Saflager-23 for a Bock?

[Talgrath]

So, I was looking into doing a bock at about 1.070 gravity, after looking into exactly how much yeast starter I'd have to make to properly pitch using liquid yeast and finding the numbers ran into the 1.5 gallon range even with two packets, I ran the calculations with two packets of dry yeast and found the numbers work just great with two packets. I did some research and Saflager-23 is recommended for a bock on a few sites, I was wondering if anyone had made a bock with this yeast and if anyone had compared it to WPL 833 which a lot of sites seem to recommend for bocks in general.

 

[Schmoltsbeer]

I haven't used S-23, so forgive my interjection, but I recently used 34/70 on a Bock that was harvested yeast from a light (color) lager. It turned out pretty well. On top of that I used a quick lager method for both beers, with no complaints. I read too many off-reviews of S-23 so I opted not to use it.

 

[estricklin]

I am guessing your brewing a 10 gallon batch?

I brew mostly lagers and I love S-23. I was better able to understand it's flavor profile when I started using it in my BMC clone, it can be a bit fruity and have a strange sort of sweetness when it hasn't been left to lager for a few weeks, but nothing crazy. I really never detect any sulfur from it in the finished product either. I've used it at ale temperatures loads of times as well.

I've saved it for up to 6 generations before too and didn't notice any wild changes.

Comparing it to 34/70 is hard for me because I never needed 34/70 really because I was always so attached to S-23, but maybe....maybe 34/70 is a bit cleaner. I just brewed a pumpkin lager with 34/70 though, was fantastic! I do not know about the attenuation of 34/70 vs. S-23 but I've had no problems getting S-23 down to lower than 1.004 or so for my American lite lager clone. Actually, I'm going to try 34/70 on my next batch of it just to try and learn it's flavor a bit better.

Either one you choose you can't go wrong. When dry yeast is available for the particular style of beer I want to brew, I use it. No starter, no risk of contamination or worrying about how healthy the yeast are either. I don't know if I've ever used 833 or not, so I can't help you to compare. Personally, I would choose the 34/70 though, and leave the S-23 for when you want a nice fruity German Pils or an IPL. I think I used 920 on my last batch of Bock and I don't even remember why I chose it now.

 

[badlee]

Not in a bock,but I used 23 in a Baltic Porter which was mind blowingly good!
I let it ferment at about 13c for two weeks and gave it a 48hr d-rest in the high 20s c.
Great yeast

 

[Weezy]

I'd use the 34/70 for the bock. S23 is a nice yeast but it is not a great attenuator and leaves beers flush if not sweet. 833 is between the two imho. I like s23 and use it often in the winter for random house lagers. If you use the S23 mash low, like 148.

 

[estricklin]

Not in a bock,but I used 23 in a Baltic Porter which was mind blowingly good!
I let it ferment at about 13c for two weeks and gave it a 48hr d-rest in the high 20s c.
Great yeast

I love brewing porters with a lager yeast.......heck I like brewing any beer with lager yeast though!

 

[Talgrath]

I am guessing your brewing a 10 gallon batch?

I brew mostly lagers and I love S-23. I was better able to understand it's flavor profile when I started using it in my BMC clone, it can be a bit fruity and have a strange sort of sweetness when it hasn't been left to lager for a few weeks, but nothing crazy. I really never detect any sulfur from it in the finished product either. I've used it at ale temperatures loads of times as well.

I've saved it for up to 6 generations before too and didn't notice any wild changes.

Comparing it to 34/70 is hard for me because I never needed 34/70 really because I was always so attached to S-23, but maybe....maybe 34/70 is a bit cleaner. I just brewed a pumpkin lager with 34/70 though, was fantastic! I do not know about the attenuation of 34/70 vs. S-23 but I've had no problems getting S-23 down to lower than 1.004 or so for my American lite lager clone. Actually, I'm going to try 34/70 on my next batch of it just to try and learn it's flavor a bit better.

Either one you choose you can't go wrong. When dry yeast is available for the particular style of beer I want to brew, I use it. No starter, no risk of contamination or worrying about how healthy the yeast are either. I don't know if I've ever used 833 or not, so I can't help you to compare. Personally, I would choose the 34/70 though, and leave the S-23 for when you want a nice fruity German Pils or an IPL. I think I used 920 on my last batch of Bock and I don't even remember why I chose it now.

Hrrrm, good to hear yeast wise. I'm not brewing a 10 gallon batch, just a standard 5 gallon batch, at 1.070 for a lager according to the yeast calculators I would need to either use 5 liquid vials (at about $35 for all that), 2 packets of dry yeast with a small starter or an absolutely massive starter, something like 5 liters with 2 vials or 1 dry packet.

 

[Talgrath]

I'd use the 34/70 for the bock. S23 is a nice yeast but it is not a great attenuator and leaves beers flush if not sweet. 833 is between the two imho. I like s23 and use it often in the winter for random house lagers. If you use the S23 mash low, like 148.

I was planning to mash at 140F first rest, 158F second rest. I think I'm going to try S23, if only because my local brewery supply shop doesn't carry 34/70 and I want to brew this weekend when I'll have a ton of time.

 

[estricklin]

Hrrrm, good to hear yeast wise. I'm not brewing a 10 gallon batch, just a standard 5 gallon batch, at 1.070 for a lager according to the yeast calculators I would need to either use 5 liquid vials (at about $35 for all that), 2 packets of dry yeast with a small starter or an absolutely massive starter, something like 5 liters with 2 vials or 1 dry packet.

Ok ya 1.070 comes out to exactly what you say with a 1.0 mil/ml pitching rate. I don't brew a lot of high gravity beers because I don't care for them as much so off the top of my head 1 packet seemed like plenty. For what's it's worth Beersmith says you'd only need a .66L starter with 1 vial of liquid, so if you made a starter with dry I bet a 1/2 gallon would get you up to a nice 1.5 mil/ml pitching rate that some prefer. At the same time, I can't blame you for not wanting to make a starter!

Definitely let us know how your bock turns out!

Edit:

I don't really understand the .66 L thing, I mean can you really grow 100 billion cells to 320 with a starter that small even if you are using a stir plate? Now starting with a dry packet I might believe because more because you'd be starting with something like 200 billion I think.

 

[Talgrath]

Ok ya 1.070 comes out to exactly what you say with a 1.0 mil/ml pitching rate. I don't brew a lot of high gravity beers because I don't care for them as much so off the top of my head 1 packet seemed like plenty. For what's it's worth Beersmith says you'd only need a .66L starter with 1 vial of liquid, so if you made a starter with dry I bet a 1/2 gallon would get you up to a nice 1.5 mil/ml pitching rate that some prefer. At the same time, I can't blame you for not wanting to make a starter!

Definitely let us know how your bock turns out!

Edit:

I don't really understand the .66 L thing, I mean can you really grow 100 billion cells to 320 with a starter that small even if you are using a stir plate? Now starting with a dry packet I might believe because more because you'd be starting with something like 200 billion I think.

I aim for a 1.75 pitch rate for lagers, myself, I debated about aiming for a 2.00 pitch rate, but I felt that this lager is not high enough gravity to warrant it, plus I don't mind some ester flavors in a bock from a slight underpitching.