Suregork did the genetic sequencing
Just to give credit where credit's due, various labs around the world did the actual sequencing and uploaded them to public databases; Suregork didn't do the bench work but did take all those sequences, clean them up and throw them at A Very Big Computer to generate the "family tree".
That said, I'm looking forward to Northern_Brewer's report on his BE-256 experience. I do enjoy the slight phenolic impression that comes from the Belgian-y 037.
It's not really the right test - it's not side by side in equivalent beers (for...reasons), it's just in the big beer of my recent partigyle where it's rather swamped by a ton of DRC and other goodies. It certainly deserves its reputation for a quick and vigorous fermentation - I pitched it before going away for the weekend and it was essentially at FG by the time I got back, with some of the wort no longer in the fermenter...
I then had time to bottle it before going away for a longer trip, so I've only tried it slightly-carbed. Given that it was really just a user-upper (3yo malt, 5yo hops) for my first try at partigyling, initial impressions are that the big beer has worked pretty well, the smaller beer is meh and needs some work. Even though I thought I was fairly generous with first runnings - roughly 2:1 and 1:2 first:second for the two beers - you can really tell that the second beer isn't as full as it should be, it's ~4.5% but drinks more like <4%. I guess I was hoping for something closer to Harvey's Old Ale and instead it went more in the direction of Greene King IPA, which is hardly the beer I dream of. (as an aside, does anyone know if GK partigyle? It would fit.)
So I've learnt my lesson, not to rely on the smaller beer providing "maltiness" and body. Either I need more specialities in my original grist - more DRC, darker crystal, even dextrin malt - or I add more first runnings to the small beer and use more sugar in the big beer, or I cold steep specialities just for the small beer, or I just accept it and distract from the lack of body with a load of hops and take it in the direction of somewhere between an American Amber and a session IPA made with extra pale. I'd deliberately not gone crazy with the bittering or aroma hops first time round as I was more interested in the maltiness and I was just seeing what I ended up with.
The big lesson for me is to not aim for too much volume on your first partigyle - effectively you have one beer's-worth of water to mash two beers-worth of grain, and one of those is a big beer. I was aiming a bit smaller than usual but even then I didn't really have room to stir properly. And it's a while since I've made caramel and I'd forgotten just how much room you need in your saucepan when making it!!!
As far as BE-256 goes, I won't be able to give it a fair taste til I'm under the same roof in a couple of weeks - and hopefully be able to give it to people whose senses haven't been ravaged by Covid. But initial impressions are that it certainly ferments hard and fast, attenuated to ~83% IIRC, and there wasn't obvious phenolics in the immature beer. Although I have tried WLP540 in a SMaSH and it was OK, I haven't quite decided how I feel about it. Although my feelings about WLP540 may be hampered by the fact that I have it side by side with Rochefort dregs which are rapidly becoming one of my favourite sources of yeast! [for those in NW England, Booth's had Rochefort 6 before Christmas although I don't know if that was a one-off]. But it feels like BE-256 could have its uses for British beers, perhaps as the high-attenuation part of a blend.
www.crossmyloofbrew.co.uk
