Ringwood ale, the greatest British yeast for British beer.

[Landlord]

I just love Ringwood ale yeast (wyeast, whitelabs, escarpment doesnt matter).

Sure it needs a proper D-rest ( I do 2 days at 25°C) but not really anymore than wlp002 does for example.
I find it works best when you give it an aggressive amount of pure O2, and a healthy pitch rate.
It drops real bright, no need for finings with this strain.
I've heard people complain that it sometimes fails to finish. However, I always get great attentuation out of it.
Its got good alcohol tolerance- makes a great barley wine/old ale.
If you ask me it has the best flavour profile of any of the british yeasts out there. I find beers made with this yeast are hugely malty, and have fantastic nice esters, and a real creamy mouthfeel. I like it in dark beers and in hoppy beers. I bet you could make a fantastic NEIPA with this yeast. I get a ton of marmalade from this yeast (way more than 002), and I find it way more characterful than for example 002, or 1338. Plus its maltier, and in my opinion even more Yorkshire than 1469 (which some folks are saying is from essex anyway).

Maybe I am attached to Ringwood, because it was the first yeast I ever homebrewed with, and as a kid I used to go on fishing holidays to Ringwood on the beatiful Hampshire Avon, where fish seem to grow bigger than anywhere else in the country. However, if I had to choose only one yeast to brew with forever it would be the good old Ringwood for sure.

But it doesnt seem to get much love from homebrewers.

 

[shoreman]

Some people just don't like the "butter" in this yeast - that's why it doesn't get love, people can have different levels of sensitivity to Diacetyl, maybe you don't. Gritty McDuffs in Maine has been using it forever as well as Shipyard and there is certainly a good amount of butter in the aroma.

I'm partial to Conan for an English Yeast - its an incredibly versatile English strain.

 

[Landlord]

Well...agreed Ringwood can be a butter bomb...if you dont do a D-rest. However, wlp002 (or any other high floculating )british yeast will also throw a lot of diacytel too if you are not careful. But given a good D-rest ringwood is tastier in my opinion.

I suspect the butter with those breweries might be because was as much associated with rushing the fermentation, as much as the strain. I remember reading that the dude who set up those breweries used Ringwood (Alan Pugsly), because it was a fast fermenter, and he wanted to get the beer out quick to save $. That was his thing.

http://allaboutbeer.com/article/with-alan-pugsley/

Curiously, Pugsly suggests that ringwood is a dual strain yeast, and the wyeast, whitelabs, escarpment ringwood yeast is single strain, so it might not even be proper deal, or at least only half of it

I've never tried CONAN yeast. Ive always kind of figured cos it was marketed as an americanish strain that it would be too "clean" for my taste. I see its supposed to originate in the UK, but I cant seem to find out which brewery its from. I read somewhere that CONAN might be the other half of the ringwood dual strain. Perhaps I might try pitching both a once. I was also thinking of asking brewlabs in the uk to see if they have a dual strain ringwood (Hull) yeast ( apparently they have collections of stuff like this!).

 

[shoreman]

Thanks for the link.

Conan flocs really well and cleans up nicely in quick time so might have some ringwood in its background. I starting using it initially for hoppy New England IPA beers but tried it in my Rye Mild that has barely any hops in it and was shocked at the clarity on it. Just primary, to keg and sat for 2 weeks - crystal clear.

Ferments best at 68 which works well with my cellar temps & spare bedroom temps in winter. Give it a go.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Other brewers positively seek out slow fermenters, as they offer the chance of more control over fermentation.

Curiously, Pugsly suggests that ringwood is a dual strain yeast, and the wyeast, whitelabs, escarpment ringwood yeast is single strain, so it might not even be proper deal, or at least only half of it.

Not curious at all - it's absolutely normal for British breweries to use multistrains, at the very least one strain for flavour and one for attenuation (but in some cases 10+ strains), whereas it's much easier for the homebrew labs to sell single strains. AIUI the original Hull yeast had four main strains, most of the Pugsley breweries use two. Interestingly the Wyeast and White Lab versions are less related than usual, I suspect they got their Ringwoods from different breweries.

There's no link between Conan and Ringwood, that's just something someone got excited about because the original name that Greg Noonan gave to Conan was VPB-1188. But that's probably got more to do with the Vermont Pub & Brewery opening in November 1988 than anything to do with Ringwood.

In fact sequencing suggests Conan is closest to 1968, which in turn is closer to WLP041 and 1332 than it is to WLP002. So while Greg has always been deliberately vague about the source of Conan beyond "when I was in England", my guess is that it's probably a mutated version of a Gale's yeast.

