Are you an ex-Windsor yeast user who has switched to SafeAle S-04 (or visa-versa)?

[rkzi]

I just figured this out. If you get Zymurgy magazine, take a look at issue March/April 2017. Right there on page 18, Fuller's themselves are endorsing Danstar/Lallemand London ESB yeast. So if you're looking for WLP002/1968, then look no further than the new London/ESB yeast from Lallemand.

Cheers.

It's not the Fuller's strain (this has been confirmed by both Lallemand and Fuller's). From my understanding (never used windsor) it's like cleaner version of windsor. Otherwise they seem similar (attenuation and flocculation). There's a long thread about the london ESB here.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I waded through all 17 pages of the London ESB yeast thread, and learned there that Danstar's relatively new 'London ESB' yeast has been confirmed by Lallemand to be 100% identical to their old 'London Ale' yeast. I'm not sure what that means...

It sounds like it has terrible attenuation (low 60's), and does not floculate out of solution well, but can make decently tasty UK style beer. A few comments there about S-04 being too dry and clean for ESB, and London ESB being more suitable from a flavor (ester contribution) perspective. One comment about Nottingham being way too dry and clean for UK ales.

I did not clearly catch any comments from anyone with regard to doing a split fermentation using London ESB and Windsor to see if there is any perceived difference in flavor. Both of these seem to attenuate and flock about the same.

 

[rkzi]

I waded through all 17 pages of the London ESB yeast thread, and learned there that Danstar's relatively new 'London ESB' yeast has been confirmed by Lallemand to be 100% identical to their old 'London Ale' yeast. I'm not sure what that means...

It sounds like it has terrible attenuation (low 60's), and does not floculate out of solution well, but can make decently tasty UK style beer. A few comments there about S-04 being too dry and clean for ESB, and London ESB being more suitable from a flavor (ester contribution) perspective. One comment about Nottingham being way too dry and clean for UK ales.

I did not clearly catch any comments from anyone with regard to doing a split fermentation using London ESB and Windsor to see if there is any perceived difference in flavor. Both of these seem to attenuate and flock about the same.

A split batch would be interesting, these strains seem so similar. Attenuation can be increased by either using crystal only in small amounts or by including sugar in the grain bill. Mash temp has to be low of course. My batch dropped clear after two weeks in the bottles even without cold crashing, so the low flocculation was not a problem.

S-04 seems to be quite a polarized yeast. I've made OK batches with it but I should get to test the different dry and liquid english varieties to really see if i like it or not. This London ESB seemed to be more clean tasting but maybe not in a bad way.

If you're interested in brewing English styles, I'd suggest to take a look at Jimsbeerkit forum. There's lots of info about these different English strains there.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Many years ago Danstar sold a dry ale yeast called "Manchester". Does anyone know when this one vanished, and what its flavor and other characteristics were like? If London Ale was ressurected as London ESB, perhaps Danstar will resurrect Manchester yeast someday.

UPDATE: I found this about Manchester yeast. Seems it vanished in roughly the year 2000 (give or take) along with London Ale.

Manchester Ale (Saccharomyces Cerevisiae)
This strain shows sensory contribution in the tradition of an old English style beer. It produces a very complex, woody and full-bodied ale when fermented at warm temperatures. Medium attenuation similar to the London. Recommended 17 to 21C (64 to 70F) fermentation temperature range.

 

[Pappers_]

I've used Windsor with good results in a Sweet Stout, where I wanted relatively low attenuation. I believe US-04 attenuates more fully than Windsor.

 

[Brunsy]

I made a Caribou Slobber last fall that I loved with Windsor. I just made it again recently with WLP-013. I got that idea from the yeast substitution chart that was posted by bama (I believe). I fermented it this time in a dorm fridge with a temp controller. I didn't have it last year when I used the dry yeast. The beer doesn't have the same estery quality that I loved about it last year. I am wondering if I made a mistake by using the White Labs or if the mistake was cooler fermentation. I fermented around 66 for 5 days then let it sit out in my basement which tends to stay cooler than the upstairs by a couple degrees. I keep the stat around 69 so it may have fluctuated between 66 and 69 for another 4 days. I then racked it to secondary and crashed it down to the low 40's maybe high 30's to try to get the yeast to drop, which it did pretty well. It turned out fairly clear so far but its only a couple/three weeks old. I am impatient and tend to drink my beers pretty early and I am hoping maybe some of the qualities I loved about my first batch will age into the beer. I do remember the last pint of my first attempt was the best one out of the keg. Sorry I am kinda rambling but thought I would comment since I was on the thread researching the Windsor strain. Does anyone disagree that WLP013 is a bad substitution for Windsor?

 

[brewbama]

Here's another source. I am not sure of the pedigree of the information. YMMV

http://pastbrews.goodloegroup.com/2013/11/dry-yeast-substitution.html

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Here's another source. I am not sure of the pedigree of the information. YMMV

http://pastbrews.goodloegroup.com/2013/11/dry-yeast-substitution.html

I'd be shocked if it could be verified that Munton's standard dry yeast is WLP002. I have serious doubt.

 

[ebbelwoi]

WB06 = W68 (Wyeast 3068, White Labs WLP300)

Apologies for reviving a zombie thread, but I don't think this information is correct, and I didn't want anyone to happen upon this thread and be misinformed.

 

[dmtaylor]

Apologies for reviving a zombie thread, but I don't think this information is correct, and I didn't want anyone to happen upon this thread and be misinformed.

Well, this is an old thread, so it should be expected that the info is outdated, especially since there were genomic studies conducted of various yeast strains between then and now. For what it's worth, here would be my edits of that old post:

Bry-97 = Ballantine Ale = no equivalents besides Mangrove Jack M44 West Coast which is just BRY-97 repackaged
US-05 = related but NOT the same as BRY-96 Ballantine Beer (a.k.a. "Chico," Wyeast 1056, WLP001), higher ~83% attenuation
S-04 = WLP006 Bedford, which is NOT the same as Whitbread "B" (which might be either Wyeast 1098 or WLP007 but NOT both)
W34/70 = W34/70 (a.k.a. Wyeast 2124, White Labs WLP830)
WB-06 = WLP570 & Wyeast 1388 Belgian Golden Strong, and NOT at all related to German W68 (Wyeast 3068, White Labs WLP300)
S-189 = Samiclaus (a.k.a. White Labs WLP885) Hurlimann brewery in Switzerland

And Windsor... might not have any exact equivalents. Closest might be Fermentis S-33, or also Danstar-Lallemand's other London ESB dried strain which is very similar, and Mangrove M15 Empire which just repacks one of those other three. And Munton's old yeast is also similar but not quite the same.

For greater details on approximate equivalents for these and for every other dried yeast on the market based in part on genomic studies and thousands of hours of deep thought, see here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ETgOwH5BWx3bTqEt0kEpV-O5OM/edit#gid=243238826