Commercial examples of WY2308/WLP838/W-308? Lallemand Diamond?

[ebbelwoi]

Does anyone know of any commercial breweries (esp. German ones) that use WY2308, WLP838, or Weihenstephan 308? I've read that these are the same strain. I've also read that Lallemand Diamond is the dry version. For whatever reason, I enjoy knowing that I'm using the same yeast as a brewery I like.

I've done a few beers with Diamond, and I'm very happy with them. I'm getting ready to do another batch (with minor tweaks) of a lager that turned out really well it I could either use the same Diamond slurry+starter I used for that batch, or I've got a packet of WLP838 in the fridge. I'm out of dry Diamond, the slurry is about two months old, and the WLP838 is about a month away from its best-by date. I need to start the starter in a few days, so I need to make a decision.

 

[Steveruch]

I'm pretty sure diamond lager yeast is the same as w34/70 which is not a version of 2308.

 

[ebbelwoi]

I'm pretty sure diamond lager yeast is the same as w34/70 which is not a version of 2308.

Have you used it? I've done several split batches of w34/70 and Diamond and they do not appear or taste the same. In this reddit thread, Andreas Krennmair (author of Historic German and Austrian Beers for the Home Brewer) says that Diamond is the same as WY2308/ W-308:

A post in this thread claims it, too: Danstar Diamond Hefe - hobbybrauer.de

 

[dmtaylor]

Interestingly, none of these yeast strains are the same. WLP838 in particular isn't even a lager strain, it's cerevisiae. Here's my summary table based on all the recent genomic studies:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16XRUloO3WXqH9Ixsf5vx2DIKDmrEQJ36tLRBmmya7Jo/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Steveruch]

Have you used it? I've done several split batches of w34/70 and Diamond and they do not appear or taste the same. In this reddit thread, Andreas Krennmair (author of Historic German and Austrian Beers for the Home Brewer) says that Diamond is the same as WY2308/ W-308:

It sure could be. I've used both w34/70 and diamond lager, but never in a split batch and never even all that close in time.

 

[ebbelwoi]

Interestingly, none of these yeast strains are the same. WLP838 in particular isn't even a lager strain, it's cerevisiae. Here's my summary table based on all the recent genomic studies:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16XRUloO3WXqH9Ixsf5vx2DIKDmrEQJ36tLRBmmya7Jo/edit?usp=sharing

I get noticeably different flavor and flocculation from w34/70 and Diamond.

 

[dmtaylor]

I get noticeably different flavor and flocculation from w34/70 and Diamond.

You may be right. I have not done a side by side tasting. I find that typically the different yeast manufacturers will copy one another, such that right or wrong, this just seemed the best fit based on this premise. Do you believe it more likely perhaps that Diamond is instead equivalent to S-23 rather than W-34/70? What is your experience with the Diamond lager yeast? Was it estery? Did it have an especially long lag time? Anything specific you can recall?

 

[beersk]

Interestingly, none of these yeast strains are the same. WLP838 in particular isn't even a lager strain, it's cerevisiae. Here's my summary table based on all the recent genomic studies:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16XRUloO3WXqH9Ixsf5vx2DIKDmrEQJ36tLRBmmya7Jo/edit?usp=sharing

So, you're saying wlp838 is an ale strain? Why does White Labs market it as a lager strain then?

 

[dmtaylor]

So, you're saying wlp838 is an ale strain? Why does White Labs market it as a lager strain then?

Could be a few different things:

1) It's always been used to make "lagers". It's an ale strain that can handle cold temperatures. So it depends a bit on one's definition of the word "lager".

2) They haven't gotten around to changing their marketing yet. The genomic study on this just came out last year. Change takes time. And maybe they want to confirm it against another study before deciding too.

3) People can't handle the truth. Maybe they just don't want to upset anyone.

Who knows.

 

[ebbelwoi]

You may be right. I have not done a side by side tasting. I find that typically the different yeast manufacturers will copy one another, such that right or wrong, this just seemed the best fit based on this premise. Do you believe it more likely perhaps that Diamond is instead equivalent to S-23 rather than W-34/70? What is your experience with the Diamond lager yeast? Was it estery? Did it have an especially long lag time? Anything specific you can recall?

I'm afraid my palate and vocabulary probably aren't refined enough to answer your questions. I can say that the w34/70 has seemed harsher than the Diamond, which seemed mellower, or maltier, I suppose. I haven't used S-23, so I can't make that comparison, but I can't say I've noted any esters. Diamond has flocked faster and more thoroughly than w34/70 in every instance. And it tastes much better.

