Dry yeasts identified - your opinions please!

[BrewnWKopperKat]

... do their own experiments and see for themselves.

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?

 

[Reneauj62]

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.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

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]

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.

 

[kmarkstevens]

You be you.

 

[Miraculix]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Protos]

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.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

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.

 

[Kold Brygg]

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

 

[ebbelwoi]

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]

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.

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

 

[ep_brew]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

@ep_brew : a very unusual combination of resources (books, especially older books, internet archives)!

Well done, and deserving of additional likes:

 

[duncan_disorderly]

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

 

[Kold Brygg]

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.

https://www.homebrewinguk.com/post/dried-yeast-guide-belgian-saison-kveik-and-sours-10520699

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?

 

[Iggles]

On Mangrove Jack's M15 and Fermentis S-04:

As my first solo BIAB brew, I did a split batch for an English porter using M15 and S-04 (BIAB 1.5 gal each; OG: 1.056; mash temp: 152F; fermentation for 3 weeks at 66-68F; with heat belt for the M15 bucket to move up to 71F during second week)
For S-04, apparent attenuation was 79% (final gravity: 1.012) and flavor (pre-carbonation) of moderate sweet/bitter chocolate and very distinct tartness/sourness (maybe even a hint of sour cherry but that could be my imagination).
For M15, apparent attenuation was 70% (final gravity: 1.017) and flavor of smooth milk chocolate with hint of dark fruits (prune, plum skin) in the background.

Conclusion: I believe the difference is big enough to conclude they are not related (at all). They do match the general descriptions by the manufacturers and some comments on HBT. My favorite is M15 but I love how they each provide their own character

 

[dmtaylor]

the difference is big enough to conclude they are not related (at all).

I am not surprised in the slightest. I'm pretty sure M15 is Windsor, and S-04... either has no equivalent, or it might be part of or all of M36.

 

[Miraculix]

I am not surprised in the slightest. I'm pretty sure M15 is Windsor, and S-04... either has no equivalent, or it might be part of or all of M36.

Definitely not all of it, it's quite different to s04. At least what I got from it...

 

[Northern_Brewer]

CrossMyLoof are rumoured to have some of their yeasts from Germany, I think @Northern_Brewer provided this information. There is a Swedish company producing beer yeast. I've been in touch with them, when asking about beer yeast, they say they produce on behalf of AEB. AEB says they don't produce yeast for others than AEB.

The AEB yeasts are very similar to Fermentis yeasts. So even if they seems very similar it seems unlikely they get them from Fermentis. Why should AEB get yeast from Fermentis, when they have a another factory producing them?

Just as a headsup for those in the UK/EU, Geterbrewed are now selling AEB yeasts. They only have a Chico, "Whitbread" and "Weihenstephan lager" (=Diamond?) in retail packs but there's a much bigger choice of 500g packs including what I assume is a dry Hornindal as well as a dry Sigmund Voss, and a dry "Yorkshire" with crazy attenuation.
https://www.geterbrewed.com/aeb-geb-yeast-500g-hb/

 

[ebbelwoi]

"Weihenstephan lager" (=Diamond?)

From looking at the Doemens literature, Diamond appears to be the Doemens 308 strain. Doemens describes their 375 as "the most frequently used bottom fermenting yeast strain in Germany."

Assuming the 375 is the "Weihenstephaner lager" strain, I don't think AEB's "Weihenstephaner lager" is Diamond.

FWIW, Andreas Krennmair also claims that Diamond is WY2308.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Duh, obviously I meant 34/70.

And AEB seem to be manufacturing independently rather than repacking, so to be clear I'm referring to these as equivalents rather than direct identities.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

dry Hornindal

That would be awesome to have another Kveik yeast available in dry form.

 

[McMullan]

Just as a headsup for those in the UK/EU, Geterbrewed are now selling AEB yeasts. They only have a Chico, "Whitbread" and "Weihenstephan lager" (=Diamond?) in retail packs but there's a much bigger choice of 500g packs including what I assume is a dry Hornindal as well as a dry Sigmund Voss, and a dry "Yorkshire" with crazy attenuation.
https://www.geterbrewed.com/aeb-geb-yeast-500g-hb/

Very competively priced. I might try a home-brew pack of the 'Yorkshire' strain.

