Immediate reaction would be that someone's revived the old Danstar Manchester, but perhaps they've got their hands on the upcoming dry 1318 derivative that Lallemand have been working on.
https://www.thehomebrewforum.co.uk/threads/new-crossmyloof-haze-yeast.81978/
How many breweries are actually pasteurizing? I'm imagining the thermal stress would degrade the beer. I've successfully grown yeast from crystal clear bottled commercial beer by putting a drop on malt agar. My guess would be most breweries take reasonable measures to produce visually clear beer, but not to the point where they'd sterile filter it.
How do we know that Fermentis or Lallemand don't produce custom dried strains for third parties which they don't sell under their own label?
I thought the same but it seems to be over attenuative for kveik. Also the spice seems not to fit with kveik, both soun more like a saison/Belgian something, which would also match the temperature recommendations. But who knows.... Last point speaking against kveik, I haven't heard of any dry yeast company selling kveik and cml does not produce yeast on its own.
Noted! I've got Suregork's yeast family tree in front of me right now.
Thank you for spotting that. I didn't know when Köln entered the market.
Looking at the data sheet for S-189, I see a recommended fermentation temperature range of 12-15°C (53.6-59°F) while M54 is specified at 18 - 20°C (64 - 68°F). However, the latter is recommended for "California Common and lagers fermented at ambient (ale) temperatures." So I have no idea how to line that up. In fact, on that basis it could be S-23 or W-34/70 as well. Any ideas on the latter?
According to what I was told while speaking informally with a Fermentis employee over a few beers, this is correct. The facility is located in the UK and my personal opinion is that this is most likely SPL Ltd (formerly known as Sachetpacket Ltd. and now owned by iMake in NZ, i.e. Brewcraft i.e. Mangrove Jack's).
Not familar with that one so I'll take your word for it.
Corrected.
Good question. Off-hand my guess is that they just "break bulk" from 500 gram Fermentis and Lallemand bricks and relable them. As is the case with quite a few homebrew shops out there.
As a guess, their Northern Ale might be Lallemand Köln.
Hmm... Interesting thought! Based on product data it's the best match! However, all MJ's other yeasts are Fermentis or Lallemand, so this would be an "odd one out". But yes, I see where you're going, and you make a very good point.
No, doesn't fit with the description they have in the other forum of the resulting beer. It's highly attenuative and a bit spicy, so it sounds actually more like a saison to me, or a weird kveik.Good question. Off-hand my guess is that they just "break bulk" from 500 gram Fermentis and Lallemand bricks and relable them. As is the case with quite a few homebrew shops out there.
Honestly, we cannot be really sure of that. But we can make an educated guess here.
Hmmm... Agreed. That seems far more likely than Lallemand Köln. From what little I've seen so far that Northern Ale would be mostly a farmhouse style so a Saison would probably work there.
Good question. Off-hand my guess is that they just "break bulk" from 500 gram Fermentis and Lallemand bricks and relable them. As is the case with quite a few homebrew shops out there.
I'm sorry but this thread is really chock full of the wildest, most unfounded speculation, so much that one has to wonder whether it it should be regarded just as a noise addition to an already quite noisy background.
On the contrary, I'm learning that some homebrewers will believe the craziest, most ridiculous claims, such as "Some yeast suppliers are just buying 500 g packs and repackaging them in some back alley while somebody stands on the corner and looks out for incoming fuzz."
On the contrary, I'm learning that some homebrewers will believe the craziest, most ridiculous claims, such as "Some yeast suppliers are just buying 500 g packs and repackaging them in some back alley while somebody stands on the corner and looks out for incoming fuzz."
If you don't think this thread has gone beyond ridiculous that's your prerogative but please refrain from inviting other posters who think differently to stop contributing, if for no other reason than the fact that I couldn't care less.
Both north and south of the dotted line, trust me on that. I've got a home brewing shop so I speak with a certain amount of knowledge of what goes on in the market. The thing is, as long as a reseller doesn't mention any copyrighted names or trademarked brands on the packet of yeast, few mainstream production labs (e.g. Fermentis and Lallemand) actually take the trouble to round them all up, sequence them and then start legal procedures against a small reseller. It's simply not worth it to them. As far as the conditions under which these yeasts are being repacked are concerned I agree with you that this should be done under proper conditions, but in practice this simply doesn't happen. Personally, I have heard criticism about the conditions under which the MJ yeasts are being packed, but I can't cite my source so feel free to dismiss that as hogwash if that works for you. Yet beer is resilient enough to deal with minor contamination, and home brewers tend to brew single batches in any case in their own kitchens so if one or two packets end up being a little iffy, it's very hard to trace that to yeast contamination as a result of breaking bulk and repacking. Of course the professional brewer wouldn't touch these repacked yeasts with a barge pole but home brewers seem to be fair game.