 

[Landlord]

Interesting, cheers Northern brewer.

I've used the whitelabs and my local yeast labs strain (escarpment labs-awesome yeast) of "Ringwood", but admitedly Ive never used the wyeast version. I know that "Ringwood" is supposed to be a fast fermenter, but really, at my homebrew scale it doesnt seem to be noticably quicker than any other british yeast ive tried (1318,wl002,notty,SO4,1469). I am simply loving the flavour profile of a bitter I just brewed with that EL ringwood yeast...

The escarpment labs version is the one I am currently using, and I think it makes and awesome bitter. The guys who run the lab often do talks at my local homebrew club, I will try and find out (unofficially) where they get there strains from. I noticed for example that their (EL) wpl002/1968 equivilent seems to floc even faster than wyeast/white labs brands.

I didn't realise that anyone had sequenced out the different brands, and that the yeast origins differred across brands. Have you got a link for that work, I'd be fascinated to look at that. I guess in the end the sequencing provides information regarding the pedigree and could give info for example is it a saisony type yeast, but I guess they dont know what genes drive the behaviour of the yeast. I always figured that you woudlnt be able to distinguish between a 1968 and 002 beer side by side, all things being equal, even if the origins are different?

I did see the gallone stuff, (and the suregork interpretation) but it looked like the actual versions/brands behind the code names were a bit of a guess, and it was all whitelabs stuff and not wyeast right? I didnt realise sequencing had gone as far as discriminating between wyeast and whitelabs versions. Also did they include dual strains in these comparisons? Again Id love to see some links to back up these statements. Its not that I dont believe you, I'm just curious (interested).

I am also curious how these dual strains work, how do the breweries stop one strain becoming dominant, if they are repitching over thousands of generations? I see for example that brewlabs sell slants of duel strains. Whats the best way to do it on a homebrew level? keep seperate starters of the strains (and just harvest from the seperate starters) and just pitch 50:50? How could I even do that with a single vial?

Interesting link too..is that a local brewery for you?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

The guys who run the lab often do talks at my local homebrew club, I will try and find out (unofficially) where they get there strains from. I noticed for example that their (EL) wpl002/1968 equivilent seems to floc even faster than wyeast/white labs brands.

Foggy London is the one I'm intrigued by, assuming it's somewhere in the 1318/WLP066 family as I don't really believe any of the official origin stories out there.

I guess in the end the sequencing provides information regarding the pedigree and could give info for example is it a saisony type yeast, but I guess they dont know what genes drive the behaviour of the yeast.

We do a bit - the POF gene cassette that produces "Belgian" phenolics is the best known, also the STA gene that generates the over-attenuation of diastaticus strains. But at the moment we're drowning in data, sequencing DNA is a lot easier than the painstaking work of linking sequences to phenotype. It just takes time, money and bodies.

I always figured that you woudlnt be able to distinguish between a 1968 and 002 beer side by side, all things being equal, even if the origins are different?

I think in a lot of cases that people allow a claim of a common origin to blind them to brewing differences. That's certainly the case with WLP001 and 1056 which are not the same.

I did see the gallone stuff, (and the suregork interpretation) but it looked like the actual versions/brands behind the code names were a bit of a guess, and it was all whitelabs stuff and not wyeast right? I didnt realise sequencing had gone as far as discriminating between wyeast and whitelabs versions.

See Suregork's latest missive from November.

Also did they include dual strains in these comparisons? Again Id love to see some links to back up these statements. Its not that I dont believe you, I'm just curious (interested).

Only kveiks from Richard Preiss. The main sequencing effort has involved commercial homebrew yeasts which are almost all single strains - and as part of sequencing you would pick a single colony to start with, academic yeast people only really think in terms of single strains in the same way that eg physicists ignore friction and anything else from the real world that would mess up their work!

I am also curious how these dual strains work, how do the breweries stop one strain becoming dominant, if they are repitching over thousands of generations? I see for example that brewlabs sell slants of duel strains. Whats the best way to do it on a homebrew level? keep seperate starters of the strains (and just harvest from the seperate starters) and just pitch 50:50? How could I even do that with a single vial?

It generally relies on having the right strains that fall into equilibrium with each other over time, you can't just do it with any old mix of strains. Sometimes it goes wrong even for the big boys, and through history it's not uncommon for breweries to simplify their yeast, particularly in the 1970s when a lot of them went down to one (eg Fuller's) or two (Adnams) strains as they moved to conicals which upset the old equilibrium. You could try just repitching the Brewlab dual strains and hope they stay in balance, alternatively you could streak them out, perhaps on selective medium, and see if you can pick out the two different strains. Proper microbiology that!