 

[Kold Brygg]

"Yorkshire" with crazy attenuation.

Would be interesting to se reports of the attenuation as most seems way to high. Is this theoretical or actual attenuation.

@Erik the Anglophile have given positive reports of the Whitbread strain in Brewly branding. Which must be produced at the same Swedish factory.

From looking at the Doemens literature, Diamond appears to be the Doemens 308 strain. Doemens describes their 375 as "the most frequently used bottom fermenting yeast strain in Germany."

Assuming the 375 is the "Weihenstephaner lager" strain, I don't think AEB's "Weihenstephaner lager" is Diamond.

FWIW, Andreas Krennmair also claims that Diamond is WY2308.

If interested there is an interesting comparison between the Swedish 34/70 and Diamond. Written in Norwegian, Google translate will most likely help .
https://forum.norbrygg.no/threads/lallemand-diamond-vs-brewly-34-70.44612/

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Would be interesting to se reports of the attenuation as most seems way to high. Is this theoretical or actual attenuation.

All we have is :
"Produces esters with citrus character
Timeless taste and balance and usable in a wide variety of beer styles
Yorkshire - Regional Ale, originally from the United Kingdom, is a Saccharomyces cerevisiae type top-fermenting strain used for the production of specialty beers.
Yeast strain: Saccharomyces Cerevisiae
Origin: Tetleys Brewery
Brewing parameters
- Beer styles: all type of British Ales and modern ciders
- Fermentation kinetics: fast. 8 days at 22°C, 16 days at 12°C for 12°P
- Fermentation temperature range: 12-25°C
- Apparent attenuation: 87%
- Flocculation and sedimentation ability: good"

That seems quite plausible - a lot of the yeasts used in Yorkshire Squares are diastatic saison-type strains, perhaps the most famous is the one used by Boddingtons in the 1970s which regularly saw apparent attenuations >90% and which originated in Tadcaster, the main brewing town of Yorkshire. One of Ron's recipes for Tetley bitter in 1945 has apparent attenuation of 93.75%, so it's consistent with what's reported for the AEB yeast.

Not all British yeasts are as lazy as Windsor!!!!!

 

[Kold Brygg]

All we have is :
"Produces esters with citrus character
Timeless taste and balance and usable in a wide variety of beer styles
Yorkshire - Regional Ale, originally from the United Kingdom, is a Saccharomyces cerevisiae type top-fermenting strain used for the production of specialty beers.
Yeast strain: Saccharomyces Cerevisiae
Origin: Tetleys Brewery
Brewing parameters
- Beer styles: all type of British Ales and modern ciders
- Fermentation kinetics: fast. 8 days at 22°C, 16 days at 12°C for 12°P
- Fermentation temperature range: 12-25°C
- Apparent attenuation: 87%
- Flocculation and sedimentation ability: good"

That seems quite plausible - a lot of the yeasts used in Yorkshire Squares are diastatic saison-type strains, perhaps the most famous is the one used by Boddingtons in the 1970s which regularly saw apparent attenuations >90% and which originated in Tadcaster, the main brewing town of Yorkshire. One of Ron's recipes for Tetley bitter in 1945 has apparent attenuation of 93.75%, so it's consistent with what's reported for the AEB yeast.

Not all British yeasts are as lazy as Windsor!!!!!

You might surely be correct, but to me the attenutation of most of AEB yeasts seems high.

Sierra Nevada Yeast
Origin: Sierra Nevada
- Apparent attenuation: 89%

Fermentis US-05 78-82%

Big Bold - British Ale Yeast
Origin: Whitbread Brewery
- Apparent attenuation: 87%

Fermentis S-04 74-82%

Classic Lager Yeast
Origin: Weihenstephan 34/70
- Apparent attenuation: 87%

Fermentis W‑34/70 80-84%

German Lager Yeast
Origin: VLB
- Apparent attenuation: 87%

Fermentis S-23 80-84%

The Brewly version of w34/70 have most reports of 82%+ attenuation. What I've read about the Brewly Whitbread version it seem to be 75%+ (very few reports). We don't know for sure if the AEB and Brewly are the same yeasts, but as both are produced in Sweden, it seems likely.

That's why I wonder, is the AEB numbers for attenuation theoretical or actual. It would be interesting to see user experience.

And good old Nottingham surely ain't slough like Windsor