Battle of the West Coasts: OYL-004 vs. WLP001 vs. Wyeast 1764 Pacman

[Iowa Brewer]

Hey all,
Getting ready to brew a chocolate stout and the recipe calls for either the Pacman or WLP001. I could order one of those, but my local shop has OYL-004 on hand. Anything to prevent me from going local? Is there are major difference between the three strains that would affect something as dark as a chocolate stout?
As always, many thanks!

 

[Dog House Brew]

Buy local, better than 001 IMO anyway.

 

[Iowa Brewer]

Thanks, Dog House Brew. Yeah, always prefer local when I can

 

[Northern_Brewer]

See this post for the Chico family tree - OYL-004 is in the WLP001 subgroup that has a chromosome rearrangement that repairs the BAT1 mutation that makes the US-05/1056 subgroup go a bit fruitier.

But yeah, the differences are subtle enough that they'd likely be swamped in a stout - if anything, I'd be looking for a yeast with a bit more character.

 

[Iowa Brewer]

Cheers, Northern_Brewer! Are there any strains you'd recommend?

 

[Dog House Brew]

I like WLP002 in a stout.
If I’m going along the yeast line in the OP, I like WY1450. Gives a bit of texture while being clean and does accentuate the roastiness.
Stouts are hard for yeast expression, so I tend to think in how I want it to finish. Am I looking for something dry and roasty, or a little thicker and sweeter. I tend to like a yeast that doesn’t attenuate so much. I’m kind of a sucker for any English style yeast. I haven’t used a true Chico in a long time.

 

[Iowa Brewer]

I like WLP002 in a stout.
If I’m going along the yeast line in the OP, I like WY1450. Gives a bit of texture while being clean and does accentuate the roastiness.
Stouts are hard for yeast expression, so I tend to think in how I want it to finish. Am I looking for something dry and roasty, or a little thicker and sweeter. I tend to like a yeast that doesn’t attenuate so much. I’m kind of a sucker for any English style yeast. I haven’t used a true Chico in a long time.

This is helpful. Thanks!

 

[Bramling Cross]

I have a strong preference for Pacman over the Chico strain, largely due to its technical performance in the brewery. While both produce excellent, very neutral ales, my experience with Pacman leads me to believe that Pacman does it quicker, cleaner, and it flocs substantially quicker and more decisively than Chico. Pacman is just easier to use. And when you want to get really transparent, Pacman will happily munch away in the high 50s, whereas Chico starts throwing esters as it approaches the bottom part of its range. Nevertheless, while I prefer Pacman as a brewer, I doubt that I'd be able to decisively ID Pacman in a triangle test against Chico if both were fermented at 64F.

All that said, I've never used Omega's take on Chico, but I'm sure it's outstanding stuff. If I were in your shoes, I'd use it with confidence.

Like the preceding posters, I prefer a UK yeast in my stouts. My personal preference is WY1469. That said, Pacman makes a really nice, very stark and orderly dry stout. If you want a yeast that allows you to see your roast over here and your bittering charge over there, Pacman will do that nicely. That trait could be very useful in a chocolate stout, a style that can very easily turn into a muddy mess if you lose discipline with your recipe design or allow your yeast to soften the demarcations between the flavors in your grist.

Well, that's what I think, for what it's worth.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Cheers, Northern_Brewer! Are there any strains you'd recommend?

+1 to what DHB said about thinking first about attenuation - personally if I was making a chocolate stout I wouldn't be going for something as high-attenuation as the Chico family, but that's just my taste, even allowing for the fact that you'll probably lose a few points of attenuation with all the speciality malts in the grist.

So if it was me brewing for my taste, I'd probably look at something like WLP041 Pacific (which despite the name is of British origin) which is not the flashiest of yeasts but produces a really drinkable pint. Or maybe one of the Scottish yeasts, I know a couple of people who use WLP028 as a house yeast. If you want to go in more of an overtly British direction, then 1469 or Imperial A09 Pub have a bit more character.

