Yeast attenuation/is this an okay substitute?

[Sharkness]

So I have a specific question, however I also really like to understand the underlying logic to the answer.

I'd like to brew the Northern Brewer hope and King Scotch ale, however my local homebrew shop doesn't carry the recommended Wyeast 1098. What they are trying to sell me in place of it is white Labs WLP045. On the spec sheets what I notice is the difference between attenuation and flocculation. 1098 is rated at 73-75% attenuation and medium flocculation, whereas WLP045 is 75-80% and high flocculation by their own report. Is this a viable substitute? I'd love to get a starter going today, so I don't want to have to order yeast but I will if it's worth it.

 

[m00ps]

That seems like an uncommon yeast. White Labs says its historically used for whiskey and good for "high gravity" beers. Whats the OG of this recipe?

I'd more soon use WLP004 - Irish Ale yeast or one of the other english yeasts. I was deciding between WY1318 and WY1098 for a English strain to keep for ranching and went with 1318 and I love it. I'd say anything that's labeled as an English beer yeast will be OK, maybe a bit different but I dont think itll be worse

 

[kh54s10]

I don't know about the WL045 Scotch WHISKEY yeast.

I have used WL028 Edinburgh Scotch Ale Yeast and liked the results. I would see if they have any of it.

 

[helibrewer]

WLP 005 is a good sub for 1098, they are both British Ale yeasts. There shouldn't be any issue using the whiskey yeast. A distillers fermentation is usually around 10% ABV

 

[Sharkness]

OG is 1.06. What would be the problem with using a high attenuation yeast? High alcohol, different taste?

 

[LLBeanJ]

I don't know about the WL045 Scotch WHISKEY yeast.

I have used WL028 Edinburgh Scotch Ale Yeast and liked the results. I would see if they have any of it.

+1

For a Scotch ale, I'd use a Scottish ale yeast, regardless of what NB is calling for their recipe. WLP028 is going to be very similar to 1098 in both attenuation and flocculation.

 

[mkeckjr]

+2

I would definitely use either WLP028 or WY1728, which are Scottish ale yeasts. Traditionally you aren't looking for much of an ester profile in a Scottish ale, and these ferment pretty clean at the 62 F range. WY1098 isn't quite that clean, so I wouldn't use that in the first place. I consider WLP005, the Ringwood strain, to also be too estery for the style. If you can't get a hold of the Scottish ale yeast strains mentioned, I would go with an Irish ale yeast like WLP004 or a clean American ale yeast like WLP001/WY1056/US-05 to get a more traditionally accurate profile for a Scotch ale.

 

[Sharkness]

Thanks guys. I'll update. Any recommended readings on flocculation and attenuation. I know what The terms mean, I'm just curious about their impact on the final product.

 

[fizgig]

I like 1728 for Scottish/Scotch Ales

 

[Sharkness]

Gonna try WLP004 cause it's what they had and I'm impatient.

 

[Talgrath]

From experience, trying to swap in any non-scotch ale yeast for a scotch ale will result in a distinctly non scotch ale flavor, the yeast and the mash pretty much makes the beer.

 

[kh54s10]

It will be beer and likely very good. But if you want to make a Scotch Ale, IMO, you need to use a Scotch yeast.

So using WL004 I would call it an Irish Ale.

Or do as I do. Use different combinations of malt and hops from Europe, US and New Zealand etc. and whatever yeast is handy, give it whatever name comes to mind and call it BEER.

 

[mkeckjr]

I respectfully disagree with the previous two posts. To be in-style for a Scottish ale (or almost any beer), it is not about what specific yeast/ingredients you use, it's about the perception of the finished product. For Scottish ales (please see guidelines here: http://bjcp.org/2008styles/style09.php) you want a yeast with a very low ester profile and no sulfur. This is one of the few styles that allows a little diacetyl in the finished product, but as you can see it's optional. This is why WLP001 and WLP004 are very reasonable substitutes, with the Irish one probably being the better choice of the two; it will perform very similarly to a Scottish ale yeast.

