Since Franconian is a clean yeast, the darker malts will really help bring some character.
Jasper yeast Franconian Lager
- Thread starter rmr9
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
Finally(!), I managed to score a pitch of Jasper yeast!
Annapolis Homebrew started selling retail packages last year, but my dumb luck and infrequent trips out there conspired in such a way that there was never a strain that interested me when I was at the shop. Last week, though, I got my hands on a pitch of Franconian Lager.
When they first started carrying Jasper I asked about it at the counter and remarked about how substantial Jasper's pitch is--it's a big, heavy, solid pitch. Remember how Imperial and Omega seemed big and heavy compared to Wyeast and Whitelabs? Jasper's pitch is the same, except it's big and heavy vs. an Imperial or Omega pitch. The person behind the counter remarked that they're really 10gal pitches and I jokingly agreed, saying "Really makes you wonder if you could direct pitch 6-gals of lager with one of these monsters." We both thought about it and smiled. She said, "We just started carrying them, so we haven't tried that yet--you know, it might be able to do it."
That stuck with me and it made me wonder.
Here are some pictures of this husky boy on a scale and a further picture of a Wyeast smack pack on that scale. Bear in mind that a good proportion of the smack pack's weight is taken up by the activator fluid, whereas the Jasper pack is pure slurry. I wish I had a pitch of Imperial or Omega available because they're much better comps. Nevertheless, you can see you're getting good value for your twelve bucks. This chungus is an overbuilder's dream!
![IMG_4144[1].JPG](https://cdn.homebrewtalk.com/data/attach/789/789967-IMG-4144-1-.JPG "IMG_4144[1].JPG")
![IMG_4145[1].JPG](https://cdn.homebrewtalk.com/data/attach/789/789968-IMG-4145-1-.JPG "IMG_4145[1].JPG")
I, however, had something different in mind. I wanted to see if it's the lazy man's dream.
I prefer brewing lagers with dry yeast because dry yeast pitches are cheap (if you buy them from RiteBrew), easy, make outstanding beers, and once you get past the slow first pitch are complete animals that will take a lager to TG in five days using modern methods...and keep doing it until you lose faith and decide, unnecessarily, to repitch. Modern dry lager yeast is a miracle!
Ah, but outside of 34/70, -23, -189, and Diamond (if you don't consider it a 34/70 derivative) there isn't much variety in dry strains. True, but it's an unfair criticism because there isn't much room for yeast expression in lager strains.
And that's what makes the Franconian Lager strain interesting. According to Jasper, it's a strain that fell out of favor in the 1960's-70s. Perhaps, like the reborn heirloom malts, this heirloom strain might offer something unique to contemporary lager brewers?
Lager yeast is kinda lager yeast, but, what the hell, let's find out.
I direct pitched my pack three days ago, onto a step mashed Pre-Prohibition Pils wort that was pH controlled from the MT through to the fermenter, oxygenated for 90sec, treated with Wyeast nutrient, and given a shot of ionic zinc. In other words, it was the best, most fermentable wort that I know how to produce. I did push it a bit on the gravity, 1.050, and the pitch temp, sub-50F.
As you can see, it is responding much like a pitch of two sachets of dry yeast is apt to do. It's a much shorter lag time, but roughly on the same glide path. That's pretty impressive for a single direct pitch of liquid yeast.
Initial pitch of S-189 at 1.046 on a wort of similar composition (less the ionic zinc).
Franconian Lager on day three, lag? What lag?:
Its current performance is hard to measure, though. The fermentation is very active, it blew the auxiliary airlock on my anti-suckback rig dry, and the TILT's readings are all over the place. Clearly, it's throwing a big, active krausen. I think the gravity is actually lower than the data that I've presented, but I won't know that until high krausen has passed and the gravity, as I suspect, plummets as the raucous krausen subsides. It's a very active, very vigorous fermentation.
Provided Jasper has the resources available to push into the retail business, I think the legacy yeast companies are going to have to up their pitch volume, or drop their prices.
Jasper is one of the few no BS values in homebrewing right now...and a shot at White Lab's, ever less and less economical, heart. Fortunately for White Labs and, as evidenced by the handwriting on my pouch, Jasper is still a small operation in the homebrew market. That could and should change quickly.
