Dry yeasts identified - your opinions please!

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

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

Albionwood

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
282
Reaction score
107
I think people are suggesting Belle Saison is the dry-yeast equivalent of wyeast 3711 French Saison, which "the internet" assumes to be Thiriez' yeast (as opposed to 3724, which is supposed to be Dupont's strain or 'one of Dupont's strains', depending on the source).
Yes to all that. And also agreement that the dried Belle/French Saison yeast does not express as much Saison character as some of the liquid yeasts will.

I don't like Belle Saison (or MJs "French Saison", which I fathom is the same) very much. A lot of homebrewers describe the resulting beer as "dry", but I very very strongly disagree. The residual extract will be super low (often <1.0), but the beer is actually quite sweet and full bodied, which I guess comes from the tons of glycerol it produces. I guess the low residual extract somehow tricks people's minds into thinking it was "dry". (Or, possibly, my own perception is off)

I think it's a question of what is meant by "dry." I've had M29 take beers down to 1.000, which is certainly dry. Yet as you say, the beers often do not _taste_ dry, because the yeast produces complex carbohydrates which some palates perceive as sweetness.

To me, dryness is a measurable and quantifiable parameter; what it tastes like is another matter altogether. If the sugars are gone, it's dry. If there's a lot of glycerol and it tastes sweet, it's still dry, but our palates have been fooled. (cf. Wine.)

The characteristics of M29/Belle Saison (subdued Saison character, extreme attenuation, complex carbohydrates) combined to give me an unexpected but glorious Biere de Garde a couple of years ago. Started out as a Dark Saison but after a couple months in the bottle, the yeast character disappeared and it became super-malty but still dry. I have got to try that again.
 
Last edited:

monkeymath

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
671
Reaction score
726
To me, dryness is a measurable and quantifiable parameter; what it tastes like is another matter altogether. If the sugars are gone, it's dry. If there's a lot of glycerol and it tastes sweet, it's still dry, but our palates have been fooled. (cf. Wine.)

It's interesting that we'd use the term in such different ways. To me, 'dry' is purely a descriptor of the perception. In my opinion, the word "dry" is simply superfluous if meant to describe high attenuation or low residual extract: we can already express these in a precise, even quantifiable way.

What's more, you will very often find the term in descriptions of beverages, be it wine or beer. Afaik, the term has an "analytical meaning" in the wine world, where it designates a certain ratio of sugars and acids. But from what I gather - and I may very well be wrong here - this is mostly relevant for the purpose of labeling the product accurately (so as to inform the customer) and categorizing it.
 

Albionwood

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
282
Reaction score
107
:mug:
It's interesting that we'd use the term in such different ways. To me, 'dry' is purely a descriptor of the perception. In my opinion, the word "dry" is simply superfluous if meant to describe high attenuation or low residual extract: we can already express these in a precise, even quantifiable way.

What's more, you will very often find the term in descriptions of beverages, be it wine or beer. Afaik, the term has an "analytical meaning" in the wine world, where it designates a certain ratio of sugars and acids. But from what I gather - and I may very well be wrong here - this is mostly relevant for the purpose of labeling the product accurately (so as to inform the customer) and categorizing it.

Maybe it's just because I am a cidermaker, and with cider (as with all wines) "dry" simply means no residual sugar. (Acidity has nothing to do with it.) I'm curious whether it actually means anything different in beer, because I can't find any references that match the way you use it. (Truly dry beers used to be pretty rare, because few yeasts will metabolize all the complex sugars in wort. Now there's an enzyme to simplify those sugars, making Brut IPAs and the like possible.)

Certainly everyone agrees that the perception of dryness/sweetness is not the same as actual dryness/sweetness. Everyone's taste works uniquely and the perception of sweetness in a "dry" wine/cider/beer can vary widely from person to person. But the actual degree of dryness is not a matter of taste.

So basically I'm saying... yeah, I think you're wrong here. But it could be me... naah, that can't be. Cheers! :mug:
 

monkeymath

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
671
Reaction score
726
with cider (as with all wines) "dry" simply means no residual sugar. (Acidity has nothing to do with it.)

At least within the European Union, acidity does have something to do with it (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetness_of_wine and the references therein).


Certainly everyone agrees that the perception of dryness/sweetness is not the same as actual dryness/sweetness.

Well, I always knew I was something special, sp this "everyone" does not include me. A Coca Cola made with artificial sweeteners is still sweet. You cannot just take a common term like "sweetness" and then tell everyone they are using it incorrectly. You don't need to run a lab test to determine if a desert is sweet.

:mug:
 
OP
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
I think it's a question of what is meant by "dry." I've had M29 take beers down to 1.000, which is certainly dry. Yet as you say, the beers often do not _taste_ dry, because the yeast produces complex carbohydrates which some palates perceive as sweetness.
Agreed. Both fruity esters and diacetyl can make a beer sweet and full-bodied on the palate while the final gravity is in fact extremely low. However, depending on fermentation conditions (DO, temperature, pitching rate etc) the production of these compounds may occur in a greater or lesser measure, so if you mash cool, pitch generously, oxygenate properly and ferment cool with a warm finish, your beer may come out extremely dry. Using a yeast with a low apparent attenuation does not give you this option. So I'm considering the dry character a possibility that may occur depending on a variety of other factors.


To me, dryness is a measurable and quantifiable parameter; what it tastes like is another matter altogether. If the sugars are gone, it's dry. If there's a lot of glycerol and it tastes sweet, it's still dry, but our palates have been fooled. (cf. Wine.)
Absolutely!


The characteristics of M29/Belle Saison (subdued Saison character, extreme attenuation, complex carbohydrates) combined to give me an unexpected but glorious Biere de Garde a couple of years ago. Started out as a Dark Saison but after a couple months in the bottle, the yeast character disappeared and it became super-malty but still dry. I have got to try that again.
Like so many other dried yeasts (Fermentis comes to mind) Belle Saison is not a bad yeast per sé. It's just not the best yeast for what it's marketed for. But it can (and does) produce some stunning beers indeed.
 

ten80

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
590
Reaction score
239
Location
Anchorage
Agreed. Both fruity esters and diacetyl can make a beer sweet and full-bodied on the palate while the final gravity is in fact extremely low. .