I don't have any notes about lag time, but I've got some more packets on the way, so I'll make note of that. I have two microbatches of pressure fermented Export fermented with w34/70 and Diamond that I'm expecting to pour next weekend after 5+ weeks of lagering. I'll keep you posted on that as well.

So does anybody know any German breweries that use WY2308/W-308? I guess I should ask on the German forum.

 

[beersk]

Could be a few different things:

1) It's always been used to make "lagers". It's an ale strain that can handle cold temperatures. So it depends a bit on one's definition of the word "lager".

2) They haven't gotten around to changing their marketing yet. The genomic study on this just came out last year. Change takes time. And maybe they want to confirm it against another study before deciding too.

3) People can't handle the truth. Maybe they just don't want to upset anyone.

Who knows.

Well I'll be damned. That's just interesting. Thanks for the info.

 

[Vale71]

So does anybody know any German breweries that use WY2308/W-308? I guess I should ask on the German forum.

I guess the answer is, "Besides the people actually working at those breweries (if any), no."
I'm afraid all you're going to get, either here or on the German forum, is wild speculation as I'm not aware of commercial breweries freely divulging such details.

 

[ebbelwoi]

Apparently, one of the former brewmasters at Oettinger has said that they use W-308.

 

[ebbelwoi]

Update is in this thread: Lalbrew Diamond Lager

I got noticeably different results from Diamond and w34/70.

 

[Bramling Cross]

I've done several split batches of w34/70 and Diamond and they do not appear or taste the same.

I'll add that they don't perform the same, either.

I'm currently running a series of beers with Diamond, my first run with this yeast. The thing that has quickly become apparent is that Diamond really doesn't like the cold end of the spectrum. I've pitched it at the same rates and temps at which 34/70 works nicely and Diamond is consistently slower to get going and much more sluggish once it starts fermenting. I've found that it really only perks up once it gets to 55F and above. That seems awfully warm to me for the first half of a lager's gravity points. Last, it seems to like to punk out several points higher than 34/70.

I haven't tasted it yet, and I'll admit that taste is what really matters. But for the time being, I'm not at all impressed with its performance versus 34/70.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Could be a few different things:

1) It's always been used to make "lagers". It's an ale strain that can handle cold temperatures. So it depends a bit on one's definition of the word "lager".

2) They haven't gotten around to changing their marketing yet. The genomic study on this just came out last year. Change takes time. And maybe they want to confirm it against another study before deciding too.

3) People can't handle the truth. Maybe they just don't want to upset anyone.

Who knows.

Or the sequencing was screwed up - it definitely happened on some of the Strasbourg strains.

And according to a thread on AHA at the moment, the current BRY-97 sequence is a screwup, it actually looks like a descendant of BRY-96 in the Chico family.

 

[foles]

Bumping this thread. I have a split batch going on these two, fermented at 10C, nearly at FG. Diamond is definitely not the same strain as W34/70. The Diamond has a pleasant level of sulfur in the FV sample, I have a feeling it's one of the malty Bavarian strains. Tastes very promising and I plan to repitch it. Diamond is also nothing like S23, which in my experience doesn't ferment well cold and throws a fruit salad at you if you do.

 

[ebbelwoi]

A rep at Lallemand UK told me in an email that Diamond is the Doemens 308 strain.

S-23 not fermenting well cold? What temps are you talking about?

 

[foles]

A rep at Lallemand UK told me in an email that Diamond is the Doemens 308 strain.

S-23 not fermenting well cold? What temps are you talking about?

Interesting about the Doemens 308 strain reference. I just found the following on it and it matches my experience so far with the SO2, and seems to match the description of the lallemand strain. 308 is high attenuating, whereas WLP838 is lower attenuating.

• Strain 308 - bottom fermenting yeast (PC 1) Strain 308 is a bottom fermenting flocculating yeast with good sedimentation properties and a high attenuation degree. With it´s good fermentation properties and the well balanced aroma spectrum it is a popular and frequently used strain. During fermentation strain 308 produces SO2 at high levels leading to a good flavour stability and a decreased beer aging.