Interesting link too..is that a local brewery for you?

??

 

[Landlord]

Wow that new stuff from suregork is really neat. Cheers for the link mr northern brewer.
Its a shame they cant sequence the brewlabs collection!

 

[STMF]

Wow that new stuff from suregork is really neat. Cheers for the link mr northern brewer.
Its a shame they cant sequence the brewlabs collection!

Yeah, there should be a kickstarter or similar where one could chip in to help.

 

[SteveHeff]

I recently used Ringwood, for the first time, on a stout I brewed. It definitely has a buttery finish. It's not a bad flavor, just not what I expected in my finished beer. I will probably go back to 1084 or 1762 to ferment with, but I'm glad I used Ringwood.

 

[Landlord]

I recently used Ringwood, for the first time, on a stout I brewed. It definitely has a buttery finish. It's not a bad flavor, just not what I expected in my finished beer. I will probably go back to 1084 or 1762 to ferment with, but I'm glad I used Ringwood.

Did you give it a decent Diaceytel rest? I usually bump it up at the end of fermentation from 68°F to like 75° for a good couple of days, and that eliminates any butter. You definately need temperature control for ringwood. Never tried 1084 thats supposed to be Guiness right?

 

[SteveHeff]

Did you give it a decent Diaceytel rest? I usually bump it up at the end of fermentation from 68°F to like 75° for a good couple of days, and that eliminates any butter. You definately need temperature control for ringwood. Never tried 1084 thats supposed to be Guiness right?

I fermented it at 68-70F for 2 weeks. Before I read this thread, I had no idea that the butter flavor could be expected. This is at least giving me the confidence to attempt this yeast, again, with better expectations.

And yes, 1084 is the traditional Guiness yeast. It can have a similar buttery or butterscotch finish.

 

[Landlord]

Ringwood certainly is a tricky beast...however if you treat her right (big pitch, plenty of pure O2, and a proper D rest), you get very flavourful, rich, malty, bright, and fruity ales.

Most ale yeasts can throw a bit of diacytel, personally I always raise fermentation temps by a couple of degrees at the end of fermentation (even when not using ringwood). Some people suggest that you even need to rouse Ringwood yeast during fermentation (stir up the yeast), but Ive never found this neccessary.

I guess 1318 is "trendy" nowadays, but if you ask me that is because it is one of the cleaner British yeasts, more suited to American styles.

 

[rhys333]

I like what Ringwood brings to a beer and I've never experienced the butter effect. It can be a finicky bugger though, so I opt for 1968 instead more often than not.

 

[Landlord]

I dont think I've ever tried 1968 but I've found wlp 002 (and the escarpment british ale 1 equivelent) can also be a tricky and in my experience need a good D-rest too. Not bad but not as malty and fruity as Ringwood though in my opinion.

 

[Landlord]

Looking at the suregork reference, it looks like ringwood is fairly closely related to the whitelabs rochforte strain. That makes sense to me, ringwood brewed ales seem to me to have a similar ester quality to Rocheforte beers. I think you could make a fine belgian dubbel with ringwood at 75°F. One day I am gonna have to try it.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Be careful, don't accept the traditional links between breweries and homebrew strains too literally, there's a lot of them that seem rather dodgy.

Also don't assume that just because two strains are quite close genetically, that they will necessarily brew in a similar way. You're very closely related to your mother and sister, but I assume you act and behave rather differently! There's some classic examples in the yeast world - an obvious one is T-58 which is closely related to the Windsor/S-33 group and in terms of esters and general behaviour it is recognisably similar, but has the POF gene cassette so typically it produces peppery phenolics in wort.

And WLP540 is pretty weird by Belgian standards - which is probably why I like Rochefort so much, if there's a connection there, but that won't make it produce particularly "typical" Belgian beers.

 

[Suicid]

Hi folks!
It is first time I use wyeast 1187 ringwood ale and I am experiencing an issue with at the moment.
1 smack pack into 2L starter, now 3 days in oxygenated 1.066 at 21c and no signs of life by now.

I had a peeked into fermenter and there are no signs of krauzen, just a very little bubbles near the walls and rest rather still.

According to your experience, should I wait more or 72h is enough to say that yeast failed and I can pitch another yeast? Unfortunately no more ringwood on hands, but only S-04

@Landlord @Northern_Brewer

 

[Landlord]

I would say RDHAHB, take a gravity reading, or even just taste the starter wort. It may well have fermented out. Its very possible that you either missed the krausen- Ringwood can be all done in the 1st 24hrs, even 12hrs in a well oxygenated starter, on a stir plate. Is the starter wort cloudy or clear?