Don't forget that Belle saison is purported to produce high concentrations of glycerol, much like some wine yeasts. A little glycerol goes a long ways to reducing apparent dryness.
 

foolsbrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2019
Messages
74
Reaction score
47
Just posting to say thank you, I keep referring to this thread when comparing American and European recipes. Stellar work.
 

ebbelwoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
705
Reaction score
434
Location
Japan
Dave, I'm wondering about two dry yeasts:

You have MJ's M20 Bavarian Wheat listed as Munich Classic, WLP300, W68. The M20 reviews I've read don't seem to agree with you. I've only made one batch with it, but it came out quite differently than my W68 batches, both liquid and dry.

Also, a few people are saying that Lallemand's Diamond Lager is w34/70, but Andreas a.k.a. AK a.k.a. daft eedjit wrote on reddit recently that it's W308/WY2308. I PMed him about it (on reddit) but haven't heard back.

Any thoughts on either of these? Thanks.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
5,221
Reaction score
4,031
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Dave, I'm wondering about two dry yeasts:

You have MJ's M20 Bavarian Wheat listed as Munich Classic, WLP300, W68. The M20 reviews I've read don't seem to agree with you. I've only made one batch with it, but it came out quite differently than my W68 batches, both liquid and dry.

Also, a few people are saying that Lallemand's Diamond Lager is w34/70, but Andreas a.k.a. AK a.k.a. daft eedjit wrote on reddit recently that it's W308/WY2308. I PMed him about it (on reddit) but haven't heard back.

Any thoughts on either of these? Thanks.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll definitely look into these deeper next week when I have more time. Heading out of town for 4 days.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
5,221
Reaction score
4,031
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Dave, I'm wondering about two dry yeasts:

You have MJ's M20 Bavarian Wheat listed as Munich Classic, WLP300, W68. The M20 reviews I've read don't seem to agree with you. I've only made one batch with it, but it came out quite differently than my W68 batches, both liquid and dry.

Also, a few people are saying that Lallemand's Diamond Lager is w34/70, but Andreas a.k.a. AK a.k.a. daft eedjit wrote on reddit recently that it's W308/WY2308. I PMed him about it (on reddit) but haven't heard back.

Any thoughts on either of these? Thanks.

Okay, I've looked into these some more now. I think I found out what happened with the Munich wheat yeasts -- I had attributed M20 to the Munich "Classic", but based on milder flavors, it's probably more in line with the "regular" Lallemand Munich (a.k.a. "Munich Wheat" rather than "Classic"). So I'm updating that based on your feedback. Come to think of it, I didn't even have the "regular" Munich strain on my chart previously, which is part of how I forgot about it. So thanks there.

This analysis on Munich yeasts resulted in a new look at a few other Mangrove Jack yeasts as well, seeking possible candidates for swaps, so now based on more data on flavors and attenuations, I've solidified the previously "yellow" highlighted M31 to go with BE-134 and WLP590, seems a good fit, and kicked M29 from Belle (probably doesn't belong there since M29 is a big banana producer while Belle is not) to Abbaye / WLP500 / 1214 instead. Okay now that made me feel better. :) See new version at same link as above.

As for the Diamond Lager yeast, I will need more data before making any changes there. For the time being, I think it makes more sense to keep it lumped with other similar dried yeasts including W-34/70, M76, and Superior (assuming I might be correct about those -- and admittedly, maybe not). According to recent genetic studies, W-34/70 might not be quite as German as we thought, but is most closely related to Wyeast 2035 American Lager and WLP810 San Fran "steam" yeast. So, as for the Diamond, I'm still really not sure if that should swing over to 2308. It is possible that that is the right place... but given all the confusion around lager yeasts over the past year, who really knows for sure. If we find a little more evidence, I'll consider moving it or shading it "yellow" by 2308 as a potential future resting place. For now though, I'm not touching it yet.

Thanks again.
 

mediant

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
93
Reaction score
76
Taste-wise M20 certainly reminds Mauri Weiss - ample banana, low attenuation, pof+. I've used both and they are most likely the same, quite different character from Munich Classic. Old Munich is pof-, so it can't be it either.
I believe this yeast - Mauri Weiss / M20 / CML Kristal has no matches among either Lallemand or Fermentis offerings.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
5,221
Reaction score
4,031
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Taste-wise M20 certainly reminds Mauri Weiss - ample banana, low attenuation, pof+. I've used both and they are most likely the same, quite different character from Munich Classic. Old Munich is pof-, so it can't be it either.
I believe this yeast - Mauri Weiss / M20 / CML Kristal has no matches among either Lallemand or Fermentis offerings.

Hmm.... okay.... I'll continue mining data from Google and see where it falls out. Thanks for the additional feedback.

EDIT, LATER: Well, now I'm a little confused. Many M20 reviews claim it gives a lot of clove but low banana. I haven't seen many reviews for other dried weizen strains regarding high clove like that. Mauri on the other hand is said to be mild on both clove and banana and overall kind of underwhelming, which reminds me of "regular" Lallemand Munich more than anything else, or perhaps WB-06 but the attenuation on that one is very high which I don't think is the case for Mauri. I'm trying hard to figure out how it all fits, since I know Mangrove is all repacked from others... but all the pieces don't fit. So... hmm. For now I'll leave it all as-is. But I do thank you.
 