Annapolis Homebrew started selling retail packages last year, but my dumb luck and infrequent trips out there conspired in such a way that there was never a strain that interested me when I was at the shop. Last week, though, I got my hands on a pitch of Franconian Lager.
When they first started carrying Jasper I asked about it at the counter and remarked about how substantial Jasper's pitch is--it's a big, heavy, solid pitch. Remember how Imperial and Omega seemed big and heavy compared to Wyeast and Whitelabs? Jasper's pitch is the same, except it's big and heavy vs. an Imperial or Omega pitch. The person behind the counter remarked that they're really 10gal pitches and I jokingly agreed, saying "Really makes you wonder if you could direct pitch 6-gals of lager with one of these monsters." We both thought about it and smiled. She said, "We just started carrying them, so we haven't tried that yet--you know, it might be able to do it."
That stuck with me and it made me wonder.
Here are some pictures of this husky boy on a scale and a further picture of a Wyeast smack pack on that scale. Bear in mind that a good proportion of the smack pack's weight is taken up by the activator fluid, whereas the Jasper pack is pure slurry. I wish I had a pitch of Imperial or Omega available because they're much better comps. Nevertheless, you can see you're getting good value for your twelve bucks. This chungus is an overbuilder's dream!
I, however, had something different in mind. I wanted to see if it's the lazy man's dream.
I prefer brewing lagers with dry yeast because dry yeast pitches are cheap (if you buy them from RiteBrew), easy, make outstanding beers, and once you get past the slow first pitch are complete animals that will take a lager to TG in five days using modern methods...and keep doing it until you lose faith and decide, unnecessarily, to repitch. Modern dry lager yeast is a miracle!
Ah, but outside of 34/70, -23, -189, and Diamond (if you don't consider it a 34/70 derivative) there isn't much variety in dry strains. True, but it's an unfair criticism because there isn't much room for yeast expression in lager strains.
And that's what makes the Franconian Lager strain interesting. According to Jasper, it's a strain that fell out of favor in the 1960's-70s. Perhaps, like the reborn heirloom malts, this heirloom strain might offer something unique to contemporary lager brewers?
Lager yeast is kinda lager yeast, but, what the hell, let's find out.
I direct pitched my pack three days ago, onto a step mashed Pre-Prohibition Pils wort that was pH controlled from the MT through to the fermenter, oxygenated for 90sec, treated with Wyeast nutrient, and given a shot of ionic zinc. In other words, it was the best, most fermentable wort that I know how to produce. I did push it a bit on the gravity, 1.050, and the pitch temp, sub-50F.
As you can see, it is responding much like a pitch of two sachets of dry yeast is apt to do. It's a much shorter lag time, but roughly on the same glide path. That's pretty impressive for a single direct pitch of liquid yeast.
Initial pitch of S-189 at 1.046 on a wort of similar composition (less the ionic zinc).
Franconian Lager on day three, lag? What lag?:
Its current performance is hard to measure, though. The fermentation is very active, it blew the auxiliary airlock on my anti-suckback rig dry, and the TILT's readings are all over the place. Clearly, it's throwing a big, active krausen. I think the gravity is actually lower than the data that I've presented, but I won't know that until high krausen has passed and the gravity, as I suspect, plummets as the raucous krausen subsides. It's a very active, very vigorous fermentation.
Provided Jasper has the resources available to push into the retail business, I think the legacy yeast companies are going to have to up their pitch volume, or drop their prices.
Jasper is one of the few no BS values in homebrewing right now...and a shot at White Lab's, ever less and less economical, heart. Fortunately for White Labs and, as evidenced by the handwriting on my pouch, Jasper is still a small operation in the homebrew market. That could and should change quickly.
Last edited:
OP
OP
rmr9
Well-Known Member
I really enjoyed the Franconian yeast. Apparently the TUM-35 strain fell out of favor because it had unpredictable performance with the malts of varying quality from yesteryear. It was discovered in a lab freezer in Munich I think I read.
I think Jasper is a solid yeast supplier - granted I’ve only used their Franconian strain but I’ve heard others having great experiences as well. In my next string of lagers I plan to use their Munich lager strain. Looks like it attenuates well and can work in a range of lagers. Hoping it provides dry crisp lagers but doesn’t strip the malt. We shall see!
