made no claim as to the specific origin of their Abbaye or (for that matter) any other commercial strain claiming affinity to Chimay, and I got the distinct impression that (likely, I infer, due to continual evolution, if for no other reason) there is simply no way for anyone to make a legitimate claim with regard to having an "original" Chimay yeast strain. Perhaps to the evolutionary driven degree that Chimay themselves at this juncture can't even make this claim (with this last injection being my inference via logical extension, and not that of Lallemand).

 

[kh54s10]

Yeast snobbery!!! Me I don't care...

 

[Vale71]

The Lallemand tech. that I emailed implicitly made no claim as to the specific origin of their Abbaye or (for that matter) any other commercial strain claiming affinity to Chimay, and I got the distinct impression that (likely, I infer, due to continual evolution, if for no other reason) there is simply no way for anyone to make a legitimate claim with regard to having an "original" Chimay yeast strain. Perhaps to the evolutionary driven degree that Chimay themselves at this juncture can't even make this claim (with this last injection being my inference via logical extension, and not that of Lallemand).

Of course there is a way, you just need to compare the two yeasts at the genetic level, easily done nowadays. I suspect the reason yeast suppliers won't reference commercial breweries might have more to do with possible legal issues. Trademarks and all that.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

My inference was intended to be understood such that the Chimay Trappist Monastery's brewery is potentially using a yeast today which noticeably differs genetically from the yeast they were using back in the 1980's when they made their big splash in the USA, let alone the yeast that they used in the decades (to centuries) preceding the 1980's.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

The "what it really is" column is the result of my lining up the numbers and descriptions.

To me, this seems like a misleading column name.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

You have to be a bit careful saying a dried strain "is" a liquid strain - there's always mutations along the way, particularly given the huge stress of drying, and the dried yeast companies like to "firewall" against lawsuits by using yeast from beer - after all, that's the origin of White Labs and Wyeast's business, so they can hardly sue on that basis!

So for instance, Lallemand New England is definitely a member of the Conan family (ie a British ale yeast in the extended "Whitbread" family), nothing to do with Chico, the rumours link it to beers from specific UK breweries known to have used WLP095 and WLP4000 in the past - but it will have mutated since then. Supposedly Lallemand will have a 1318 derivative soon.

Fermentis seen to have lost the battle over Abbaye - or at least are happy to use code numbers, and it's easier to use Be-256. But the latest sequencing work shows that (Lallemand?) Abbaye, WLP500 Monastery and 1214 Belgian Abbey are S. cerevisiae x kudriavzevii hybrids – pretty much unique in the beer world but quite common in wine.

There's a complicated story about dried yeast in Britain, but EDME were key players in the 1970s, and their yeast supposedly lives on in Muntons (presumably the ordinary one), and its close cousins Windsor and S-33. A lot of generic kit yeast comes from Munton.

The Wilko yeast appears to be a Nottingham derivative made by Munton, although there are dark rumours on how Munton came by it....

 

[Vale71]

So for instance, Lallemand New England is definitely a member of the Conan family (ie a British ale yeast in the extended "Whitbread" family), nothing to do with Chico, the rumours link it to beers from specific UK breweries known to have used WLP095 and WLP4000 in the past - but it will have mutated since then.

No it won't, at least not necessarily. Why do people assume that yeast strains mutate almost on a daily basis? Domesticated yeasts are extremely stable genetically as they've basically lost the ability to reproduce sexually (poor guys...) and since the advent of pure cultures they basically spend their lives in rather aseptic environments where the possibility of hybridization occurring is infinitesimally small. Sure, there is the possibility of the stray cosmic ray but it takes a lot more than that for significant mutation to occur and then to prevail in the population. Not even drying can cause mutations as you need to be alive to mutate and dried yeast is biologically dead until rehydrated. The character that rehydrated yeast will express will indeed be different but that has nothing to do with genetic mutations but rather with the stress the yeast just underwent during drying.