Last edited:

mediant

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
93
Reaction score
76
I brewed with M20 and CML Kristall a couple of years ago, Mauri Weiss very recently and Munich Classic about half a dozen times in between. Mauri Weiss instantly reminds of M20 - full bodied on the edge of being sweet, no sulfur, clovy with distinct bubblegum-banana when fermented warm (upper seventies). It's officially pof+, unlike Munich. The esters are more restricted when fermented cold, so I can see where the "underwhelmed" characteristic can be coming from...
Munich Classic is quite different - more dry, tart, lots of sulfur, with esters towards peach-banana.
If anything, Mauri and M20 produce Paulaner-style weiss, while Munich Classic is definitely Weihenstephan.
As for who repackages whom - Mauri is known to have its own yeast production facilities (AB Biotek), and its "antipode connection" with Mangrove has been mentioned here already...
I was skeptical too at first, but now that I've tried all these - I don't see anything remotely close to Mauri Weiss in Lallemand of Fermentins lineups. T-58 maybe, but Weiss lacks its distinct peppery phenols.
This makes me wonder about other Mauri yeast - 514, Draught and Lager 497...
 
Last edited:

ebbelwoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
705
Reaction score
434
Location
Japan
I wanted to post yesterday about Munich and M20, but decided to take another day to think about it.

As I started to write this post, the wife and I were in the middle of a hefeweizen tasting: Paulaner, Franziskaner, Schöfferhofer, one of my W175s (WLP351), my first M20, and a W68+W175. I had a few insights to share, but after a few distractions, and finishing off the beers, I should probably save my thoughts for later.

I'm trying to figure out what M20 is, but I don't think it's Munich (flocculation and attenuation). Paulaner is closer, but unfortunately, my bottle of Paulaner is tasting a bit oxidized (exp. date is 3 months from now). The M20 in storage, at 15C, is starting to clarify, FWIW.
 
Last edited:

ebbelwoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
705
Reaction score
434
Location
Japan
Meant to post this:

HWfest.jpg


The beers were poured one by one, while I was making dinner, so disregard the head.

Can you pick out the M20?
 

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
196
Location
Manchester England
Hi folks. I've been wondering if any of the dry yeasts on the market are actually blends? Does anyone know? Has any of the DNA testing thrown that up? We often automatically assume that all yeasts sold commercially are single strain, it seems. Mangrove Jacks says their yeast shouldn't be re-pitched which is likely just a ploy to sell more yeast, but it perhaps indicates some blending going on?

For example, the M36 doesn't appear to be like any other dry yeast and I doubt it is uniquely made for them as a single strain? The MJ extract kits were designed for them by James Kemp, a brewer who knows a thing or two about yeast from his spells at some of the best English breweries - Fuller's, Thornbridge, Marble, Buxton, Magic Rock and now Yeastie Boys - so maybe he gave them some advice on putting together some multi-strain dry yeasts for commercial sale that would offer something new and more interesting to the market?

When I spoke to the head of marketing at MJ UK a couple of years ago all he would say is that one of their yeasts is Nottingham. M42 obviously. Oh and he said some of their yeasts are re-packages and some are produced just for them. But not where or how or why or anything. That could presumably mean cloning other producers' strains, or blending them, perhaps.

Am I right in thinking that only a very limited number of producers have the resources to develop and introduce new dry strains? Like Lallemand and Fermentis? And Mauribrew, from their baking yeast operation, I guess. Germany seems to get mentioned, who makes dried yeast there? Who makes Munton's yeasts? Brewferm presumably buys theirs in, possibly a Mauribrew connection?

Cheers!
 
OP
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
Hi folks. I've been wondering if any of the dry yeasts on the market are actually blends? Does anyone know?
I have found no evidence of any dry yeast blends being sold commercially. There are some liquid yeast blends (one or two White Labs Belgian Ale yeasts come to mind) but these are specific cases in which the different yeasties pretty much grew up together and play nicely, so to speak, without getting into a tug of war about who ferments what first. There are also still a number of traditional breweries here and there who have a "house yeast" that is actually a culture of multiple (sometimes 4 or more) strains. However, these are strains that work well together and either have adapted to each other or ended up in the blend because of their similar growth and fermentation kinetics.

Most yeast blends are problematic; the various yeasts in the blend begin to compete with each other, and small variations (wort composition, temperature, DO levels and what have you) may result in marked differences in yeast growth and therefore lead to unpredictable results.

Has any of the DNA testing thrown that up?
Not to my knowledge. All we have so far in home brewing land is comparison based on characteristics.

We often automatically assume that all yeasts sold commercially are single strain, it seems. Mangrove Jacks says their yeast shouldn't be re-pitched which is likely just a ploy to sell more yeast, but it perhaps indicates some blending going on?
That was my initial thought as well. Then I learned (from several people in the industry) that they're just repacking. So the "Thou shalt not repitch" admonition is probably smoke and mirrors. As are the small variations in specification on the packages.

For example, the M36 doesn't appear to be like any other dry yeast
Looking at the specs I think they're not all that different:

YeastM36 Liberty Bell AleLallemand London English Style Ale (F.k.a. ESB)
Temperature range18-2318-22
Attenuation74-48%Medium
Flocculation /SedimentatinoMed-HighMed-High
POF--
Alcohol tolerance912
Flavour profileLight fruity esters, clean, medium bodyMedium esters, quick fermentation
Origin?Whitbread descendant? (Uncertain)

The most glaring discrepancy here is the ABV tolerance; however a 12% limit yeast can easily be marketed at a 9% limit yeast to confuse the issue a little for marketing purposes. :)

and I doubt it is uniquely made for them as a single strain?
Mangrove Jacks / Brewcraft / iMake has no yeast production or development lab, nor do they employ one. They simply repack mainstream brands under their own name with descriptions that are slightly fudged but are still applicable.

The MJ extract kits were designed for them by James Kemp, a brewer who knows a thing or two about yeast from his spells at some of the best English breweries - Fuller's, Thornbridge, Marble, Buxton, Magic Rock and now Yeastie Boys - so maybe he gave them some advice on putting together some multi-strain dry yeasts for commercial sale that would offer something new and more interesting to the market?
A man with his background will know the dangers of yeast blends in a home brewing scenario where all fermentation factors (temperature and DO more than anything else) will vary wildly, so my guess is no, he knew better than that and stuck with the robust and almost Armagheddon-proof Mauri 514 strain. This has been the kit yeast of choice for just about everyone because it's one of the most robust yeasts that is as close to being foolproof as it gets. (AFAIK Mauri 415 is an EDME descendant that emigrated to Australia and adapted to the climate there, which has given it a wide temperature range across which performance is sufficiently similar for kit brewing.)

