Chico strain
- Thread starter jalc6927
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
brewbama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- 2,499
I agree with US-05 = BRY-96 Ballantine Beer (a.k.a. "Chico," Wyeast 1056, White Labs WLP001), but I believe Bry-97 is Ballantine Ale based on this information:
“Danstar is a Lallemand brand. Lallemand owns Siebel. Siebel's microbiological services unit is actually part of Lallemand. The Bry 97 that is sold under the Danstar label is in fact Siebel Bry 97. Many people believe that Bry 97 is Danstar's "Chico;" however, that would be Bry 96.
Bry 96: This is a flocculent top fermenting ale yeast from a brewery formerly operating on the East Coast of the United States. It produces a very clean ale flavor which has been well accepted in a number of breweries.
I am not 100% positive that Bry 97 is a Ballantine strain, but the circumstantial evidence points in that direction. The circumstantial evidence also points in the direction of Bry 96 having been used to make beer, not ale. Bry 96 ferments down into the fifties. The Schalk Brothers Brewery predates pure lager cultures. In fact, Ballentine acquired the Schalk Brothers Brewery before Emil Hansen isolated the first pure lager strain. All lager brewing up until that point was performed using mixed cultures. As I mentioned above, Bry 96 is fairly unique for an ale yeast. It would not surprise me if yeast geneticists determine that it is a hybrid.”
Retrieved from https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=18875.0 written April 03, 2014, 01:29:40 PM by S. cerevisiae
“Danstar is a Lallemand brand. Lallemand owns Siebel. Siebel's microbiological services unit is actually part of Lallemand. The Bry 97 that is sold under the Danstar label is in fact Siebel Bry 97. Many people believe that Bry 97 is Danstar's "Chico;" however, that would be Bry 96.
Bry 96: This is a flocculent top fermenting ale yeast from a brewery formerly operating on the East Coast of the United States. It produces a very clean ale flavor which has been well accepted in a number of breweries.
I am not 100% positive that Bry 97 is a Ballantine strain, but the circumstantial evidence points in that direction. The circumstantial evidence also points in the direction of Bry 96 having been used to make beer, not ale. Bry 96 ferments down into the fifties. The Schalk Brothers Brewery predates pure lager cultures. In fact, Ballentine acquired the Schalk Brothers Brewery before Emil Hansen isolated the first pure lager strain. All lager brewing up until that point was performed using mixed cultures. As I mentioned above, Bry 96 is fairly unique for an ale yeast. It would not surprise me if yeast geneticists determine that it is a hybrid.”
Retrieved from https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=18875.0 written April 03, 2014, 01:29:40 PM by S. cerevisiae
Last edited:
Both BRY-96 and BRY-97 are Ballantine's. BRY-96 = US-05 = WLP001 = Wyeast 1056
Thank you
I been brewing a blue moon clone recipe that the original brewer posted a while back and use s-05, I prefer dry yeast
But it just doesn’t taste quite right, thought of using more of a witbier type yeast in lieu of 05,
Any suggestions?
I been brewing a blue moon clone recipe that the original brewer posted a while back and use s-05, I prefer dry yeast
But it just doesn’t taste quite right, thought of using more of a witbier type yeast in lieu of 05,
Any suggestions?
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
Depends what you mean by the "Chico" strain! Chico, north of Sacramento, is the hometown of Sierra Nevada, so in yeast terms Chico is generally taken to mean the Sierra Nevada house strain. Ken Grossman originally bought in "Slant #96" (generally assumed to =BRY96) from the Siebel Institute but their yeast is now maintained inhouse and has changed as it adapted to SN's brewery, notably as they acquired bigger fermenters.
It is widely assumed that both BRY96 and BRY97 came from Ballantine's in Newark, New Jersey and represent that company's "lager" and "ale" strains. NRRL Y-7407 is known to come from "Ballentine's" (sic) in NJ and NRRL Y-7408 is also a beer yeast (unlike Y-7406), it's assumed these represent the lager & ale strains, BRY96 and BRY97. Ballantine's had two breweries, only the former Schalk Brothers Brewery on Freeman St made lager (sold as "Ballantine Beer"). User S. cerevisiae has posted pictures (now offline) of the Ballantine's ale brewery showing workers skimming a top-cropping yeast; BRY97 is a top-cropper but not BRY96. BRY97 subsequently found fame as Anchor's yeast, and is also generally equated with WPL051 California V, 1272 American Ale Yeast II and dry BRY-97 from Lallemand (Siebel's parent company).
Looking at the Gallone et al 2016 sequencing paper, IF Suregork's identifications of their strain codes are correct (he's certain that BE044 = WLP001 though) then it seems there are two subfamilies of "US" yeasts. WLP001 and WLP051 form one group, and 1056 is in a separate group (confirmed by Chris White) with WLP090 San Diego and a British yeast, possibly WLP030 Thames Valley. More distant cousins of the two groups are WLP019 California IV, WLP515 Antwerp (allegedly de Koninck) and WLP008 East Coast (allegedly Sam Adams).