I also think that this beer is not at all about the mash. It's about the boil and the clean fermentation. A key differentiator for this style versus others is the melanoidin character it has, which is kind of like a kettle-caramelized sweetness. Traditionally it was achieved in Scottish ales by a very long boil (many hours). People try to achieve that character at the homebrew level by taking the first runnings of the mash, which has a very high gravity, and boiling it down by itself on the stove top while doing the main boil with the rest of the runnings. This increased gravity in the first runnings leads to more frequent Maillard reactions in that boil, producing the desired melanoidin character. I recently brewed a Scottish 80/- ale using this technique which is on tap now, and it worked very well. For the interested reader, I think the treatment Noonan gave to this topic in his book "Scottish Ale" is excellent; it's my favorite book in the Classic Style Series.

Notably homebrewers are also attempting to get the desired character through combinations of specialty malts. Jamil Zainasheff is a big proponent of this, and I would suggest either listening to his podcast on this style, or reading his short write-up on the topic and his recipe in his book "Brewing Classic Styles".

 

[Talgrath]

I respectfully disagree with the previous two posts. To be in-style for a Scottish ale (or almost any beer), it is not about what specific yeast/ingredients you use, it's about the perception of the finished product. For Scottish ales (please see guidelines here: http://bjcp.org/2008styles/style09.php) you want a yeast with a very low ester profile and no sulfur. This is one of the few styles that allows a little diacetyl in the finished product, but as you can see it's optional. This is why WLP001 and WLP004 are very reasonable substitutes, with the Irish one probably being the better choice of the two; it will perform very similarly to a Scottish ale yeast.

I also think that this beer is not at all about the mash. It's about the boil and the clean fermentation. A key differentiator for this style versus others is the melanoidin character it has, which is kind of like a kettle-caramelized sweetness. Traditionally it was achieved in Scottish ales by a very long boil (many hours). People try to achieve that character at the homebrew level by taking the first runnings of the mash, which has a very high gravity, and boiling it down by itself on the stove top while doing the main boil with the rest of the runnings. This increased gravity in the first runnings leads to more frequent Maillard reactions in that boil, producing the desired melanoidin character. I recently brewed a Scottish 80/- ale using this technique which is on tap now, and it worked very well. For the interested reader, I think the treatment Noonan gave to this topic in his book "Scottish Ale" is excellent; it's my favorite book in the Classic Style Series.

Notably homebrewers are also attempting to get the desired character through combinations of specialty malts. Jamil Zainasheff is a big proponent of this, and I would suggest either listening to his podcast on this style, or reading his short write-up on the topic and his recipe in his book "Brewing Classic Styles".

I'd say disregarding mash style would be a big mistake, personally. For Scottish ales you definitely need to go for a sweeter mash. Yeast absolutely matters too, an Irish is close, but personally I'd wait a bit and order the yeast online if your local place doesn't have it. Now, I've heard people talk about using the first runnings boil as well, but I didn't notice a difference when I tried the technique, that said I also typically boil my beers for 90 minutes so maybe I'm getting those flavors by default. What really seemed to bring out the Scottish ale flavor though was doing a very sweet mash (minimal amount of time, usually twenty minutes, at lower temperatures for basic fermentability) and using an authentic Scottish ale yeast. Anything else and the beer doesn't taste like a Scottish ale, it tastes like a sweet stout (nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it wasn't what I was aiming for).

 

[mkeckjr]

I'd say disregarding mash style would be a big mistake, personally. For Scottish ales you definitely need to go for a sweeter mash. Yeast absolutely matters too, an Irish is close, but personally I'd wait a bit and order the yeast online if your local place doesn't have it. Now, I've heard people talk about using the first runnings boil as well, but I didn't notice a difference when I tried the technique, that said I also typically boil my beers for 90 minutes so maybe I'm getting those flavors by default. What really seemed to bring out the Scottish ale flavor though was doing a very sweet mash (minimal amount of time, usually twenty minutes, at lower temperatures for basic fermentability) and using an authentic Scottish ale yeast. Anything else and the beer doesn't taste like a Scottish ale, it tastes like a sweet stout (nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it wasn't what I was aiming for).

