Dry yeasts identified - your opinions please!

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

Reneauj62

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
132
Reaction score
109
So, a side-by-side brew:
  • S-04 (pitched dry) at 72F (#324)
  • S-04 with a starter (#352). If you were doing this side-by-side brew, what temperature would ferment this batch at?
It deoends on the beer you are looking to brew. Typically, I would be fermenting around 66 degrees F. It might be a little high at 72 degrees since it is outside the yeast's normal range (59-68 degree F) and then account for the fermentation causing an increase of temps as well...but you may be trying to get flavors or results that would benefit from the higher temps. However, if it is a true side by side, wouldn't you use the same exact temps, procedures, and processes with the only variant being the yeast? So, if you pitch the dry yeast at 72 degrees, you would want to pitch the same temp for the starter.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2017
Messages
3,020
Reaction score
1,959
Location
· ···
However, if it is a true side by side, wouldn't you use the same exact temps, procedures, and processes with the only variant being the yeast?
So maybe a partial-faux (;)) side-by-side brew, changing a couple of things at the same time:
  • S-04 (pitched dry) at 72F (#324)
  • S-04 with a starter (#352); fermented at 66F (#363)?
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,842
Reaction score
3,238
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Sometimes I’ve got the tartness from dry to yeast, other times I have not. I do not understand the rhyme or reason. What I can tell you is that it seems to happen much less frequently than it used to. YMMV

The reason I don’t make starters is that I don’t see a significant benefit in doing so. The yeast always starts up fast just sprinkling on top. If you want to make starters, go ahead. The only way to know for certain of course what difference it might make is by experimenting both ways and comparing results. Anyone interested in knowing the truth should perform such experiments and find out for yourself.
 
Last edited:

Miraculix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,920
Reaction score
3,312
Location
Bremen
I have not just reading about it for 35 years, I have been doing it for 35 years. I hate it when someone reads a book from the 1970's or 1980's and thinks that no changes or discoveries have been made since. It's the Gospel. Read some well known books from famous brewers form the early days and then read what they are saying today in which a lot of cases that author now has completely different views or ideas nowadays. It is bewildering. Conventional wisdom is just that, until someone prove it wrong. Different people have different processes with failures and successes. I think people should do their own experiments and see for themselves.
Good to hear that you are trying to constantly educate yourself by reading new material. You could also try to read my initial post again and try to understand what I wanted to say which might differ a bit from what you wanted me to say.
 

Protos

The Gulper
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
190
Reaction score
191
Location
Valle Lacrimarum
Sometimes I’ve got the tartness from dry to yeast, other times I have not. I do not understand the rhyme or reason
That's exactly my conclusion regarding US-05.
I always get tart beers with S-04 (less or more tart, depends of the pitching method and ferm temp).
And with US-05, it's totally unpredictable. Usually it is not tart, but time to time the acid pops like from nowhere.
 

Miraculix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,920
Reaction score
3,312
Location
Bremen
That's exactly my conclusion regarding US-05.
I always get tart beers with S-04 (less or more tart, depends of the pitching method and ferm temp).
And with US-05, it's totally unpredictable. Usually it is not tart, but time to time the acid pops like from nowhere.
My unproven theory is, that the drying process stresses the yeast and that they switch their metabolism to "survival mode" because of this. After being rehydrated (doesn't matter with what liquid), the survival mode might be still active and maybe that's why they want to drop the pH to outcompete other microbes quickly. Maybe this survival mode cannot be "switched off"again and only the next generation will be without this survival mode, therefore making a starter from a small amount of dry yeast, to make sure that the cell count of previously dried cells will be low in the final starter volume, would make sense.

There are other hints that this might be a thing, flocculation of us05 is better when being repitched, belle saison develops character when being repitched etc.
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,938
Reaction score
1,862
Location
N/E Ohio
I've often heard it claimed that if you re-use your yeast you will not get the tartness, as it only presents itself on first use for dry yeasts. As I've never re-used any yeast, I can not offer any support to the validity of this claim. This goes hand in hand with what @Miraculix posted above.
 

Miraculix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,920
Reaction score
3,312
Location
Bremen
I've often heard it claimed that if you re-use your yeast you will not get the tartness, as it only presents itself on first use for dry yeasts. As I've never re-used any yeast, I can not offer any support to the validity of this claim. This goes hand in hand with what @Miraculix posted above.
I always wanted to do this with belle saison, stepping up just a few grains of dry yeast in a starter, to see if it then develops these peppery notes that it's supposed to be liquid counterpart shows.