I think Jasper is a solid yeast supplier - granted I’ve only used their Franconian strain but I’ve heard others having great experiences as well. In my next string of lagers I plan to use their Munich lager strain. Looks like it attenuates well and can work in a range of lagers. Hoping it provides dry crisp lagers but doesn’t strip the malt. We shall see!
OP
OP
rmr9
Well-Known Member
Also at Maryland Homebrew where I get my supplies the pouches are $9.99. You can’t beat the quantity and quality at that price point.
Sorry about the bum photos in my initial post. I've edited them and they should be displaying properly now.
Here's an update on the fermentation. I started the cold crash two days ago, so I have a full fermentation curve to report.
OG 1.050, crashed on day 12:
Again, here's two sachets of S-189 on a 1.047 pitch for comparison:
Good stuff, Jasper Yeast! They actually make a direct pitch-able lager yeast. Will I do this again? Likely not. This was a stunt brew aimed at bigging up a local yeast producer that unambiguously provides actual value for the dollar--looking at you, White Labs.
No tasting notes for a couple more weeks. Frankly, I'm a little uneasy about skipping the D-rest on this heirloom yeast, but part of the experiment is treating it like a contemporary dry yeast. Time will tell...
Here's an update on the fermentation. I started the cold crash two days ago, so I have a full fermentation curve to report.
OG 1.050, crashed on day 12:
Again, here's two sachets of S-189 on a 1.047 pitch for comparison:
Good stuff, Jasper Yeast! They actually make a direct pitch-able lager yeast. Will I do this again? Likely not. This was a stunt brew aimed at bigging up a local yeast producer that unambiguously provides actual value for the dollar--looking at you, White Labs.
No tasting notes for a couple more weeks. Frankly, I'm a little uneasy about skipping the D-rest on this heirloom yeast, but part of the experiment is treating it like a contemporary dry yeast. Time will tell...
Last edited:
Sadly, that's not the case anymore. I They're twelve bucks at Annapolis, putting them in line with Omega, Imperial, and Wyeast. Which is totally fair.
Whitelabs, having lost their minds, aren't worth paying attention to anymore.
For the record, I live in DC, so I simply drove out there for my pack of Jasper Yeast. Don't try my stunt brew if you mail order from Annapolis. Writing at the end of May, I assure you, it'll end in tears!
![Craft A Brew - Safale BE-256 Yeast - Fermentis - Belgian Ale Dry Yeast - For Belgian & Strong Ales - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [3 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51bcKEwQmWL._SL500_.jpg)
OP
OP
rmr9
Well-Known Member
Oh nice! I’m a bit northwest of DC in Maryland. I should make the drive down there sometime and check out the source. Even at $12 for a pouch I’d say that’s good especially considering wyeast probably has half or less the yeast count. I was really impressed with the Franconian lager yeast, and if I didn’t really want to try their Munich strain I’d probably go back to it for my string of lagers this fall.
They seem to have a really nice collection of yeasts, I’m intrigued by their Belgian strains as well particularly the Benedict strain. I’ll support the local yeast lab especially with the high quality.
It's a pleasant drive and one that I made daily when I used to work on Kent Island. The only downside is that if you take 50 you have to cross the Severn River Bridge, which can be a real drag on a weekend morning this time of year.
Final fermentation curve, prior to kegging. As you can see it's fully crashed and just waiting for a keg to blow. I was hoping that I could quickly get it into a keg, but the Law of Keg Necessity* is in full force on this beer.
*The law states: "Any keg you would like to fill will last for at least a further month while any keg you hope will last until the end of the weekend will blow on the next pint."
*The law states: "Any keg you would like to fill will last for at least a further month while any keg you hope will last until the end of the weekend will blow on the next pint."
OP
OP
rmr9
Well-Known Member
I’m very curious to see how it turns out and your thoughts on the yeast!
Kind of you! So am I, but well, The Law of Keg Necessity...
Mind coming over for a pint, maybe ten?
I finally got a keg to blow last weekend, so I was able to keg the Franconian Lager Yeast on Monday. I'm writing with early results on the following Friday.