I again am not sure one absolutely needs to go for a sweeter mash. I think if one is not using the technique described to get a lot of melanoidin production, yes, you probably want to go a little bit sweeter in the mash, so in that case, I would agree with you. But I don't think you want to go above 155 F, especially for the Wee Heavy version, because it will finish too sweet. When using the boil-down method, I prefer to mash around 152 F, so that you aren't producing dextrins on top of dextrins. At least that's what I've experienced with this style category.

I am interested in what you would consider the characteristics of a Scottish ale yeast that make it so different from an Irish ale yeast; in my opinion the two yeasts, when you consider how the beers finish, are about the same. The style column Jamil wrote on this for BYO (https://byo.com/english-scottish-strong-ale/item/2890-strong-scotch-ale-style-profile) talks a little about yeast selection, and I think as stated previously, what you are looking for is a clean-fermenting strain to emphasize maltiness. What you don't want is a lot of ester/phenol production which is why traditional English strains just won't work. Thus he suggests the use of Chico, or the McEwan's strains. I think the Guinness strain would work fine here because of its similarity to the McEwan's in the finished product.

Also, I would say if you have a Scottish ale come out tasting like a sweet stout, you may want to re-examine the grain bill, because Scottish ales really shouldn't have any perceived roast malt character. Roasted Barley should strictly be used for color, meaning a couple of ounces in a 5 gallon batch. If you have enough RB in a recipe so that it comes out tasting anything like a stout, you may be going a bit heavy-handed with the roast malts, again, considering the BJCP guidelines.

This is all just my opinion on this topic from my experience, and I'm not trying to devalue anyone else's opinion. Just hoping the information can reach someone who finds it useful.

 

[Talgrath]

I again am not sure one absolutely needs to go for a sweeter mash. I think if one is not using the technique described to get a lot of melanoidin production, yes, you probably want to go a little bit sweeter in the mash, so in that case, I would agree with you. But I don't think you want to go above 155 F, especially for the Wee Heavy version, because it will finish too sweet. When using the boil-down method, I prefer to mash around 152 F, so that you aren't producing dextrins on top of dextrins. At least that's what I've experienced with this style category.

I am interested in what you would consider the characteristics of a Scottish ale yeast that make it so different from an Irish ale yeast; in my opinion the two yeasts, when you consider how the beers finish, are about the same. The style column Jamil wrote on this for BYO (https://byo.com/english-scottish-strong-ale/item/2890-strong-scotch-ale-style-profile) talks a little about yeast selection, and I think as stated previously, what you are looking for is a clean-fermenting strain to emphasize maltiness. What you don't want is a lot of ester/phenol production which is why traditional English strains just won't work. Thus he suggests the use of Chico, or the McEwan's strains. I think the Guinness strain would work fine here because of its similarity to the McEwan's in the finished product.

Also, I would say if you have a Scottish ale come out tasting like a sweet stout, you may want to re-examine the grain bill, because Scottish ales really shouldn't have any perceived roast malt character. Roasted Barley should strictly be used for color, meaning a couple of ounces in a 5 gallon batch. If you have enough RB in a recipe so that it comes out tasting anything like a stout, you may be going a bit heavy-handed with the roast malts, again, considering the BJCP guidelines.

This is all just my opinion on this topic from my experience, and I'm not trying to devalue anyone else's opinion. Just hoping the information can reach someone who finds it useful.

From my experience, if you use anything but a scottish ale yeast it just doesn't come out right. What I mean by sweet stout is an overly sweet stout, like a stout that just isn't quite done correctly and comes out too sweet. Maybe it's my recipe or my techniques, but getting the correct flavor just doesn't seem to work unless you use the proper yeast. Even the link you brought up has recipes that use scottish yeasts only. I'm not saying using something else will give you a terrible beer or anything, I'm saying using the right yeast is what you should do if you want to actually make a scottish/scotch/wee heavy beer.