WY1968, but without the esters?

[thunderaxe]

hi guys, i'm looking for a yeast recommendation for my porter. my ideal yeast would be something that, like WY1968/WLP002 finishes a little sweet and accentuates the malts, and flocs like a beast (too many yeasties ending up in my bottles and overpowering the taste in every other strain i've used so far), but without the fruity esters that this strain has. i just want a clean, sweet, malty, chocolatey porter.

i've been looking through yeast strains and WLP037 (the samuel smith's strain iirc) and WY1728 (scottish ale) seem promising. anybody use those and care to share their experiences, or recommend something else instead? how about W-34/70?

 

[thehaze]

If you want to avoid the esters, you could try a different yeast strain, something in the line of " clean " fermenting yeasts, like 001/US-05, Nottingham, maybe 007.

WY1728 is also great at lower temperature, as it will not produce as much esters, making it a pretty versatile strain, for both hoppier styles and maltier ones.

A lager strain will also be nice, I think. Imperial Baltic Porters are traditionally fermented with lager yeast, in order to let the malts shine. I love Baltic Porters, as they really are malt forward and the focus is on the grain bill complexity.

 

[thunderaxe]

If you want to avoid the esters, you could try a different yeast strain, something in the line of " clean " fermenting yeasts, like 001/US-05, Nottingham, maybe 007.

okay but US-05/001 floccs terribly, whereas notty and 007 have very high attenuation.

my next beer (not the one i'm asking about in this thread) is a baltic porter i'm using W-34/70 for. depending on its performance i might use it for this one.

 

[kccoop07]

Have you tried using WY1968 but pushing for reduced esters, e.g. overpitching @ 64F, and maybe fermenting under pressure? I'd think it could be clean enough to hide in a porter.

 

[bierhaus15]

The yeast you want is WY1768 or WLP033. They are both the Young's strain.

Ferments much cleaner than 1968 and without the diacetyl. Flavor lets the hops/malts come through, but with enough English esters to add complexity. Flocculates great.

http://www.wyeastlab.com/yeast-strain/english-special-bitter

Although, WY1028 is excellent for porters as well.

 

[thunderaxe]

The yeast you want is WY1768 or WLP033. They are both the Young's strain.

Ferments much cleaner than 1968 and without the diacetyl. Flavor lets the hops/malts come through, but with enough English esters to add complexity. Flocculates great.

http://www.wyeastlab.com/yeast-strain/english-special-bitter

Although, WY1028 is excellent for porters as well.

Thanks for this. Any idea how it compares to WLP037, or WY1469 for that matter?

 

[trav77]

WY1275 Thames Valley might be a good choice.

 

[thunderaxe]

WY1275 Thames Valley might be a good choice.

sounds good except for the low flocculation. right now i have a package of WY1450 (denny's favourite), the description of which sounded perfect (clean but malt-focussed) except for the low flocculation. oh well i guess that is what i bought the biofine for...

 

[stevehaun]

Have you tried 1968 at 64F for the first 96 hours? 1028 would be another option.

 

[trav77]

sounds good except for the low flocculation. right now i have a package of WY1450 (denny's favourite), the description of which sounded perfect (clean but malt-focussed) except for the low flocculation. oh well i guess that is what i bought the biofine for...

Never had a problem with Thames valley flocking. In fact I just made an NEIPA using it and despite all my best intentions to keep it hazy it insists on clearing.