As you can see, the beer is still young and still needs some time to fully clear. Its current state seems to be in line with 34/70 or S-189, maybe a bit ahead of Diamond? But Diamond can be a bit all over the place, so I wouldn't write any checks against that assessment.
Flavor-wise, there isn't much to report. It tastes like a young lager that's a week or two shy of hitting its prime. It's clean, malt and hops are evident, but they're poking through a veil of yeast. It does have a very pleasant streak of sulfur at the start of the finish. There's no sulfur on the nose, though, so it's the pleasant kind of sulfur. I really enjoy lagers with that trait, but recognize that it'll likely disappear in two week's time. Shame. Not much in the way of diacetyl, but I'll concede that my tongue has a big blind spot in that respect. It's quite dry on the tongue, no slickness, so I'm confident that a formal D-rest wasn't needed.
Sure, it's a heritage yeast, but it only went out of fashion in the 1960's. It seems reasonable to me that it's falling in line with other modern yeasts. Sure, it's a heritage strain, but it's not that old.
The beer that it fermented, Panther Piss Paleo Vulgaris, perhaps isn't the best recipe with which to judge this yeast. As the name implies, it is old and common, just fancy 6-row from Chesapeake Maltsters, corn, Clusters at 60/20/10, and a bit of Hallertau at finishing. It's very much in line with what would've been brewed in the Missouri River Valley in the mid-19th Century by immigrant German brewers. It's a big, flavorful beer that easily eclipses any flavor contributions provided by the yeast.
As such, I can't write much about what Franconian Lager Yeast contributes to a beer. Anything that Franconian is bringing to the party is being drown out by a big, grainy 6-row grist and a solid wallop of Clusters. It's a nice beer, but a poor prototype for lager yeast analysis.
In short, it performs and tastes a whole lot like lager yeast--which is what you expect from lager yeast, right? That is, after all, what lager yeast is supposed to do.
Going forward, I've used the first generation cake to pitch two further beers, both N. American fizzy yellow swills--one is my standard Panther Piss Classic (fancy N. American pils, 6-row, corn, and rice), the other is a jasmine rice beer (fancy N. American pils and jasmine rice). At the time of this writing, I only pitched the fizzy yellow swill a couple of hours ago. The jasmine lager, however, was pitched three days ago and, as you can see, is off to a much faster start. No surprise there, given that the first pitch was an underpitched stunt.
Once those two beers are kegged, I'll be able to brew for cooler weather and I'll brew a proper German pils, followed by either a Vienna or a Helles. At that point, I might be able to provide some more useful thoughts regarding the Franconian strain's contributions to a beer. That should be end of September-ish.
Not much to report, really, but I hope you found this useful.
As you can see, the beer is still young and still needs some time to fully clear. Its current state seems to be in line with 34/70 or S-189, maybe a bit ahead of Diamond? But Diamond can be a bit all over the place, so I wouldn't write any checks against that assessment.
Flavor-wise, there isn't much to report. It tastes like a young lager that's a week or two shy of hitting its prime. It's clean, malt and hops are evident, but they're poking through a veil of yeast. It does have a very pleasant streak of sulfur at the start of the finish. There's no sulfur on the nose, though, so it's the pleasant kind of sulfur. I really enjoy lagers with that trait, but recognize that it'll likely disappear in two week's time. Shame. Not much in the way of diacetyl, but I'll concede that my tongue has a big blind spot in that respect. It's quite dry on the tongue, no slickness, so I'm confident that a formal D-rest wasn't needed.
Sure, it's a heritage yeast, but it only went out of fashion in the 1960's. It seems reasonable to me that it's falling in line with other modern yeasts. Sure, it's a heritage strain, but it's not that old.
The beer that it fermented, Panther Piss Paleo Vulgaris, perhaps isn't the best recipe with which to judge this yeast. As the name implies, it is old and common, just fancy 6-row from Chesapeake Maltsters, corn, Clusters at 60/20/10, and a bit of Hallertau at finishing. It's very much in line with what would've been brewed in the Missouri River Valley in the mid-19th Century by immigrant German brewers. It's a big, flavorful beer that easily eclipses any flavor contributions provided by the yeast.