When I spoke to the head of marketing at MJ UK a couple of years ago all he would say is that one of their yeasts is Nottingham. M42 obviously. Oh and he said some of their yeasts are re-packages and some are produced just for them. But not where or how or why or anything. That could presumably mean cloning other producers' strains, or blending them, perhaps.
There is no dried yeast strain that is uniquely produced for MJ. All their yeasts come from either DCL/Fermentis or Lallemand/Danstar production labs and are packed in MJ packets in a facility in the UK. (The latter I have been told by a rep fairly high up in the tree at DCL/Fermentis.)

Am I right in thinking that only a very limited number of producers have the resources to develop and introduce new dry strains? Like Lallemand and Fermentis? And Mauribrew, from their baking yeast operation, I guess.
You absolutely are.

Germany seems to get mentioned, who makes dried yeast there?
Not sure. There is a yeast production lab in Scandinavia where the Italian multinational AEB has their yeasts produced (based on what I've been told by AEB reps) so maybe they do that for other brands as well.

Who makes Munton's yeasts?
Muntons Standard Yeast is just a classic EDME strain like Fermentis S-33, and these days it probably is S-33. Its flavour profile is closer to S-33 than to the Mauri 514 used for Australian and NZ beer kits yeasts . Muntons Premium Yeast is Nottingham Ale yeast.

Brewferm presumably buys theirs in, possibly a Mauribrew connection?
Brewferm Y015 Blanche = Mauri 1433; Brewferm Y016 lager = Mauri 497; Brewferm Top Fermenting = Mauri 514 (i.e. kit yeast).

Please note: at this point we will now all pause while Vale71 ridicules all the above and claims that none of it has any validity whatsoever but must be considered utter nonsense until proven via extensive trials in a microbiology lab. :cool:

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
196
Location
Manchester England
Frank, many thanks for your really detailed response, much appreciated. Some really helpful stuff in there. Some stuff I don't agree with too.

M36 is different from any of the Lallemand or Fermentis yeasts. It's also different from Mauribrew ale, I've used the English yeasts from all of those enough to know. And the many people here in England who have used them would agree about M36, it's a common forum discussion as to what M36 could be. It's either made specially for them, or it's from another company, or it's a blend, IMO.

Windsor and Nottingham is a well trodden path as a yeast blend. English breweries generally use blends, and Notty and Windsor are said to have come from the same multi-strain. It wouldn't really be a risk to put them together, it would be a smart move, perhaps. For one time use.

I have used ESB and M36 and they are not the same. I would say Munton's Standard yeast could be ESB, it is certainly very similar. It's not like S-33. I agree about Muunton's Premium being Notty, but it is slightly different IMO. I suspect it is Nottingham produced in a different set-up than Lallemand. But I could be wrong. I always thought Munton's produced their own yeast, but maybe it is just malts they do. It's certainly a very specialist activity.

The MJ kits use different style specific yeasts, as far as I am aware. MB ale may feature in some of the cheap kits, feasibly. I don't know the Brewferm yeasts well enough to comment on them matching with Mauri strains, I does seem like a neat fit.

Cheers!
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
6,232
Reaction score
2,026
Location
N/E Ohio
The Suregork genetic study indicates that Muntons, S-33, Windsor, and London ESB are all kissing cousins stemming off of the same grandparent, and that S-33 and Muntons are sisters, and Windsor and London ESB are sisters. And that all of them stem from the genetic category/cluster of bread yeasts. They are not in the category of English or UK Ale yeasts.
 
Last edited:

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
6,232
Reaction score
2,026
Location
N/E Ohio
The only dry yeasts to appear genetically in the UK ale yeast category are Nottingham and S-04 and Lallemand's Vermont Ale.
 

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
196
Location
Manchester England
The Suregork genetic study indicates that Muntons, S-33, Windsor, and London ESB are all kissing cousins stemming off of the same grandparent, and that S-33 and Muntons are sisters, and Windsor and London ESB are sisters. And that all of them are in the genetic category of bread yeasts. They are not in the category of English or UK Ale yeasts.


I've seen the diagram with them grouped together, didn't realise that they were categorised as bread yeasts. What does 'Mixed Origin' mean?

Having used the 4 yeasts, ESB and Munton's are very similar, and Windsor and S-33 are certainly similar, but the two pairs are distinctly different. Similarities, but clearly different on the ester front, ESB and Munton's being pretty neutral. I agree with Lallemand's descriptions of Windsor and ESB, which are pretty different.
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
6,232
Reaction score
2,026
Location
N/E Ohio
The cousins/sisters are all slightly offset from the cluster of bread yeasts, but they stem from the same great/great grandparent.

They are indeed not identical twins. Merely cousins and sisters. Still plenty of genetic diversity potential there.
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
6,232
Reaction score
2,026
Location
N/E Ohio
Off topic, but upon my urging, my wife used an aged package of Fermentis K-97 to make a loaf of bread a few months ago, and if you didn't know it, you would not notice any difference in the bread vs. bread from a standard bread yeast.
 

ebbelwoi

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
705
Reaction score
434
Location
Japan
Off topic, but upon my urging, my wife used an aged package of Fermentis K-97 to make a loaf of bread a few months ago, and if you didn't know it, you would not notice any difference in the bread vs. bread from a standard bread yeast.
Did she do anything differently, compared to her typical recipe and process? Did she need to use more or less yeast, let it rise longer, etc.?
 

