Charlie Bamforth saying yeast strain really doesn't matter...

[Qhrumphf]

http://www.brewersguardian.com/index.php/hop_bine_brewing_blogs/1451.html

Can someone explain to me his argument? Cause I'm not buying it.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

His point seems to be that you can produce the same flavor profile with most strains by adjusting the malt, pitching rate, aeration, etc. That's mostly true. You could take, say most English ale strains, and by manipulating the factors around the yeast produce nearly identical yeast flavor profiles. You could take Belgian strains and do the same thing. Take one of the trappist or abbey strains and ferment it cool and it's very similar to a wit strain. Ferment a wit strain warm and it's more similar to the trappist or abbey strains. Very few strains are really so unique you could not reproduce the flavor profile by changing the environment. That's really his point. It's not that under the same condition (the exact same wort) multiple strains all taste the same. His analysis is directed at professional brewers, that may gain advantage from using a single strain in the brewery to produce multiple different beers with different yeast flavor profiles by adjusting the process rather than the strain.

 

[Buna_Bere]

Thanks for posting that. Interesting that yeast grown on sugar produce 10-20 times more DMS than yeast grown on wort.

 

[Qhrumphf]

His point seems to be that you can produce the same flavor profile with most strains by adjusting the malt, pitching rate, aeration, etc. That's mostly true. You could take, say most English ale strains, and by manipulating the factors around the yeast produce nearly identical yeast flavor profiles. You could take Belgian strains and do the same thing. Take one of the trappist or abbey strains and ferment it cool and it's very similar to a wit strain. Ferment a wit strain warm and it's more similar to the trappist or abbey strains. Very few strains are really so unique you could not reproduce the flavor profile by changing the environment. That's really his point. It's not that under the same condition (the exact same wort) multiple strains all taste the same. His analysis is directed at professional brewers, that may gain advantage from using a single strain in the brewery to produce multiple different beers with different yeast flavor profiles by adjusting the process rather than the strain.

That would make sense, but he doesn't seem to make that point clear. If the point is the differentiation between two Belgian strains isn't great (or English, or American) and can be manipulated by other variables, then we all pretty much understood that already. But he seems to sweep with a much larger brush than that, and that's what I don't understand. I have a hard time seeing someone, under any circumstances, getting a similar flavor profile out of a clean American ale strain, vs. a Belgian Abbey strain. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it?

 

[diS]

I read that article few days ago and it was surprise to me too.. but then, it is C. Bamforth who likes to examine conventional facts.. this is why I love to read his articles.

I understand it as there is less difference in the similar strains than it can be achieved through different fermentation conditions. Off course, there are strains that gives unique taste that cant be achieved by other strains, but most similar strains probably gives similar results in same conditions (at least what could most people notice). But if we change the conditions it would produce huger differences between same similar strains.

Also, I remember that C. White divides all strains in 5 groups: clean, fruity, hybrid, phenolic and estery so it could also fit in Charlie"s theory since there is too much strains and some of them gives pretty similar results.

 

[hercher]

It seems that his point is that the yeast doesn't have as big a contribution to flavor as we sometimes think. I have, a couple of times, split batches into two carboys, and pitched a different yeast in each carboy. The difference between them, when tasted side by side, was barely noticeable.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I read that article few days ago and it was surprise to me too.. but then, it is C. Bamforth who likes to examine conventional facts.. this is why I love to read his articles.

I understand it as there is less difference in the similar strains than it can be achieved through different fermentation conditions. Off course, there are strains that gives unique taste that cant be achieved by other strains, but most similar strains probably gives similar results in same conditions (at least what could most people notice). But if we change the conditions it would produce huger differences between same similar strains.

Also, I remember that C. White divides all strains in 5 groups: clean, fruity, hybrid, phenolic and estery so it could also fit in Charlie"s theory since there is too much strains and some of them gives pretty similar results.

And you can take strains that, if pitched into identical wort and fermented under the same conditions would produce different results, but under different wort and/or different fermentation could produce similar results.

I figure that plus Chris White's point (which is how I've understood it too), roughly makes sense with what Charlie is saying.

Thanks!

 

[motobrewer]

It seems that his point is that the yeast doesn't have as big a contribution to flavor as we sometimes think. I have, a couple of times, split batches into two carboys, and pitched a different yeast in each carboy. The difference between them, when tasted side by side, was barely noticeable.

i've done the same, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the differences barely noticeable. they were noticeable, just not major.

i mean, a different yeast strain isn't going to turn a munich dunkel into a pilsner.

 

[diS]

And you can take strains that, if pitched into identical wort and fermented under the same conditions would produce different results, but under different wort and/or different fermentation could produce similar results.

I figure that plus Chris White's point (which is how I've understood it too), roughly makes sense with what Charlie is saying.

Thanks!

Sure, his statement challenges the conventional opinion that any strain plays a huge role in taste and also that conditions+pitching rate can make a big difference.
Most homebrewers (at least I did) ignore the conditions of fermentation and pitching rate and gives too much importance to the strain selection, although the strains can be very similar to each other.

It would be interested to have him here as a member, so he can explain his experiences in more details...

 

[jtejedor]

I remember seeing somewhere that sierra nevada used chico in everyone of their beers even in the lager. But then looking at their site it says lager yeast for the lager. I guess I can see the coaxing a yeast into doing what you want argument. After using WLP002 for the zombie dust clone I think that might be my go to yeast for american styles. Fermented low it is very clean and drops out very quickly.

 

[hercher]

I remember seeing somewhere that sierra nevada used chico in everyone of their beers even in the lager. But then looking at their site it says lager yeast for the lager. I guess I can see the coaxing a yeast into doing what you want argument. After using WLP002 for the zombie dust clone I think that might be my go to yeast for american styles. Fermented low it is very clean and drops out very quickly.

I had the opportunity to talk to one of the Yuengling brewers (it was actually one of the family), and she surprised me by saying that they used the same yeast in all their beers.

 

[lou2row]

I did a yeast trial where I broke up a five gallon batch of EdWort's haus pale ale between five one gallon jugs with different yeasts. Three varieties (Bells, dark horse, founders) all tasted almost identical. Pacman got contaminated and was no good, and English ale yeast had a fruitiness that made it the best of the field.

 

[kevink2011]

I had the opportunity to talk to one of the Yuengling brewers (it was actually one of the family), and she surprised me by saying that they used the same yeast in all their beers.

I'm not surprised by this. I picked up the Yuengling Oktoberfest this year and I didn't taste much difference than their regular laggers. It certainly wasn't a good example of an Oktoberfest brew.

 

[moti_mo]

I did a yeast trial where I broke up a five gallon batch of EdWort's haus pale ale between five one gallon jugs with different yeasts. Three varieties (Bells, dark horse, founders) all tasted almost identical. Pacman got contaminated and was no good, and English ale yeast had a fruitiness that made it the best of the field.

I've actually had the opposite experience of this (having several yeasts turn out identical flavor profiles) MANY times over. I break up every 10 gallon batch of mine into two or three separate batches where, usually, the ONLY difference is the yeast. In every case, there have been very noticeable differences.

There are a lot of breweries who only use one signature yeast strain for every beer. For some, it works great and you'd never know. For others, all beers have a very similar base flavor when I feel like they would benefit from a different yeast to bring out a certain aspect of the beer to differentiate it.

Anyway, thanks for posting that, it was an interesting read. I pretty much completely disagree with it, but its certainly an interesting read that I'm sure will stir up some good debate.