But you know.... Then it's brew day and another beer looks more delicious :D
 

Protos

The Gulper
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
190
Reaction score
191
Location
Valle Lacrimarum
In my experience, of all repitched dry yeasts M54 intensifies its estery flavours the most: it produces quite a clean beer at the first pitch, and then builds up pear character at every consequent repitch (which I like alot).

Regarding phenolic diastatic yeasts (like BE-134, M29, M41), not so much. I feel, their character diminishes after the first pitch. So I avoid reusing them.
Haven't tried repitching Belle Saison, though.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2017
Messages
3,020
Reaction score
1,959
Location
· ···
I've often heard it claimed that if you re-use your yeast you will not get the tartness, as it only presents itself on first use for dry yeasts.
Over in the AHA forums, the 'tartness on first use' personal experience shows up from time to time. If one new to the idea of following people (as well as forums), put Saccharomyces (see #331 in this topic) on the 'short list' of people to start with.
 

Kjokkakim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
55
Reaction score
25
Location
Haugesund
Exchanged a few emails with a Lallemand rep yesterday. He was kind enough to confirm two things I'd read on hobbybrauer.de:

Diamond is a Frohberg strain, Doemens 308 to be specific.

I had already read about the Diamond-308 connection in a Reddit post by Andreas Krennmair (I believe he calls it the dry version of WY2308), and elsewhere on hobbybrauer.
A user at the Norwegian homebrew forum have got information about Lallemand Diamond Lager from Robert Percival.

Innlegg i tråden 'Lagerøl i rettning Bernard' Lagerøl i rettning Bernard

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding Diamond lager yeast.

This strain was selected from the Doemens Academy yeast bank (Munich) and I believe was isolated from a version of the W34 strain, or at least very similar to. So genetically it is very close but not identical to the W34/70 yeast but certainly there is very little genetic diversity in these type of lager strains so would fully expect similar results. Interesting that there is a link/similarity to RIBM95.


Kind regards,

Robert Percival
Regional Sales Manager - Europe
Lallemand Brewing – #WeBrewWithYou
 
Last edited:

ebbelwoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
630
Reaction score
373
Location
Japan
Page 7 of this pdf gives brief descriptions of Doemens' flocculating strains. 308 and 375 look very similar. The description of 375 reads, Strain 375 is the most frequently used bottom fermenting yeast strain in Germany... Other yeast collections distribute it under a differing strain number (unter verschiedenen Bezeichnungen), which makes me wonder if 375 is actually their version of w34/70.

https://doemens.org//uploads/2021/02/yeastbank_en_01-2021.pdf
https://doemens.org//uploads/2021/02/hefebank_de_01-2021.pdf

Lallemand owns the Doemens yeast bank, don't they? It would only make sense that Diamond would be a Doemens strain. Even the names are similar.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,842
Reaction score
3,238
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Page 7 of this pdf gives brief descriptions of Doemens' flocculating strains. 308 and 375 look very similar. The description of 375 reads, Strain 375 is the most frequently used bottom fermenting yeast strain in Germany... Other yeast collections distribute it under a differing strain number (unter verschiedenen Bezeichnungen), which makes me wonder if 375 is actually their version of w34/70.

https://doemens.org//uploads/2021/02/yeastbank_en_01-2021.pdf
https://doemens.org//uploads/2021/02/hefebank_de_01-2021.pdf

Lallemand owns the Doemens yeast bank, don't they? It would only make sense that Diamond would be a Doemens strain. Even the names are similar.
Thank you for sharing these references. Based on this key, I am more confident now that Diamond must be Wyeast 2308. And in turn, then, Mangrove Jack M76 Bavarian Lager is probably the same. My sheet is updated.

 

ep_brew

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2020
Messages
13
Reaction score
14
Location
Indiana
In addition to what Lallemand has disclosed about how they ended up with Nottingham yeast, I've been reading a book called "A Guide to Craft Brewing" by John Alexander which has some information regarding the possible origin of Nottingham. The author had been a homebrewer since the 1970's and published the book in 2006.

"During 1974-75, the Boots Company of Nottingham introduced a true brewing strain (NCYC 1245, fermentation characteristics 1:5:5:5:5) suspended in an isotonic mannitol solution; this liquid culture contained 20ml, each millilitre containing 10^5 of cells, and it was propagated prior to brewing.

By 1985, the technology for drying this type of yeast was developed, and the liquid yeast became available in dried form." pg. 97

After reading that, I did some internet searching and found this description for Nottingham on the Scott Laboratories website cached by the Wayback machine in 2004. Scott Labs is a business partner and distributor for Lallemand.

