Low Attenuation Lager Yeast

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

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

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Islandbrew212

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
8
Hello all,

I am planning on making an old style munich lager. A recipe when the malt was stilled kilned over smoke and so a smoky flavor present. These beers were apparently very low in attenuation (around 55 to 65%) with alot of residual sweetness. What yeast would you recommend if I were to shoot for that ?


Source:
"As late as the 19th century, Munich lager beer was very different from modern beer. Lager beers were brown beers, made from kilned barley malt. Only through the introduction of modern English kilning methods it was possible for brewers to produce pale kilned malts without a smoke flavour. These techniques were explored in Vienna, and Pilsen/Plzeň in Bohemia, and resulted in Vienna lager, an amber lager beer, and Pilsner Urquell, the prototypical pale, golden lager beer.Bottom fermentation was very likely a mixed fermentation of different yeast strains until the invention and popularisation of pure cultures by Emil Christian Hansen. These lager yeast strains, as historic sources show, had a rather poor attenuation, which certainly had a great impact on the overall impression of the beer: not only were these beers higher in original gravity than today, they also contained less alcohol, and had a much greater amount of residual sweetness. Attenuation of 19th century lager beers were often in the range of 50 to 55%, sometimes going up as far as 65%. Since the fermentation and maturation was cold, the risk of infection and the beer getting sour was a lot lower than with top-fermented beers at the time, and thus also made sure that the beer would keep better for export."
 
WLP820 has terrible attenuation and as such in this case would be my one pick. And the Wyeast "equivalent" is actually NOT equivalent at all. Only 820.
 
You can forget about achieving such a low attenuation with modern malts. The reason up to the 19th Century beers had such low attenuation was also due to the malt available at the time. Modern malts, even darker ones, will always give a higher attenuation no matter how they are mashed.
 
I can attest that WLP820 is relatively low attenuating and leaves a residual sweetness. Just brewed a Märzen with it and got ~75% apparent attenuation (1.060 -> 1.014), but that was using a multistep mash with alpha and beta rests and a big healthy starter.

You could try a high percentage (maybe 20ish?) of dextrin malt like carapils or even directly adding some maltodextrin to your boil. Just a thought -- I've never done this.
 
Brew what you like, but there's a reason that style went out of...style.
Better beers became available.
I suspect you won't like it if you hit a true replica.
 
I didn't realize any style was intrinsically better than any other.
They're not. But, like it or not, our tastes are generally attuned to those things with which we are familiar.
And in most cases historically, when something goes away and is replaced by something newer, it is usually because the general public likes the new better than the old for one reason or another.

If you recall, I did say "brew what you want". I was just cautioning that replicating an historical style (that the OP has never tasted) that disappeared from history may result in disappointment. If it were generally agreed upon to be awesome, people would still be making that style.
It wasn't a "don't do that" statement or anything about sty;es being better or worse - it was more a "caveat emptor" statement.

By all means he/she should attempt to brew it, but should also be prepared for disappointment (or potential amazement - you never know).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies. 820 it is.

I am not expecting to like this beer as I dont even enjoy smoked beers all that much.
So why brew it? Because Ive never had or tasted it. I cant buy a bottle to try it so my option is to try and make it. To understand what flavors people in the past were tasting interests me.

The reason I personally homebrew is to taste something I never have tasted before. I make 2 gallon batches of obscure styles or standard styles with unique ingredients. Are some beers pretty rough? Absolutely, but its an experience.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies. 820 it is.

I am not expecting to like this beer as I dont even enjoy smoked beers all that much.
So why brew it? Because Ive never had or tasted it. I cant buy a bottle to try it so my option is to try and make it. To understand what flavors people in the past were tasting interests me.

The reason I personally homebrew is to taste something I never have tasted before. I make 2 gallon batches of obscure styles or standard styles with unique ingredients. Are some beers pretty rough? Absolutely, but its an experience.
Well especially in that light, brew away!
In fact, report back and let us know how it went, if you don't mind.
 
Back
Top