Certainly it's known that White Labs WLP001 and Wyeast 1056 brew differently. The Gallone paper also analysed some of the esters and fusels produced at 30C - they found WLP001 notably produced a lot more isobutanol and phenyl ethanol than 1056, and 1056 flocced much better (although ExperimentalBrew would probably disagree). WLP030 was also super-clean in their tests, pretty similar to 1056, whereas WLP051, WLP090 and WLP515 clustered together with a characteristic spike of propyl acetate. I've got WLP030/515 in the fermenters at the moment, I should be bottling them tonight!
So it's not quite as simple as BRY96 = US-05 = WLP001 = Wyeast 1056.
In answer to the original question, if you say that Chico is the Sierra Nevada strain then I'd guess that based on its close relationship to WLP051, WLP001 is a derivative of the original Siebel BRY96 and so is a great^n-uncle of Chico, whereas 1056 was probably harvested from a Sierra Nevada bottle and so is an offspring or first cousin of Chico.
Fermentis US-05 is a dry yeast that fits into the Chico family tree somehow - we should know soon as it's being sequenced by the 1002 Genomes project in Strasbourg. Or rather they're doing one part of US-05; Chris Giles of Surebrew claims to have found 5 different strains within US-05, albeit I think they're just flocculation mutants. But most "US-style" dry yeasts will be derived from Chico, BRY96 or BRY97 somehow.
Last edited:
brewbama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- 2,499
Well written Northern Brewer.
The only dry Wit yeast I know is Brewferm Blanche https://www.brewstock.com/product-p/ld2347.htm
The only dry Wit yeast I know is Brewferm Blanche https://www.brewstock.com/product-p/ld2347.htm
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
Most of the dry yeast producers make one of some description, to varying degrees of "wheatiness" - Danstar Munich/Munich Classic, Fermentis WB-06, Mauribrew Weiss, Mangrove Jack M20 Bavarian Wheat and M21 Belgian Wit. First question is what ranges you can easily get hold of, and the second is then how characterful you want the yeast to be...
user 70770
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 29
Yeast being a single cell organism, it will have a tendency to mutate quickly. So if you make three different cultures of the same sample of yeast, they will eventually diverge over a few years of propagation. That much is clear. And that would explain why wlp001, Wyeast 1056 and us-05 are not quite the same despite having common ancestry. However in your opinion, which one of the three versions available to homebrewers is closest in fermentation characteristics to the in house Sierra Nevada strain? I’ve brewed two Sierra Nevada clones(a pale ale clone and a ruthless rye clone) using us-05 and felt it was incredibly close to the real stuff. What are your thoughts?
I've heard T-58 makes a good witbier. I haven't tried it myself yet but eventually.
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
I don't have any I'm afraid, I've not done the side-by-side experiments and I'm not a great one for cloning. Of course, you miss the fourth version of the yeast available to homebrewers - according to that interview I linked above, as of 2015 they bottled with the production strain so you could just harvest it from SN beer.
rtstrider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2016
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 714
I've done side by sides. From experience 1056 and us-05 are almost identical in taste and fermentation characteristics. However, they aren't even in the same ballpark flavor wise to Sierra Nevada's production yeast. wlp001 is MUCH closer but nothing beats the real yeast. I will say this much the production yeast is dog slow from experience. I actually have a SN Pale Ale clone sitting in a fermenter with the production yeast as I type this. Expect somewhere in the 14-18 day range for normal fermentation at 68F for this strain. Pitch rate doesn't seem to matter, in regards to fermentation time, either. I've tried cultures from different bottles over the years and same deal. This was actually built up from a freezer stock I have. So expect a good 21 days or so from fermenter to keg/bottle if using the production yeast.
Wayne1
Well-Known Member
Anything to do with wit beer yeast is wrong for Blue Moon. Try S-04. It will give you more esters
rtstrider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2016
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 714
I tasted the Sierra Nevada clone from the fermenter using the Sierra Nevada production yeast last night. Can confirm it's pretty fruity. It reminds me a good bit of fruity pebbles. I just don't get that from us-05 or 1056.
Last edited:
Old thread but a worthwhile bump. You're collecting the Sierra Nevada yeast right from their bottles? If so which beer, I don't remember there being sediment but it's been a while and I'm sure I haven't had their entire range.
rtstrider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2016
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 714
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. I reached out to Sierra Nevada a year or two ago and they confirmed that is indeed their production yeast for the Pale Ale and not a bottling strain. I'm not entirely sure what other brews they use that strain on unfortunately.
Maybe 2/3 us05 1/3 verdant would get you there as well.
rtstrider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2016
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 714
I think Bells house yeast would be a decent substitute also. It's not the exact yeast, but, it's fruity enough at those temperatures I think it would get you closer, than us-05/1056, on a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale clone