The reason yeast "manufacturers" don't reference breweries is simply because of trademark issues. For example, Chimay is a registered trademark. Any yeast supplier trying to sell his yeast as "Chimay yeast" has just instantly lost a very expensive lawsuit, even if his yeast were indeed proven to be genetically 100% identical to the yeast that Chimay is currently using. You just can't use somebody's elses trademark without permission in a commercial setting no matter what. This has absolutely nothing to do with alleged mutations, it's simply a legal issue.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

No it won't, at least not necessarily. Why do people assume that yeast strains mutate almost on a daily basis?

I can only speak for myself, but I assume that because I'm a geneticist and microbiologist who has read the literature on mutation in yeast. YMMV

Equally, that background means I take a narrower view on the definition of a strain, and I'm looking at mutations as any change in the DNA and not just those changes that have obvious effects on brewing performance.

Mutation happens through all sorts of mechanisms,not least due to errors in DNA replication, and those errors go up markedly in the stressful environment of 5% ethanol.

 

[Vale71]

Of course mutations do happen, if I gave the impression that I thought mutations are impossible then I haven't adequately explained my point. The point is, you also need a mutation to become prevalent and to replace the origin strain. This was certainly possible in the past hence the large number of known strains in use or stored in some yeast bank today, not to mention the ones that might have died out before their existence was adequately documented. With modern techniques such as single-cell cultures and modern quality assurance processes, which today mean actual genetic testing, the chances of something like this happening are inifitesimally small. Let's say a viable mutation were to happen in the brewery and were able to reproduce to sufficient numbers. If that yeast will get dumped in the trash after X number of batches to be replaced with new stock grown from original stock from a yeast bank, either internal or external, what are the chances of that mutation contaminating the original stock and replacing the original strain? I would say if procedures are followed then the chance is absolutely zero. Barring an error such as a switched vial or plate I would say that yeast banks using modern methods are capable of assuring that yeast stock does not mutate from a given baseline. And today thanks to genetic testing such an error will be caught eventually (optimally before it gets to the customer) and will not under any circumstance become permanent.

 

[filthyastronaut]

Fermentis seen to have lost the battle over Abbaye - or at least are happy to use code numbers, and it's easier to use Be-256. But the latest sequencing work shows that (Lallemand?) Abbaye, WLP500 Monastery and 1214 Belgian Abbey are S. cerevisiae x kudriavzevii hybrids – pretty much unique in the beer world but quite common in wine.

Would you mind linking to this information? That's fascinating and I'd love to learn more.

 

[frankvw]

EDIT: The comment I had here previously was deleted because now I need to think about whether M47 really is T-58, vs. Lallemand Abbaye. Hmm..........

I think M47 is T-58 and M41 is Abbaye. MJ's product blurb strongly suggests M47 less phenolic than M41 which fits the data from Lallemand and Fermentis. But if you have a good argument for them being the other way around, I'm open to suggestions!

 

[frankvw]

The reference is here: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/danstar-abbaye.629611/#post-8019167

Well, that'll do it. I'm a believer! And happy, because this is Good News as far as I'm concerned!

Thank you!

 

[frankvw]

My inference was intended to be understood such that the Chimay Trappist Monastery's brewery is potentially using a yeast today which noticeably differs genetically from the yeast they were using back in the 1980's when they made their big splash in the USA, let alone the yeast that they used in the decades (to centuries) preceding the 1980's.

That would not surprise me. It has long been known that WLP and WY yeasts were taken from monastic breweries decades ago and have since diverged considerably. As is normal for a yeast: when exposed to a change in environmenal conditions (from a Belgian monastery to a yeast lab in the US would qualify as a change) it adapts. Certain stress conditions may also cause the yeast to start reproducing sexually rather than asexually which may introduce even more severe mutations. So what's in the vial today and what's being used at the monastic brewery today is likely to be similar but not identical.

 

[filthyastronaut]

That would not surprise me. It has long been known that WLP and WY yeasts were taken from monastic breweries decades ago and have since diverged considerably. As is normal for a yeast: when exposed to a change in environmenal conditions (from a Belgian monastery to a yeast lab in the US would qualify as a change) it adapts. Certain stress conditions may also cause the yeast to start reproducing sexually rather than asexually which may introduce even more severe mutations. So what's in the vial today and what's being used at the monastic brewery today is likely to be similar but not identical.