"NOTTINGHAM - S. cerevisiae . cerevisiae
Properties are similar to the strain NCYC 1245. Demonstrates full attenuation and strong flocculation characteristics. It has low concentrations of fruity and estery-ale aromas and has been described as neutral for an ale yeast."

So that seems to be confirmation that Nottingham yeast was originally the NCYC 1245 strain. A user on Jim's Beer Kit forum posted this description of 1245.

"1245: anonymized British Brewery ale strain, no head, fairly flocculent, high attenuating, modern non-top-cropping behavior well-suited to conical fermentors, good flavour, a popular historic English ale production strain, #3 in NCYC "Top Ten Yeasts" for commercial brewing, 1965."

This is the current description in the NCYC website:

"Flocculent. NewFlo type flocculation. O3, DMS 33 µg/l.
Used commercially in conical batch fermenters good flavour, fairly flocculent, non-head-forming, Contains 2µ plasmid.
Confirmed as a single strain by DNA 'fingerprinting' in 1998.

Depositor: British Brewery
Deposit Name: Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Month of deposit: August
Deposit Year: 1965
Habitat: Ale production strain.
Equivalent Strain Designations: Unknown
Reference: Unknown"
 

McMullan

wort maker
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
316
Reaction score
280
Thank you for sharing these references. Based on this key, I am more confident now that Diamond must be Wyeast 2308. And in turn, then, Mangrove Jack M76 Bavarian Lager is probably the same. My sheet is updated.

Interesting spreadsheet. Based on the English strains I'm very familiar with, I don't agree with the proposed equivalent pairs at all. Which criteria are you using to 'match' them exactly?
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,842
Reaction score
3,238
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Interesting spreadsheet. Based on the English strains I'm very familiar with, I don't agree with the proposed equivalent pairs at all. Which criteria are you using to 'match' them exactly?
It varies. Firstly, if there is genetic data available, it’s based on that. Unfortunately, genetic data is scarce. From there I go by average attenuation and flavor characteristics as reported by various online sources and personal experience. Could there be errors? Of course. If you have specific data to share, I am all ears. I might not incorporate every morsel of data that is reported to me, but if there is adequate supporting evidence, then I very well may. This is still very much MY spreadsheet. And it is a living spreadsheet. It will never be perfect.
 

McMullan

wort maker
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
316
Reaction score
280
It varies. Firstly, if there is genetic data available, it’s based on that. Unfortunately, genetic data is scarce. From there I go by average attenuation and flavor characteristics as reported by various online sources and personal experience. Could there be errors? Of course. If you have specific data to share, I am all ears. I might not incorporate every morsel of data that is reported to me, but if there is adequate supporting evidence, then I very well may. This is still very much MY spreadsheet. And it is a living spreadsheet. It will never be perfect.
I see. Yes, limited DNA sequence data can be very misleading therefore a very poor surrogate for strain level classification. Quite often the data merely proposes untested or untestable hypotheses. A backwater in molecular biology often viewed as a form of academic 'stamp collecting'. Even identical genomes can behave very differently, just to confuse matters further. Genetics is just a small part of biological organisation and cell behaviour. Ringwood ranks among my favourite English strains, but WLP005 among my least favourite. It's a shame more info re brewery origins isn't made publicly available by public yeast banks. There's no legal basis whatsoever for them to sit on such info. It's the kind of info that might help better interpret genetic data.
 
Last edited:

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
157
Reaction score
95
Location
Manchester England
In addition to what Lallemand has disclosed about how they ended up with Nottingham yeast, I've been reading a book called "A Guide to Craft Brewing" by John Alexander which has some information regarding the possible origin of Nottingham. The author had been a homebrewer since the 1970's and published the book in 2006.

"During 1974-75, the Boots Company of Nottingham introduced a true brewing strain (NCYC 1245, fermentation characteristics 1:5:5:5:5) suspended in an isotonic mannitol solution; this liquid culture contained 20ml, each millilitre containing 10^5 of cells, and it was propagated prior to brewing.

By 1985, the technology for drying this type of yeast was developed, and the liquid yeast became available in dried form." pg. 97

After reading that, I did some internet searching and found this description for Nottingham on the Scott Laboratories website cached by the Wayback machine in 2004. Scott Labs is a business partner and distributor for Lallemand.