Hanglow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
919
Location
Scotland
I've used a few beer yeasts for bread and never really noted much difference. I've also used ADY unrehydrated in bread ( you are supposed to rehydrate it compared to IDY) and not noticed any difference and used osmotolerant yeast in bread that isn't supposed to like salt at all and not noticed any difference. I'm sure professional bakers who need repeatability etc probably would notice a difference, but for a typical home baker who can just leave a loaf sitting around for another hour to prove here or there it doesn't matter much.

I finally got a lot of Allinsons bread yeast from the supermarket so next beer I'm brewing I'm going to try it out at last in a 4l batch to satisfy my curiosity on how it performs.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
3,230
Location
UK
Windsor and Nottingham is a well trodden path as a yeast blend. English breweries generally use blends, and Notty and Windsor are said to have come from the same multi-strain. It wouldn't really be a risk to put them together, it would be a smart move, perhaps.

Well - the few family brewers that are left tend to use multistrains, although many cleaned them up to a greater or lesser extent in the 1970s. But "most" British breweries tend to just buy in yeast from outside, although some like Dark Star are noted for blending dry yeast. Pitching Windsor followed by Notty 48h later is a common option among homebrewers though.

I agree about Muunton's Premium being Notty, but it is slightly different IMO. I suspect it is Nottingham produced in a different set-up than Lallemand. But I could be wrong. I always thought Munton's produced their own yeast,

The story I heard is that at one point Munton/Gervin were contracted by Lallemand to produce some of their yeasts whilst Lallemand were rebuilding their factory, and soon afterwards they started producing what we now know as GV12/Wilko/Premium. Lallemand can't really complain given how many strains they've nicked though ;)

The Suregork genetic study indicates that Muntons, S-33, Windsor, and London ESB are all kissing cousins stemming off of the same grandparent, and that S-33 and Muntons are sisters, and Windsor and London ESB are sisters. And that all of them stem from the genetic category/cluster of bread yeasts. They are not in the category of English or UK Ale yeasts.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the detail of those kinds of family trees, they're a little bit arbitrary to some extent. It's meaningful to say that they're all part of the same family, but I wouldn't put too much reliance on "these are sisters but these are cousins" kind of statements.

And most of the mixed group are not bread yeasts - they're a mishmash of brewing yeasts, distilling yeasts and yes, a couple of strains now sold commercially as bread yeasts. But the whole concept of "bread yeast" is a relatively recent one - historically brewing was a convenient way to grow up yeast for baking. In fact there was a court case in Bavaria in 1500 or so, where the bakers complained that the brewers had changed their yeast to one suited to the newfangled beer from Bohemia and it was no good, which sounds like the introduction of lager yeast to Bavaria as lager yeast doesn't work so well in bread.

The US seems to have been unlucky in that its main commercial bread yeast sounds like it's not much good for brewing, whereas in Europe things are rather better - I've used the Allinson's yeast for beer and it worked quite well (and I'm just about to pitch some again as it happens).
 

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
196
Location
Manchester England
Well - the few family brewers that are left tend to use multistrains, although many cleaned them up to a greater or lesser extent in the 1970s. But "most" British breweries tend to just buy in yeast from outside, although some like Dark Star are noted for blending dry yeast. Pitching Windsor followed by Notty 48h later is a common option among homebrewers though.

Yes I doubt there are a huge number of the original multi-strain brewers left. In Manchester we have Holts, JW Lees and Hydes. JW Lees yeast found it's way to Cloudwater in the early CW days. Holts yeast was used by James Kemp at a couple of his breweries. Hydes I don't know, I live near the old brewery but did they take their yeast with them? Probably. all the new breweries are using dry, White Labs or Wyeast or one of the others. CW didn't use the Lallemeand NE for long ,it was using A38 a year ago when I visited, said it works best for them on their system for the results they want. They gave me two vials which made some nice beer.

The story I heard is that at one point Munton/Gervin were contracted by Lallemand to produce some of their yeasts whilst Lallemand were rebuilding their factory, and soon afterwards they started producing what we now know as GV12/Wilko/Premium. Lallemand can't really complain given how many strains they've nicked though ;)

So Munton's still produce yeast. I only learnt about the Chinese Angel yeast this last week, I wonder if MJ buy any of theirs?

And most of the mixed group are not bread yeasts - they're a mishmash of brewing yeasts, distilling yeasts and yes, a couple of strains now sold commercially as bread yeasts. But the whole concept of "bread yeast" is a relatively recent one - historically brewing was a convenient way to grow up yeast for baking. In fact there was a court case in Bavaria in 1500 or so, where the bakers complained that the brewers had changed their yeast to one suited to the newfangled beer from Bohemia and it was no good, which sounds like the introduction of lager yeast to Bavaria as lager yeast doesn't work so well in bread.

Does mixed mean the DNA of each strain has elements of different historic yeasts, or that the mixed group is just a hotch potch of different strains that don't fit the main groups?

The US seems to have been unlucky in that its main commercial bread yeast sounds like it's not much good for brewing, whereas in Europe things are rather better - I've used the Allinson's yeast for beer and it worked quite well (and I'm just about to pitch some again as it happens).

I shall have to give Allinson's a whirl. Phenolic?
 
OP
OP
frankvw

frankvw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
97
Location
Johannesburg
Frank, many thanks for your really detailed response, much appreciated. Some really helpful stuff in there. Some stuff I don't agree with too.
Good. Constructive disagreement leads to further understanding, so disagree away! :)

M36 is different from any of the Lallemand or Fermentis yeasts.
M36 was changed from M72 Burton Union at the same time MJ changed several other yeasts; a change that just happened to coincide exactly with Lallemand's revamping of their product range.

Until Suregork runs all MJ yeasts through the DNA sequencer, all we have to go by are the specs and blurbs published by the suppliers of the various yeasts, our knowledge of the industry and our own brewing experiences.

The latest version of the ever-changing blurb published by MJ currently describes M36 as "A top fermenting ale yeast suitable for a wide variety of hoppy and distinctive style beers [which] produces light, delicate fruity esters and helps to develop malt character. Suitable for both English and American Pale Ales, Extra Special Bitters, Golden Ales and more." On the basis of that it might even be plain old US-05. How would you say it compares to that?