Interestingly, you can see this again with Chimay yeast and New Belgium. Their original house Belgian strain is originally from a bottle of Chimay, and has definitely diverged since. They altered their Dubbel and Tripel recipes a few years ago and apparently use a new yeast, but the beers still taste similar to the Chimay profile. They definitely use dry yeasts in some capacity on the pilot system, so it could be Abbaye for all we know.

 

[Vale71]

That would not surprise me. It has long been known that WLP and WY yeasts were taken from monastic breweries decades ago and have since diverged considerably.

You have a source for that or are you just stating what you personally believe to be true?

And FYI domesticated yeasts are officially recognized to be asexual since even in the most stressful conditions they don't release acrospores, they just whither and eventually die. And adaptation and evolution/mutation are different things too. There is no natural selection in a lab environment BTW, any selection is done by man.

 

[frankvw]

[QUOTE="Northern_Brewer, post: 8685603, member: 245927"[...] Lallemand New England is definitely a member of the Conan family (ie a British ale yeast in the extended "Whitbread" family), nothing to do with Chico,[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for! I had it listed as Chico. Do you have any references to Lallemand New England American East Coast being Conan? And could you say some more about the relationship Conan <--> Whitbread?

[QUOTE="Northern_Brewer, post: 8685603, member: 245927"[...] the latest sequencing work shows that (Lallemand?) Abbaye, WLP500 Monastery and 1214 Belgian Abbey are S. cerevisiae x kudriavzevii hybrids – pretty much unique in the beer world but quite common in wine.[/QUOTE]
Stan Hieronymus states in BLAM that Belgian yeasts have a certain amount of wine yeast in their ancestry. I've come across more hints in that direction as well, and as far as I'm concerned this seems more than plausible.

[QUOTE="Northern_Brewer, post: 8685603, member: 245927"There's a complicated story about dried yeast in Britain, but EDME were key players in the 1970s, and their yeast supposedly lives on in Muntons (presumably the ordinary one), and its close cousins Windsor and S-33. A lot of generic kit yeast comes from Munton.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Although I think there's some diversity between S-33 and Windsor. The latter is known for its lack of flocculation, much more so than other Edme versions. Smaller cell size maybe?

The Wilko yeast appears to be a Nottingham derivative made by Munton, although there are dark rumours on how Munton came by it....[/QUOTE]
Dark rumors call for dark beers. Time for a stout...

 

[frankvw]

You have a source for that or are you just stating what you personally believe to be true?

Sure. Stan Hieronymus in BLAM, for example.

And FYI domesticated yeasts are officially recognized to be asexual since even in the most stressful conditions they don't release acrospores, they just whither and eventually die. And adaptation and evolution/mutation are different things too. There is no natural selection in a lab environment BTW, any selection is done by man.

Granted that I'm exploring the outer reaches of my expertise here, if by "domesticated" you mean S. Cerevisae, Wikipedia begs to differ:

S. cerevisiae (yeast) can stably exist as either a diploid or a haploid. Both haploid and diploid yeast cells reproduce by mitosis, with daughter cells budding off of mother cells. Haploid cells are capable of mating with other haploid cells of the opposite mating type (an a cell can only mate with an α cell, and vice versa) to produce a stable diploid cell. Diploid cells, usually upon facing stressful conditions such as nutrient depletion, can undergo meiosis to produce four haploid spores: two a spores and two α spores.

But I'm not necessarily right.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

@Vale71 - but we're not just talking about cases where you go back to a frozen master copy of a yeast, in the case of harvesting you are talking about taking that mutated yeast in a beer, often streaming down to a single cfu, and then using that as the basis of what a different company uses tobank. As a a result it will be different - maybe significantly so, maybe not, but it will be different.

Would you mind linking to this information? That's fascinating and I'd love to learn more.