I tried S23 at 10C with 2 sachets in 20L of 1046 wort. Pitched about 12C and set controller (via thermowell) for 10C, so not perfect. The beer was a fruit bomb that was ultimately dumped, a really offensive flavour. W34/70 performs very well under similar fermentation conditions. And Diamond seems to be also although its not done yet.
However I do remember fermenting a beer years ago with a single sachet of S23 at 15C, and it came out pretty nice.

 

[dmtaylor]

A rep at Lallemand UK told me in an email that Diamond is the Doemens 308 strain.

Yeah, and they also say that it's Weihenstephan. So, whom to believe?

https://www.homebrewinguk.com/post/dried-yeast-guide-lager-german-ale-kolsch-and-wheat-beer-10466631
I'm trying to figure this out, I think I'm on the edge of making a declaration. Anybody with any attenuation or OG & FG data, particularly for Diamond strain, I'd love to see it. That's going to be the make it / break it point. Thanks for all the input so far (above).

 

[ebbelwoi]

please check your messages

 

[ebbelwoi]

I tried S23 at 10C with 2 sachets in 20L of 1046 wort. Pitched about 12C and set controller (via thermowell) for 10C, so not perfect. The beer was a fruit bomb that was ultimately dumped, a really offensive flavour. W34/70 performs very well under similar fermentation conditions. And Diamond seems to be also although its not done yet.
However I do remember fermenting a beer years ago with a single sachet of S23 at 15C, and it came out pretty nice.

I had some really positive results with S-23, compared to an 838 batch. Both were fermented in small batches at 10C, at Pilsen-ish water chemistry levels. The S-23 came out well enough that I harvested both yeasts (838 and 23), but went with the S-23 slurry on my current pils fermented at 10C.

 

[dmtaylor]

please check your messages

Thanks for the additional references.

After additional Googling, I found attenuation / OG/FG data for 5 other batches brewed with Diamond lager yeast. Attenuation ranged from 79-83%, which averages to 81%.... which is precisely the same attenuation as I get from....

Wyeast 2308

That's it, I truly believe Diamond is in fact a dried version of Wyeast 2308.

And based on additional Googling, looks like Mangrove Jack M76 Bavarian is also 2308/Diamond.

To be clear, I also believe Diamond and 2308 are NOT equivalent to any of the other ones being tossed around, including other candidates that might be out there from Fermentis or White Labs. Fermentis S-189 comes very close though, at 79% attenuation average in my experience. I would personally have no problem substituting S-189 if you can get your hands on that one easier than Diamond or 2308 or M76. FYI -- WLP885 Zurich is the same as S-189 -- these supposedly originate from the famed Samiclaus.

Cheers all. If anybody has more data, I'm all ears as well. But I'm pretty sure this is all correct now. Nice to get this all cleared up, at least in my own mind, and spreadsheet, if nothing else.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Yeah, and they also say that it's Weihenstephan. So, whom to believe?

Well I'd always be a bit sceptical when someone reports a conversation second-hand, you don't know how much background knowledge they have and a conversation is more likely to have the wrong end of the stick grasped. At least with an email, the sender will be a bit more careful with their words and the recipient can re-read it.

It could be that the conversation referred to in that HBUK piece in fact said "Weihenstephan 308", and the recipient just heard the first word.

We know MJ repack a lot of Lallemand yeasts, and given the number of dry lager yeast they have one would expect one of them to be Diamond.

 

[foles]

Thanks for the additional references.

After additional Googling, I found attenuation / OG/FG data for 5 other batches brewed with Diamond lager yeast. Attenuation ranged from 79-83%, which averages to 81%.... which is precisely the same attenuation as I get from....

Wyeast 2308

That's it, I truly believe Diamond is in fact a dried version of Wyeast 2308.

And based on additional Googling, looks like Mangrove Jack M76 Bavarian is also 2308/Diamond.

To be clear, I also believe Diamond and 2308 are NOT equivalent to any of the other ones being tossed around, including other candidates that might be out there from Fermentis or White Labs. Fermentis S-189 comes very close though, at 79% attenuation average in my experience. I would personally have no problem substituting S-189 if you can get your hands on that one easier than Diamond or 2308 or M76. FYI -- WLP885 Zurich is the same as S-189 -- these supposedly originate from the famed Samiclaus.

Cheers all. If anybody has more data, I'm all ears as well. But I'm pretty sure this is all correct now. Nice to get this all cleared up, at least in my own mind, and spreadsheet, if nothing else.

Sounds like some great research. Is the 2308 essentially the Domens 308 ? I wonder why Yeast quotes the attenuation so low (70-74)?