Also while ringwood is often quoted as being a big top fermenting top cropping strain, I think that the wyeast and whitelabs versions, dont always behave that way. Sometimes it will ferment from the bottom. I think the wy and wlp versions of ringwood (and most yeast) are acclimatized to tower fermentations, and lean towards bottom fermentation. Even the NCYC1887 version is considered as a poor head former, there is a nice paper here on it:
sci-hub.tw/10.1002/yea.3052

Actually thats a neat paper, figure 1, gives a nice visual of Ringwood's propensity to throw butter (VDK in panel a), but also ability to throw lovely fruity esters (panel C and D, iso-amyl acetate and ethyl acetate).

Also No big deal but also probably best to keep starters worts to around the 1040, for optimum yeast growth

 

[Suicid]

HI again guys

Well first they couldn't take off now they can't stop Bubbling almost 2 weeks @21c (haven't check gravity yet tho)

Is it normal behavior for 1187?

 

[Landlord]

Probably just be offgassing- rather than actually fermenting.

The only way to tell is to take a hydrometer reading. Generally, I would expect fermentation to be long finished by 2 weeks though, with any ale yeast (unless its a big beer?), including Ringwood. Alternatively, underpitching and failure to provide adequate O2 can cause sluggish fermentations.

 

[HTH1975]

Probably just be offgassing- rather than actually fermenting.

The only way to tell is to take a hydrometer reading. Generally, I would expect fermentation to be long finished by 2 weeks though, with any ale yeast (unless its a big beer?), including Ringwood. Alternatively, underpitching and failure to provide adequate O2 can cause sluggish fermentations.

Agreed - two weeks is a LONG time for any ale of modest gravity to be fermenting. I find most of my beers are at FG within 4-5 days. If I’m dry hopping, I’ll add them around this time. If not, I’ll add finings and chill for a few days before bottling at day 10-14. I don’t want it hanging round in the FV any longer than necessary.

 

[MaCheFai]

So glad I found this thread! I'm getting ready to brew a big malty IPA with big citrus charges late and in whirlpool. I've read that ringwood can throw some nice juicy citrus, but does anyone have a temp recommendation to achieve this w/o producing the off flavors? I was planning on starting at 65 and ramping up ton 68, then the final DR at 72 at the end. But if someone's experienced optimal temps to achieve citrus flavors, would love to hear about it! Any advice is appreciated!

 

[HTH1975]

So glad I found this thread! I'm getting ready to brew a big malty IPA with big citrus charges late and in whirlpool. I've read that ringwood can throw some nice juicy citrus, but does anyone have a temp recommendation to achieve this w/o producing the off flavors? I was planning on starting at 65 and ramping up ton 68, then the final DR at 72 at the end. But if someone's experienced optimal temps to achieve citrus flavors, would love to hear about it! Any advice is appreciated!

I can’t say specifically what temperature will give you citrus esters, but I’ve always used Ringwood at around 22C

 

[MaCheFai]

I can’t say specifically what temperature will give you citrus esters, but I’ve always used Ringwood at around 22C

How would you describe the characteristics at that temp?

 

[HTH1975]

How would you describe the characteristics at that temp?

I don’t think it’s a massively estery yeast tbh. One of the Yorkshire yeasts May be better if you want strong esters.

 

[Landlord]

ive never got cirtrus flavour from ringwood, or to be honest any other yeast. Typically, I associate citrus flavours with hops rather than yeast. I find ringwood can give a nice pineapple ester though.

At the risk of being a pedant, ringwood is a yorkshire yeast, or at least has yorkshire roots, it is supposed to originate from an old hull brewery.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Not any Hull brewery but *The* Hull Brewery Co, where Peter Austin worked before Ringwood. It was eventually bought by Mansfield in the 1980s.

But it's debatable whether Hull is really part of Yorkshire, historically it was a county borough separate from the East Riding and was autonomous in all sorts of odd ways, it had its own phone company for instance, separate from the main Post Office/BT network (which became Kingston Communications and now KCom).

 

[Landlord]

Not any Hull brewery but *The* Hull Brewery Co, where Peter Austin worked before Ringwood. It was eventually bought by Mansfield in the 1980s.

But it's debatable whether Hull is really part of Yorkshire, historically it was a county borough separate from the East Riding and was autonomous in all sorts of odd ways, it had its own phone company for instance, separate from the main Post Office/BT network (which became Kingston Communications and now KCom).

I'm originally from down south (Chichester, near portsmouth), its all the same to me, anything north of the downs is pretty much Yorkshire to me!

However, go tell a Hullensian that they are not in proper Yorkshire lad/lass and see what they have to say about that!