It's also different from Mauribrew ale
Mauri 514 (which I take it you are referring to) is, to all intents and purposes, a robust EDME variety.

I've used the English yeasts from all of those enough to know. And the many people here in England who have used them would agree about M36, it's a common forum discussion as to what M36 could be. It's either made specially for them, or it's from another company, or it's a blend, IMO.
I'm 100% convinced it is NOT specially made for them and I seriously doubt it is a blend. Which leaves repackaging.

Windsor and Nottingham is a well trodden path as a yeast blend. English breweries generally use blends, and Notty and Windsor are said to have come from the same multi-strain. It wouldn't really be a risk to put them together, it would be a smart move, perhaps. For one time use.
Dual pitching in a brewery is different from dual pitching in a home brewing scenario. Incidentally, the warning not to crop and reuse MJ yeasts only appeared on the first version(s) of the packaging and has since been removed (based on the latest ones I've seen).

I have used ESB and M36 and they are not the same.
OK. I'll gladly accept that on the basis of your experience. Which means that based on current (!) product info US-05 is actually the least unlikely candidate. What's your opinion on how these two compare?

I would say Munton's Standard yeast could be ESB, it is certainly very similar.
I believe that is actually Mauri 514.

It's not like S-33.
OK. Would you classify it as EDME or as Whitbread?

I agree about Muunton's Premium being Notty, but it is slightly different IMO. I suspect it is Nottingham produced in a different set-up than Lallemand. But I could be wrong.
Muntons doesn't have a yeast production lab, so if this is not being propagated by Lallemand I'm not sure where. However, also keep in mind that a packet of Muntons Premium contains (off the top of my head) 6 grams and a packet of Notties contains 12 grams. That's a big difference in pitching rate. Have you compared 2 packets of Muntons with 1 packet of Notties to eliminate that? Differences in packaging may also lead to different aging; Lallemand packs in vacuum thick-walled barrier packets; Muntons in thin-walled barrier packets filled with either nitrogen or air, which allows for higher moisture levels.

I always thought Munton's produced their own yeast, but maybe it is just malts they do. It's certainly a very specialist activity.
Nope, the don't produce their own yeasts.

The MJ kits use different style specific yeasts, as far as I am awar.e MB ale may feature in some of the cheap kits, feasibly.
MJ kit yeast is also Mauri 514, but in 5 gram packets.

MB ale may feature in some of the cheap kits, feasibly. I don't know the Brewferm yeasts well enough to comment on them matching with Mauri strains, I does seem like a neat fit.
Brewferm is 100% repackaged Mauri; all three varieties.

Cheers!
 

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
196
Location
Manchester England
Good. Constructive disagreement leads to further understanding, so disagree away! :)

Absolutely agree. Just healthy debate.

M36 was changed from M72 Burton Union at the same time MJ changed several other yeasts; a change that just happened to coincide exactly with Lallemand's revamping of their product range. The latest version of the ever-changing blurb published by MJ currently describes M36 as "A top fermenting ale yeast suitable for a wide variety of hoppy and distinctive style beers [which] produces light, delicate fruity esters and helps to develop malt character. Suitable for both English and American Pale Ales, Extra Special Bitters, Golden Ales and more." On the basis of that it might even be plain old US-05. How would you say it compares to that? Mauri 514 (which I take it you are referring to) is, to all intents and purposes, a robust EDME variety. I'm 100% convinced it is NOT specially made for them and I seriously doubt it is a blend. Which leaves repackaging.

The change of the MJ range coinciding with the Lallemand changes is certainly significant. But it doesn't match any of the Lallemand yeasts, so how did the Lallemand changes affect M36? Which Lallemand yeasts changed or appeared? It has more esters than Nottingham. It attenuates more than Windsor, and floccs better. It is not like US-05 either. Mauri 514 would be the closest to M36 that I've used, but I got consistently higher attenuation with 514. And it was cleaner, ester wise. I haven't used another dry yeast like M36.

Dual pitching in a brewery is different from dual pitching in a home brewing scenario. Incidentally, the warning not to crop and reuse MJ yeasts only appeared on the first version(s) of the packaging and has since been removed (based on the latest ones I've seen).

No argument there, though pitching Windsor/Notty 50/50 or 75/25 at the start of a homebrew batch is a tried and tested method. I never used M79 but I saw a lot of reviews of it being stubborn to clear, and getting out of control ester wise. Sounds a bit like Windsor. Maybe theyWent from 75/25 to 50/50/! Just a wild guess of course, but it sort of explains M36 that any other explanation I can think of. And, in fact, there are a number of MJ yeasts that is difficult to match against any of the Lalbrew or Fermentis yeasts. M29 is different from Belle Saison and I think pre-dates BE-134, and M44? It seems a bit kolschy to me, going a bit left field.

I got an email from the Lallemand global tech advisor today which said all their yeasts are single strain, incidentally. Which I assumed was the case. He recommended pitching Belle Saison 24 hours after Nottingham for a less clovy saison.

OK. I'll gladly accept that on the basis of your experience. Which means that based on current (!) product info US-05 is actually the least unlikely candidate. What's your opinion on how these two compare?

I think US-05 is Chico and is different from any of the English strains. I think London ESB and Munton's Standard are similar enough to possibly be the same. I think S-33 and Windsor are similar enough to be the same strain, made in different production plants.

OK. Would you classify it as EDME or as Whitbread?

I'm not sure that is a clear cut question. Whitbread is a family of English yeasts that spread widely through British breweries. I don't know which dry yeasts are descendents of Whitbread, if any. Edme presumably gave rise to either ESB/Munton's or S-33/Windsor. Anyway, I don't know whether it is Edme or Whitbread, or something else, to answer your question.