As such, I can't write much about what Franconian Lager Yeast contributes to a beer. Anything that Franconian is bringing to the party is being drown out by a big, grainy 6-row grist and a solid wallop of Clusters. It's a nice beer, but a poor prototype for lager yeast analysis.
In short, it performs and tastes a whole lot like lager yeast--which is what you expect from lager yeast, right? That is, after all, what lager yeast is supposed to do.
Going forward, I've used the first generation cake to pitch two further beers, both N. American fizzy yellow swills--one is my standard Panther Piss Classic (fancy N. American pils, 6-row, corn, and rice), the other is a jasmine rice beer (fancy N. American pils and jasmine rice). At the time of this writing, I only pitched the fizzy yellow swill a couple of hours ago. The jasmine lager, however, was pitched three days ago and, as you can see, is off to a much faster start. No surprise there, given that the first pitch was an underpitched stunt.
Once those two beers are kegged, I'll be able to brew for cooler weather and I'll brew a proper German pils, followed by either a Vienna or a Helles. At that point, I might be able to provide some more useful thoughts regarding the Franconian strain's contributions to a beer. That should be end of September-ish.
Not much to report, really, but I hope you found this useful.
Last edited:
Thanks for the follow up!
My pleasure! It's not often you get to document an old strain that was brought back from the dead.
This is fun.
I really enjoy learning about your project. I look forward to hearing an update after it lagers and cold crashes.
I know I said I was intending to go out to a third generation on this strain, but I think I'm going to complete my observations on the second pitch. To the point, I think I see why this yeast lost favor: it's one of those 1.020 nibbler strains.
Before moving forward, it's worth taking a moment to remember that lager yeast isn't anywhere near as expressive as ale yeast. Ale yeast are a lot like soup: there's all kinds of soups and they can be wildly different from each other depending upon which part of the world you happen to find yourself slurping your soup. Really, the only thing that you can say for certain about soup is that it's quite difficult to grill.
On the other hand, lager yeast is much more akin to hotdogs--at the end of the day, they're all hotdogs. Sure, some are better than others, but it doesn't mean they're not hotdogs, though. Hot dogs is hot dogs and lagers is lagers.
I'm not knocking dogs, nor am I knocking lager yeast. I will, however, argue that the performance of a lager yeast matters a lot more than the performance of an ale yeast. Some ale yeasts, like DuPont or Ringwood, are really worth the bother. Lager yeasts that start nibbling at 1.020 aren't, in my estimation, worth the bother. Why bother with a lazy strain when you have many alternatives that punch through 1.020 and kick hard to TG, right?
Here are the charts for the second generation pitches:
Panther Piss Jasmine
Panther Piss IV LODO (softer water) v. 4.7
Both beers were pitched with a generous cell count, treated with Wyeast nutrient @ 15min, oxygenated properly (tiny bubbles breaking the surface) with a cylinder and stone for 1.5min, and treated with ionic zinc. Both pitches of Franconian were given the very best starts that I'm currently capable of providing and the same or better conditions (zinc is new to me) with which I have a mountain of data regarding the performance of 34/70, S-189, and Diamond.
Given equal or better starting conditions to second pitches of 34/70, S-189, and Diamond, I think Franconian's penchant for failing to vigorously drive through 1.020 and quickly reach a reasonable TG disqualifies it from further use in my brewery. In my estimation, it doesn't perform good enough. I'm not okay with 1.014 as a TG on a pair of fizzy yellow swills, certainly not on a second pitch. The second pitch should be among it's very best. Instead, it lagged behind the performance of its initial under pitch.
Clearly, I did something wrong, but I don't see the point in finding out why. There are better, easier alternatives available.
I think this is why it lost favor. To be sure, it makes a very agreeable lager and I have no complaints about the 15gals of beer that it has made. Each of the three batches are nice, pleasant lagers. They all have an agreeable softness to them that I would find more pleasing in cooler weather. Despite the higher than ideal TG, they all drink like lagers--you wouldn't say they're under attenuated, certainly not "worty." They're just a bit soft and round. The second generation batches didn't have that wonderful light sulphur note that the first generation pitch exhibited for a week or two and all three batches dropped clear very quickly.