I'm on my tablet at the moment but there's been the odd discussion of the latest sequencing from the Rokas lab (they've not yet published the paper) interests here and at beer.suregork.com All a bit preliminary for now, we need to wait for the main paper.

Do you have any references to Lallemand New England American East Coast being Conan? And could you say some more about the relationship Conan <--> Whitbread?

The Conan stuff is all pers comm I'm afraid, but there's public evidence in the form of e.g. Cloudwater now using Lallemand for their top-ratedDIPAs when they used to use 095 and 4000.

Conan being part of Whitbread family is well known from the genome sequencing data being collated on Suregork's site above.

Stan Hieronymus states in BLAM that Belgian yeasts have a certain amount of wine yeast in their ancestry. I've come across more hints in that direction

Don't take it too literally, as implying all Belgian yeast are say 10% "wine". There's no such thing as a typical Belgian yeast, there are big-name Belgian beers made with lager yeast and British yeast and all sorts. The main saison family are pure cerevisiae and quite closely related to typical wine yeasts, but kud hybrids are a different story.

 

[Vale71]

Sure. Stan Hieronymus in BLAM, for example.


Granted that I'm exploring the outer reaches of my expertise here, if by "domesticated" you mean S. Cerevisae, Wikipedia begs to differ:



But I'm not necessarily right.

OK, so no scientific source as I thought.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source either. Whoever wrote that entry was using information from a microbiology textbook probably dating back to the '40s that is unfortunately still circulating. The scientific consesus now is that that capability is forever gone as nobody has actually managed to get S.cerevisiae to do the deed.

 

[Vale71]

@Vale71 - but we're not just talking about cases where you go back to a frozen master copy of a yeast, in the case of harvesting you are talking about taking that mutated yeast in a beer, often streaming down to a single cfu, and then using that as the basis of what a different company uses tobank. As a a result it will be different - maybe significantly so, maybe not, but it will be different.

Again you base your statement on the premise that all yeast will mutate during fermentation so that any cfu will be different from the original stock yeast. This is hardly the case and anyway there are ways to make sure this is not the case so assuming this did not happen is a best bet than assuming this has surely happened.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

This is hardly the case and anyway there are ways to make sure this is not the case so assuming this did not happen is a best bet than assuming this has surely happened.

Citation needed.

Compare with e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/111/22/E2310 and more recent studies, not currently open-source, that have shown higher mutation rates in beer.

I'll say again - every time yeast replicate their DNA they risk errors in that process. Since they replicate during fermentation there will always be mutations during fermentation.

 

[bierhaus15]

There are undoubtedly phenotypic differences, but in our age of refrigeration and largely standardized fermentation practices, I doubt many genetic changes are happening to yeast in commercial breweries today. That said, and as other research has shown, the great stresses put on ale yeast of 100+ years ago is another story and it is no surprise there are so many genetically different variations of what could have been the same strain. Especially for UK yeasts and the huge variation in fermentation process, harvest, storage, ect.

A good quote:

"We demonstrated that while there were some differences between the phenotypic characteristics of an ale yeast strain over the course of one hundred serial repitchings, there were no genetic variations or changes to fermentation characteristics. Similarly, fermentation analysis, flocculation assessment and genetic analysis showed there were no significant differences between a fresh lager yeast and the same culture after a two year period. Despite the many reports of genetic instability in brewing yeast slurries, our results indicate that some yeast strains are particularly resistant to such changes. These results support previous observations which suggest that the capacity to serially repitch a yeast culture is intrinsically related to the genetic stability of the yeast strain employed." - The Effect of Long Term Serial Repitching on The Genetic and Phenotypic Stability of Yeast

 

[Vale71]

Not to mention the fact that yeast suppliers don't really go around swabbing beer bottles to create their stock. This would rarely work anyway because of filtration and/or pasteurization. They obviously get their stock from other suppliers/yeast banks or complacent breweries.

 

[EnglishAndy]

...although there are dark rumours on how Munton came by it....

Well they could just order a pack on Ebay like everyone else!