"NOTTINGHAM - S. cerevisiae . cerevisiae
Properties are similar to the strain NCYC 1245. Demonstrates full attenuation and strong flocculation characteristics. It has low concentrations of fruity and estery-ale aromas and has been described as neutral for an ale yeast."

So that seems to be confirmation that Nottingham yeast was originally the NCYC 1245 strain. A user on Jim's Beer Kit forum posted this description of 1245.

"1245: anonymized British Brewery ale strain, no head, fairly flocculent, high attenuating, modern non-top-cropping behavior well-suited to conical fermentors, good flavour, a popular historic English ale production strain, #3 in NCYC "Top Ten Yeasts" for commercial brewing, 1965."

This is the current description in the NCYC website:

"Flocculent. NewFlo type flocculation. O3, DMS 33 µg/l.
Used commercially in conical batch fermenters good flavour, fairly flocculent, non-head-forming, Contains 2µ plasmid.
Confirmed as a single strain by DNA 'fingerprinting' in 1998.

Depositor: British Brewery
Deposit Name: Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Month of deposit: August
Deposit Year: 1965
Habitat: Ale production strain.
Equivalent Strain Designations: Unknown
Reference: Unknown"
This was posted elsewhere, an email from Lallemand with some info about the origins of Nottingham yeast... from a 4 strain culture which also gave us the Lalbrew Windsor and London ale strains.

"Thanks for the feedback and yes Nottingham is a good option for lower temperature fermentations and lager style beers. The only thing to bear in mind is pitching rate, always should increase cell concentration when doing lower temp fermentations and adjusting for that more stressful environment.

"I think and assume it just must be the genetic composition of the strain makes it very tolerant to temperature, some strains have very good temperature tolerance and others do not and it related to genetics. There is not a lot to share or reveal about the origins of the strain, which has been in the Lallemand culture collection for about 30 years. My understanding is that It was originally a multi strain culture given to Lallemand by a chain of chemists/pharmacy in the UK who ask the company to dry a yeast for insertion in to home brew kits. The culture had 4 strains in it and these were isolated in to single strain yeasts. One of these became Nottingham and two of the other strains were Windsor and London (which we also still produce commercially). There was no information about origin or brewery that the multi-strain culture came from. There are always lots of rumours and guesses about where strains come from but most of the time it is not that exciting, it is simply taken from a culture collection with little to no information about the ‘origin’.

Kind regards,

Robert Percival
Regional Sales Manager - Europe
Lallemand Brewing – #WeBrewWithYou
 

Kjokkakim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
55
Reaction score
25
Location
Haugesund
Just thinking about it, Brewferm has been around a while so it's not going to be some new-to-dry strain like New England, and it won't be from a new supplier. And making yeast is not Brouwland's main business, so it would be likely that they're repacking. It's certainly suggestive that the three Brewferm yeasts are :

Top - "Fast fermentation with low residual sugar. Formation of fruity esters. Flocculation: medium to high Final gravity: low Fermentation temperature: 18-25°C"

and Mauri has three main yeasts :
English Ale 514 "Mauribrew Ale can ferment from 15°C up to 32°C. Desirable flavour characters result with this strain through the 16-24°C temperature range...rapidly attenuates fermentable sugars with typical wort falling from a gravity of 1040-1045 resulting in a beer of less than 1008...generally very good settling properties even at warmer ambient temperatures 20-30°C."

Overall it looks a pretty close correlation, particularly for that warmth-loving, fast-fermenting, high-attenuation English Ale. And the way that Mauri have withdrawn from the UK market, at least, in recent years might suggest that they feel they have alternative representation in place via someone like Brouwland?
@Northern_Brewer your assumptions about Brewferm Top is somewhat conflicting whit this thread.


Brewferm Top ale yeast: Probably Group 1 but not sure. This is the yeast that came in Brewferm kits prior to 2019 updates to the kit range. Those kits took a long time to reach their best but were widely loved when they did, the yeast has Belgian phenolic character that mellows with time. "Top fermenting yeast that is most suitable for amber coloured and dark beers. Formation of fruity esters." Comments: "The yeast is good in my opinion, ferments out quickly, and leaves a very clear beer after minimal conditioning." "Ferments out ok if a bit slow. Tastes very Belgian."
Fermentation temperature: 18-25 °C Flocculation medium to high Final gravity low POF+
I haven't used Brewferm top, so I can't neither confirm or deny any assumptions, but since I have a couple of packages and have considered using it for a bitter or English IPA. It would be nice to get some thoughts of what to expect from the Brewferm top? Belgian or English profile?
 
Last edited:
Top