Here's the Jasmine lager at four days after kegging:
And the Panther Piss LODO version of corn and rice adjunct lager at four days after kegging:
Don't get me wrong, this is a very nice strain and I like it. I don't, however, have much use for it because there are better performing yeasts available that make lagers that are just as nice.
So what is this good for? Given the contemporary range of German beers, I'm not sure I would select this strain for anything other than leichtbier. It would really shine at making the most out of a stingy grist...oh. Hmmm, oh my. I think I get it now. Perhaps I've been reading too much "Shut Up About Barclay Perkins!"
I do know that I won't be using it again. There are better performing alternatives available that make equally nice hotdogs.
Before moving forward, it's worth taking a moment to remember that lager yeast isn't anywhere near as expressive as ale yeast. Ale yeast are a lot like soup: there's all kinds of soups and they can be wildly different from each other depending upon which part of the world you happen to find yourself slurping your soup. Really, the only thing that you can say for certain about soup is that it's quite difficult to grill.
On the other hand, lager yeast is much more akin to hotdogs--at the end of the day, they're all hotdogs. Sure, some are better than others, but it doesn't mean they're not hotdogs, though. Hot dogs is hot dogs and lagers is lagers.
I'm not knocking dogs, nor am I knocking lager yeast. I will, however, argue that the performance of a lager yeast matters a lot more than the performance of an ale yeast. Some ale yeasts, like DuPont or Ringwood, are really worth the bother. Lager yeasts that start nibbling at 1.020 aren't, in my estimation, worth the bother. Why bother with a lazy strain when you have many alternatives that punch through 1.020 and kick hard to TG, right?
Here are the charts for the second generation pitches:
Panther Piss Jasmine
Panther Piss IV LODO (softer water) v. 4.7
Both beers were pitched with a generous cell count, treated with Wyeast nutrient @ 15min, oxygenated properly (tiny bubbles breaking the surface) with a cylinder and stone for 1.5min, and treated with ionic zinc. Both pitches of Franconian were given the very best starts that I'm currently capable of providing and the same or better conditions (zinc is new to me) with which I have a mountain of data regarding the performance of 34/70, S-189, and Diamond.
Given equal or better starting conditions to second pitches of 34/70, S-189, and Diamond, I think Franconian's penchant for failing to vigorously drive through 1.020 and quickly reach a reasonable TG disqualifies it from further use in my brewery. In my estimation, it doesn't perform good enough. I'm not okay with 1.014 as a TG on a pair of fizzy yellow swills, certainly not on a second pitch. The second pitch should be among it's very best. Instead, it lagged behind the performance of its initial under pitch.
Clearly, I did something wrong, but I don't see the point in finding out why. There are better, easier alternatives available.
I think this is why it lost favor. To be sure, it makes a very agreeable lager and I have no complaints about the 15gals of beer that it has made. Each of the three batches are nice, pleasant lagers. They all have an agreeable softness to them that I would find more pleasing in cooler weather. Despite the higher than ideal TG, they all drink like lagers--you wouldn't say they're under attenuated, certainly not "worty." They're just a bit soft and round. The second generation batches didn't have that wonderful light sulphur note that the first generation pitch exhibited for a week or two and all three batches dropped clear very quickly.
Here's the Jasmine lager at four days after kegging:
And the Panther Piss LODO version of corn and rice adjunct lager at four days after kegging:
Don't get me wrong, this is a very nice strain and I like it. I don't, however, have much use for it because there are better performing yeasts available that make lagers that are just as nice.
So what is this good for? Given the contemporary range of German beers, I'm not sure I would select this strain for anything other than leichtbier. It would really shine at making the most out of a stingy grist...oh. Hmmm, oh my. I think I get it now. Perhaps I've been reading too much "Shut Up About Barclay Perkins!"
I do know that I won't be using it again. There are better performing alternatives available that make equally nice hotdogs.
OP
OP
rmr9
Well-Known Member
Awesome write up! I’ve really enjoyed reading about somebody else’s experience with this yeast.
I think you’re onto something with why this yeast fell out of favor. Some reading here and there suggests it stopped being used because its performance varied quite a bit depending on the quality of the malt that went in. Year to year variability in barley quality resulted in inconsistent results.