Muntons doesn't have a yeast production lab, so if this is not being propagated by Lallemand I'm not sure where. However, also keep in mind that a packet of Muntons Premium contains (off the top of my head) 6 grams and a packet of Notties contains 12 grams. That's a big difference in pitching rate. Have you compared 2 packets of Muntons with 1 packet of Notties to eliminate that? Differences in packaging may also lead to different aging; Lallemand packs in vacuum thick-walled barrier packets; Muntons in thin-walled barrier packets filled with either nitrogen or air, which allows for higher moisture levels.

I thought Northern Brewer implied that Munton's does produce yeast. Maybe Munton's yeast production is outsourced. But yes, yeast condition may affect beer outcome, which could explain it. I make 10-12 litre batches so I only pitch half packets anyway, and I wouldn't pitch a 6g pack in a full size batch. I suspect there is at least one place in Europe where dry yeast is 'cloned'. Crossmyloof told me some of their yeasts are cloned. They also have yeasts called Midland, Four and Five. CML told me these have similar performance to their obvious namesakes. They also told me their yeasts come from a company in Germany. They obviously now have Lalbrew kveik in their range, which is presumably a repack, so I expect others are repacks too. Maybe cloning means repackaging, in this instance. But I think the CML cheaper range is interesting, it's really cheap, and not as good as MJ, Lalbrew or Fermentis stuff IMO. It doesn't match up, so what is it?

MJ kit yeast is also Mauri 514, but in 5 gram packets.

That wouldn't surprise me, in some of the cheaper kits that suit a plain ale yeast, at least. The craft series kits have the craft series yeasts of course.

Brewferm is 100% repackaged Mauri; all three varieties.

Cool thanks. Can you explain how you know that 100%?


Good banter, cheers! It's about 85 degrees and clear blue skies here in Manchester UK today. No cloud, no rain. The world is changing in all sorts of ways.
 
Last edited:

mediant

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
93
Reaction score
76
Crossmyloof told me some of their yeasts are cloned. They also have yeasts called Midland, Four and Five. CML told me these have similar performance to their obvious namesakes. They also told me their yeasts come from a company in Germany. They obviously now have Lalbrew kveik in their range, which is presumably a repack, so I expect others are repacks too. Maybe cloning means repackaging, in this instance. But I think the CML cheaper range is interesting, it's really cheap, and not as good as MJ, Lalbrew or Fermentis stuff IMO. It doesn't match up, so what is it?
I would take anything coming from these guys with a big grain of salt.
They pretend to be a contract brewery belonging to some multi-national company and whatnot...
If you check their business info on eBay, the contact details (both the phone number and the email) actually belong to The Doorstep Handyman (Glasgow), where their "master brewer" Steven apparently "loves his tiling.".
They even left feedback on eBay to some Chinese supplier for exactly the same bags they sell their yeast in - somehow I doubt they are "packed in sterile conditions" for real...
 

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
196
Location
Manchester England
I would take anything coming from these guys with a big grain of salt.
They pretend to be a contract brewery belonging to some multi-national company and whatnot...
If you check their business info on eBay, the contact details (both the phone number and the email) actually belong to The Doorstep Handyman (Glasgow), where their "master brewer" Steven apparently "loves his tiling.".
They even left feedback on eBay to some Chinese supplier for exactly the same bags they sell their yeast in - somehow I doubt they are "packed in sterile conditions" for real...

Ha ha. Thanks, that explains a fair bit. Not really surprising.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
3,230
Location
UK
Yes I doubt there are a huge number of the original multi-strain brewers left. In Manchester we have Holts, JW Lees and Hydes. JW Lees yeast found it's way to Cloudwater in the early CW days. Holts yeast was used by James Kemp at a couple of his breweries. Hydes I don't know, I live near the old brewery but did they take their yeast with them? Probably. all the new breweries are using dry, White Labs or Wyeast or one of the others. CW didn't use the Lallemeand NE for long ,it was using A38 a year ago when I visited, said it works best for them on their system for the results they want. They gave me two vials which made some nice beer.

They first used the Lees multistrain in Three’s Company, a 2016 collab with Lees and Magic Rock and then in DIPA v7 and in NW DIPA, but then kinda lost interest. They went through a phase of switching between all sorts, various flavours of Conan among others. Must admit I don't keep track of them in the way that I used to, I find them beers to admire rather than enjoy.

Does mixed mean the DNA of each strain has elements of different historic yeasts, or that the mixed group is just a hotch potch of different strains that don't fit the main groups?
It's something that's not entirely clear although messing around with some genome analysis tools could tell you. AFAICT they're "mixed" because they get used for different purposes, rather than displaying genome mixing in the way that eg hefe yeasts have mixed genomes (essentially they're kolsch yeasts with a bit of saison DNA inserted)

I shall have to give Allinson's a whirl. Phenolic?
Not got my notes to hand but memory says it's not unlike S-04.

M29 is different from Belle Saison and I think pre-dates BE-134, and M44? It seems a bit kolschy to me, going a bit left field.

You're wrong on that one, M29 is "beautiful". (pers comm)

I got an email from the Lallemand global tech advisor today which said all their yeasts are single strain, incidentally.

Hmm - they keep saying that but microbiology suggests that, at least 5+ years ago, that may not have been the case...

I think S-33 and Windsor are similar enough to be the same strain, made in different production plants.

No such thing as the same strain, unless you're picking from exactly the same original vials.

Crossmyloof told me some of their yeasts are cloned. They also have yeasts called Midland, Four and Five. CML told me these have similar performance to their obvious namesakes. They also told me their yeasts come from a company in Germany.

Those are fairly recent arrivals though, no? CML have obviously found their niche piling high and selling cheap, so I'd expect them to... take the economical option at all stages. I suspect they started off repacking bricks, then for a while they were obviously just white labelling SPL yeast (ie the MJ range), then things changed and allegedly went to Germany which coincided with them getting some "different" European yeasts. One suggestion is that they're getting most of their stuff from Brauwerkstatt e.V. 53773 Hennef now, but I don't know.
 

kmarkstevens

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2017
Messages
861
Reaction score
1,072
There is a great podcast with Fritz Maytag, who revitalized Anchor Brewing and Anchor Steam. Anyhoo, at 4-5 minutes into the podcast, he talks about how he sourced non-dried Red Star yeast to brew Anchor Steam back in the 1960's. Silly me, I thought Anchor had some special ancient lager yeast that adapted to ale temperatures and brewing techniques from the 1800's. Nope, Fritz sourced from other local brewers like Lucky Lager, and was fed up with doing that when he was advised that the Red Star yeast, before it was dried, would make good beer.

