Safale HA-18

Anyone see or use this?

https://fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/SafAle-HA-18_EN.pdf

 

Interesting. I still have to wonder why add enzymes to the wort instead of properly mashing the wort at lower temps to improve fermentability?

 

I’ve only been brewing for less than a year so I’m a total novice at this. My guess on the enzimes is like putting beano in the fermenter for low carb beers. Other thing that sticks out to me is the fermentation temp range 77.0F-95.0F. I wonder what the flavor profile is.

 

I wonder if it's ec-1118. Probably not, maybe the name refers to High Alcohol 18%.

Whitelabs does something similar by having diastaticus in wlp099 for their high alcohol blend. Always thought this would be an interesting way of packaging yeast so it'll be interesting to see how the concept plays out.

Although I suppose this is basically turbo yeast. Maybe the strain is from their safspirit range.

 

They do not mention it to be var. diastaticus, so maybe it is not that. I have used diastaticus with no issues, but I would be wary of a yeast being so high alcohol tolerant.

I think I found a thread on the Internet regarding this yeast and the result were not good, but anyway we need a few more people trying this strain out.

 

The specification sheet says that HA-18 is a high alcohol yeast with glucoamylase enzyme. It's most likely a wine or spirit yeast.

I wrote that whitelabs does something similar by using a strain of diastaticus in their high alcohol blend wlp099. Microbiologists (professional and amateur) have found two strains in wlp099. Most likely one produces the enzyme then the other makes the alcohol. That is unless all those vials were contaminated with the strain or for some reason the yeast produces two distinct colonies on agar, I'm sure there might be other possibilities.

 

It is Saccharomyces cerevisiae thus beer yeast.

It has the enzyme Glucoamylase or sometimes called Amyloglucosidase so it will break down starches with the crosslink molecules at a-1,4 and a-1,6 so more of the starches become fermentable. Your caramels and crystals won't leave behind as much sugar.

Neither company uses as strain of diastaticus but the test will come up positive because the test for the diastaticus strain usually is one that looks for the presence for the enzyme that is added to these 2 yeast products to help with fermentability.

I have not used the Fermentis product (but I do have 2 bricks on order, ask me again next month).
I have used the wlp099, along with several other process modifications and tools, several times to make beers exceeding 15% ABV.

 

The enzyme will break down much longer chain starches than you ever could with a standard mash.

 

Thanks Egbert! Somebody do me a favor and make a Brut Barleywine with it and get back w/ me in a year. I have a pilsener to brew tonight...

 

Wrong - S. cerevisiae includes almost all the strains used for wine, distilling, sake and so on. As well as ale. In fact the saison yeasts are more closely related to the main family of wine yeasts than they are to the main group of "brewery" yeasts, but they're all S. cerevisiae.

These days the main test for diastaticus looks for the DNA of the main gene that makes the enzyme. Therefore it can be fooled by a few strains that have mutant versions of the gene that aren't functional, but it won't be fooled by the HA-18 mix of yeast and enzyme, where there's no DNA for the enzyme.

 

Sorry, brother just trying to help.

and as I understand it, some yeasts respond positive to STA1 gene without being diastaticus. But, what the heck do I know.

I recommense shutting up.

 

Hey, there's no need to get the hump, but if you make incorrect statements then you have to expect to get picked up on it.

Well that was what I was talking about - it comes down to definitions. In general a diastaticus yeast is defined as producing a functional enzyme, so you get this grey area where the yeast has a mutant gene that still "responds positive to STA1 gene" in the DNA test, even though it doesn't produce a functional enzyme.

It's a real problem for the yeast companies, as it's hard to distinguish these strains with mutant STA1 from contamination with diastaticus, and the latter can mean multi-$m lawsuits.

 

You’d think the (major) yeast companies would have invested in a functional assay to test for the presence of active enzyme by now. Screen via PCR and then test wort for active glucoamylase.

 

I think the problem is that although the yeast companies are geared to doing "slow" tests for functional enzyme, breweries tend to just do a PCR and then call the lawyers... It's only fairly recently that people have come to appreciate that broken STA1 is not uncommon so I guess there's been a lot of scrabbling to catch up.

 

It’s been several years, and I’d think that would be definitive proof in a legal case, but what do we know!?