But overall - I wouldn't sweat it too much.

 

[Iowa Brewer]

So if it was me brewing for my taste, I'd probably look at something like WLP041 Pacific (which despite the name is of British origin) which is not the flashiest of yeasts but produces a really drinkable pint. Or maybe one of the Scottish yeasts, I know a couple of people who use WLP028 as a house yeast. If you want to go in more of an overtly British direction, then 1469 or Imperial A09 Pub have a bit more character.

But overall - I wouldn't sweat it too much.

Sound good, N_B. Again, appreciate it!

 

[Andre3000]

I have a strong preference for Pacman over the Chico strain, largely due to its technical performance in the brewery. While both produce excellent, very neutral ales, my experience with Pacman leads me to believe that Pacman does it quicker, cleaner, and it flocs substantially quicker and more decisively than Chico.

I need to try Pacman again. When I tried it in a clean ale, I swore I got a bit of a mineral note / tang from it. There's also the strong possibility that that note came from somewhere else in my brewing process. Have you noticed this as well?

 

[Bramling Cross]

I need to try Pacman again. When I tried it in a clean ale, I swore I got a bit of a mineral note / tang from it. There's also the strong possibility that that note came from somewhere else in my brewing process. Have you noticed this as well?

I think the best way to describe Pacman, when used in the 58F-62F window, is "transparent." It's been a couple decades since I fled Oregon, but back then Rogue employed Pacman's transparency to make all their "lagers." Perhaps this has changed since I was last in Newport, but it does help to drive home the point regarding Pacman's penchant for transparency.

In fact, this transparency might be the reason why you picked up some mineral notes and tangy-ness. While other strains might conceal those notes, Pacman lets your water, grist, and hops express themselves fully--warts and all.

 

[Iowa Brewer]

I have a strong preference for Pacman over the Chico strain, largely due to its technical performance in the brewery. While both produce excellent, very neutral ales, my experience with Pacman leads me to believe that Pacman does it quicker, cleaner, and it flocs substantially quicker and more decisively than Chico. Pacman is just easier to use. And when you want to get really transparent, Pacman will happily munch away in the high 50s, whereas Chico starts throwing esters as it approaches the bottom part of its range. Nevertheless, while I prefer Pacman as a brewer, I doubt that I'd be able to decisively ID Pacman in a triangle test against Chico if both were fermented at 64F.

All that said, I've never used Omega's take on Chico, but I'm sure it's outstanding stuff. If I were in your shoes, I'd use it with confidence.

Like the preceding posters, I prefer a UK yeast in my stouts. My personal preference is WY1469. That said, Pacman makes a really nice, very stark and orderly dry stout. If you want a yeast that allows you to see your roast over here and your bittering charge over there, Pacman will do that nicely. That trait could be very useful in a chocolate stout, a style that can very easily turn into a muddy mess if you lose discipline with your recipe design or allow your yeast to soften the demarcations between the flavors in your grist.

Well, that's what I think, for what it's worth.

Thanks, Bramling Cross! That's super helping and a lot of great stuff to think about.

 

[Jag75]

I guess I'm the minority because I love 001 in my choc milk stout . However I've never tried the Pacman or the OLY004 in stout .

 

[Bramling Cross]

I guess I'm the minority because I love 001 in my choc milk stout . However I've never tried the Pacman or the OLY004 in stout .

There's lots of reason to love 001, it makes great beer!

 

[Steveruch]

Some years ago I brewed a pilsner with pacman at room temperature and entered it into a competition. I got decent scores with no mention of it being non lager like.

 

[Iowa Brewer]

Some years ago I brewed a pilsner with pacman at room temperature and entered it into a competition. I got decent scores with no mention of it being non lager like.

Really cool, Steveruch. I might give that method a try

 

[Steveruch]

Really cool, Steveruch. I might give that method a try

Here's a write up about it.

 

[Iowa Brewer]

Here's a write up about it.View attachment 714717

Nice!