I think between our experiences we are seeing that in play here! ***I am not saying your barley quality is low*** but for example I used this yeast on a 100% barke Vienna and it went from 1.051 to 1.011 in 8 days, clean and crisp and dropped pretty clear. You’ve had a stalling at 1.020, and a higher finish than you’d like. I think that inconsistency checks out with historical observation. I wonder if this strain doesn’t like adjuncts as well.
It’s fun to see other people’s experience with a strain like this!
I think you’re onto something with why this yeast fell out of favor. Some reading here and there suggests it stopped being used because its performance varied quite a bit depending on the quality of the malt that went in. Year to year variability in barley quality resulted in inconsistent results.
I think between our experiences we are seeing that in play here! ***I am not saying your barley quality is low*** but for example I used this yeast on a 100% barke Vienna and it went from 1.051 to 1.011 in 8 days, clean and crisp and dropped pretty clear. You’ve had a stalling at 1.020, and a higher finish than you’d like. I think that inconsistency checks out with historical observation. I wonder if this strain doesn’t like adjuncts as well.
It’s fun to see other people’s experience with a strain like this!
Thanks for the review and sorry to hear about the 1.020 stall. It is frustrating as I have been seeing this with some lagers. Some question the zinc as maybe a possible overdose slows down the yeast? (you already have zinc in the Wyeast Nutrient). Oxygenation is a possible cause with only 1.5 min. not being enough. 14ppm of O2 is a common benchmark measured with a D.O. meter. Pitch rate might still be too low? Since this was a 2nd batch, did you use half of the collected slurry?
But the main thing is - if you did not think the beer is much or any better than your existing strains, then why bring it on? Totally agree as it looks to be a little higher maintenance than your other strains. Although it does drop bright which is nice.
But the main thing is - if you did not think the beer is much or any better than your existing strains, then why bring it on? Totally agree as it looks to be a little higher maintenance than your other strains. Although it does drop bright which is nice.
OP
OP
rmr9
Well-Known Member
I don’t think I’ll go back to the strain either - at least not for a bit. I’ve been playing with the Augustiner strain for a bit and I want to see what Jasper Munich is like so I’ll probably go to that next. Looks like a high attenuator so I want to try it for a couple generations to see how it does in a 100% vienna lager, märzen, dunkel then festbier perhaps.
1) It would be cool to read more about that, if it's not too big of a hassle, I'd like to learn more.
2) Maybe it is? I've been using a single 55lb sack of Riverbend's Chesapeake Pilsner (a regional Mid-Atlantic maltster) since this time last year. I'm nearing the bottom quarter of the sack and I can confidently report that with 34/70 and S-189 the Chesapeake Pils has performed flawlessly-- very much in line with the available German offerings (Weyermann and Best). I picked up a sack of Barke only yesterday, so I'm sorta tempted to pitch it again...but, nah, I'm good. I'd rather get some beer that I'm 100% satisfied with in my kegs, rather than publish another data point.
3) Indeed, it's been a blast!
1) Perhaps? Yeast can certainly be funny that way. On the other hand, I have a mountain of data demonstrating that my yeast handling with other strains should have worked here. Given that this is a lager, and there are several strains with which I have a years' long track record of working brilliantly within the parameters that I used (and a giant mountain of data to back it up), I don't see the point in trying to crack the code on this strain. We're not talking ale yeast here, we're not chasing defining esters that define a certain beer, we're trying to make the best of our grists and bills with some boring ass lager yeast. I like it better when my boring ass lager yeast isn't fussy.
2) Because it seemed interesting, I enjoy exploring antiquated techniques and ingredients. Also my brewery and I are in a very stable, very long term relationship and we promised each other that we'd always be GGG for each other.
I really like the Augustiner strain, it's such an easy going strain!
Please report back on your adventures with Jasper Munich, I'm looking for a colossal attenuator that can suck the very soul out of my July/August fizzy yellow swills.
With all that said, I'm going to withdraw from actively tracking this thread. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to shoot me a PM. I'm always down to talk brewing.
I could have typed my message more clearly. I was not questioning your trying of the yeast, I meant why continue to use it if it is not a great fit for your brewery.
Similar threads