What additional strains are in the bread/ale category? I have some sourdough to rise....
 

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
196
Location
Manchester England
It's something that's not entirely clear although messing around with some genome analysis tools could tell you. AFAICT they're "mixed" because they get used for different purposes, rather than displaying genome mixing in the way that eg hefe yeasts have mixed genomes (essentially they're kolsch yeasts with a bit of saison DNA inserted)

That makes sense.

You're wrong on that one, M29 is "beautiful". (pers comm)

With whom? I've had lower attenuation with M29 the couple of times i used it. Possibly the same pack, can't remember. I'm not familiar enough to have a strong opinion, I just decided it must be different at the time.

Hmm - they keep saying that but microbiology suggests that, at least 5+ years ago, that may not have been the case...

Interesting. Why would Lallemand deny it? What is there to lose?

No such thing as the same strain, unless you're picking from exactly the same original vials.

Ok. What's the right word then?!

Those are fairly recent arrivals though, no? CML have obviously found their niche piling high and selling cheap, so I'd expect them to... take the economical option at all stages. I suspect they started off repacking bricks, then for a while they were obviously just white labelling SPL yeast (ie the MJ range), then things changed and allegedly went to Germany which coincided with them getting some "different" European yeasts. One suggestion is that they're getting most of their stuff from Brauwerkstatt e.V. 53773 Hennef now, but I don't know.

I only used the kolsch and the US Pale in the early range. The US Pale was unlike anything in the MJ range and I thought it was poor quality. Used it three times and regretted it.

WRT the MJ range, on the comments section in the Ed's Blog article, is this:

"on the other hand mangroves jack replied and their yeast is cerevisiae and they have blends for some of their products."

And this:

qq7 January 2018 at 19:16
70:30 seems too much to be accidental though. Apparently Mangrove Jack M76 Bavarian Lager is also a mix.

So we seem to have there some evidence for MJ blending yeasts, which is just a hunch I've had based on M36 in particular.
 
Last edited:

duncan_disorderly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
196
Location
Manchester England
The Ed's Blog piece also had a link to an earlier blog article:


I went to a SIBA meeting on Wednesday and a bloke from Surebrew gave a brief but interesting talk. But it was when he was asked about dried yeasts that it got really interesting. He said Safale 04 is Whitbread B, something I'd previously seen Graham Wheeler (PBUH) say over at Jim's; US 05 is apparently composed of several strains, and Nottingham Ale yeast is in fact a mix containing 70% lager yeast. I'm quite astonished by this last point, and it also seems to me that it should be relatively easy to investigate if it's correct. If I remember rightly lager yeast can ferment melibiose whereas ale yeast cannot, and ale yeast is able to grown at 42 degrees C whereas lager yeast cannot. I'll have to check the details, and see what we've got a work, but this is one I'd really like to look into...


This seems to be the source of some of the ideas about dry yeasts. But since then, I think we have discovered that S-04 is not Whitbread. I also think the US-05 five strain thing sounds like nonsense? And Ed's tests on Nottingham apparently showed that the two strains he found in it were not lager strains.

So what do we really know about Nottingham, or the dry multi-strains notion? Does Nottingham have two strains, as Ed seemed to find, in 2014? Or not, as Lallemand tell us, I wonder?
 

bierhaus15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
1,946
Reaction score
435
S-04 is absolutely a Whitbread B derivative. There has never been any doubt about that. Here's the sales info:

"S-04 -This strain comes from Whitbread Brewing Co., and ferments crisp, slightly tart."
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
3,230
Location
UK
With whom? I've had lower attenuation with M29 the couple of times i used it. Possibly the same pack, can't remember. I'm not familiar enough to have a strong opinion, I just decided it must be different at the time.

Without giving away any confidences - someone who would know. So either you're seeing natural variability in fermentation, or a negative effect from going though Ellesmere Port. If the latter then I'd sympathise...

Ok. What's the right word then?!

Whatever you like, just don't give the impression that yeast not from the same culture are the same as they're not. Microbiology people get fairly picky about that kind of thing, which is why eg 34/70 is treated as a separate strain from W34, even though it was an isolate (in 1970) from the "W34" used at Weihenstephan for about 10 years. In that kind of time you will see mutations and genetic drift.

Interesting. Why would Lallemand deny it? What is there to lose?

All food producers like to sell themselves on "purity", but yeast producers have a particular interest in it after Left Hand sued White Labs in 2017 for the $m's of business lost to bottle bombs allegedly caused by STA1 contaminants in WLP090. There were also dark rumours going round Bermondsey of contamination in US-05 at around the same time. Certainly Chris Giles of Surebrew knows what he's doing, so if he says he found multiple strains back in the early teens I'd believe him. Whereas the yeast companies do have business to lose and possible lawsuits to fight if they admit that their yeast are not to spec. So it's quite possible that various commercial yeasts were not pure cultures a few years ago, whether through contamination or natural mutation, but they've now been cleaned up.

It would be easy enough to tell either way, just plate them out on WLN, maybe do some colony PCR.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
3,230
Location
UK
"S-04 -This strain comes from Whitbread Brewing Co., and ferments crisp, slightly tart."

That doesn't mean it's necessarily the original Whitbread B - Whitbread ran one of the biggest yeast libraries in the world as well as using multiple production strains in multiple breweries, they took over many local breweries many of which had "local" versions of yeasts from head office.

Until we get sequence of NCYC 1026 which for these purposes can be regarded as the canonical Whitbread B, then we won't know for sure.
 
Top