In that case I suggest that you either contribute useful information to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, or stop wasting your obviously valuable time following a thread you consider useless. But you're free to do whatever you want, of course. I'm sure everyone here can draw their own conclusions on the basis of your posts.I'm sorry but this thread is really chock full of the wildest, most unfounded speculation, so much that one has to wonder whether it it should be regarded just as a noise addition to an already quite noisy background.
Which probably means that Lallemand haven't taken notice yet. They don't make a big fuss about small home brewing stores repacking their yeast from bulk, but they do draw the line at someone reselling the repacked yeast under the Lallemand brand or original product name, because they now can no longer vouch for its quality. Hence the "anonymous" repackaged yeasts that are being sold under whatever name or number the home brewing shop chooses to label the packets. They've got far more problems with someone maltreating their products but leaving the original brand names on it than something sufficiently anonymized so it can't stain their reputation.
Haven't heard about the German dry kveik, but certainly sounds like a reasonable reasonable assumption to say that that one could be the norsk strain!
Can you name one in Europe? 'cause I've been buying stuff from various European suppliers and I've never seen a single one who didn't sell yeast in its original packaging. Malt sure, hops as well, but always with full disclosure and because most hop and malt suppliers only sell large packages (25 kg for malt, 5 kg for hops) which most homebreweres won't buy unless they're broken down.
What's the point? You'll simply demand documented proof, then reject anything I say, and the discussion will go further off topic from there on in. You said something about too much noise here, as I recall.
Sorry, I didn't realize I was the only one that had to provide hard evidence all the time, while you can make serious accusations (fraud is a crime and often carries severe penalties) and have to be taken at face value lest you storm off pouting...
That is certainly the case but it would be a waste of time if you're relying on taste tests to evaluate the results. Taste is just too subjective, anything short of liquid chromatography will not give scientifically valid results. On the positive side you'll have a lot of beer ready to be tapped so it's not such a bad idea after all...
That is certainly the case but it would be a waste of time if you're relying on taste tests to evaluate the results. Taste is just too subjective, anything short of liquid chromatography will not give scientifically valid results. On the positive side you'll have a lot of beer ready to be tapped so it's not such a bad idea after all...
I'd propose that homebrewers who don't have such equipment can attempt to classify the qualities of yeast. It's not scientifically valid, but it'll have to do. Sensory testing and the related descriptions, while wildly subjective, is what homebrewers need to know. With enough subjective data, and "averaging", useful information can be derived.
In all fairness, Lallemand's product data is not known for its accuracy, especially back then. They incorrectly classified their lager yeasts as S. Cerevisiae, and currently there are significant discrepancies in the specified levels of ester production between the data sheets and the bar graphs in their recent product brochure. They have also significantly adjusted the alcohol tolerance specs for several of their yeasts in recent years.
So it's not inconceivable at all that in 1997 Fermentis' product data (which was marketing data more than anything else) mis-classified S-04 as Whitbread. Not to mention that a description like "dry and slightly tart" is nothing like the S-04 I know today. Personally I'd put more faith in Suregork's sequencing efforts than in what Fermentis published about their own products in the late 1990s. But that's just me.
In all fairness, Lallemand's product data is not known for its accuracy, especially back then.....So it's not inconceivable at all that in 1997 Fermentis' product data (which was marketing data more than anything else) mis-classified S-04 as Whitbread. Not to mention that a description like "dry and slightly tart" is nothing like the S-04 I know today. Personally I'd put more faith in Suregork's sequencing efforts than in what Fermentis published about their own products in the late 1990s. But that's just me.
Good. We've had enough nonsense about how this should be science rather than home brewing.
Interesting. I know S-04 for its low attenuation (i.e. residual sweetness) and fruity esters. (And for its tendency to drop like a brick and sometimes even floc out before the fermentation is even completely finished, but that's not a flavour issue.) Perhaps it behaves quite differently in different worts and I've simply never brewed the beers that make it do that. Or maybe it's related to DO and/or pitching rates.
IMO 2nd generations not seldom perform better than first ones, and I've pitched 4th generations without any problems, so I don't think that's an issue.
Which illustrates how interesting yeast really is.
Is BE-256 really a Saison yeast? To me it has little or no characteristics typical for a Saison. Starting with the fact that it's POF-. In fact it has more farmhouse ale characteristics. Based on its specs, could is be Kveik-ish derivative? (Also see post #97 and the ones leading up to it...)
