Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => Yeast and Fermentation => Topic started by: Iliff Ave on November 22, 2016, 07:28:42 am

Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 22, 2016, 07:28:42 am
I have been wanting to use S-189 but am stuck on 34/70 due to it's reliability and ease of use. How do they compare? Is there anything I should know about using S-189? Is it more prone to diacetyl? I normally ferment lagers at 50F with an accelerated schedule.

I am planning a schwarzbier soon. Would 189 be a good choice for that? What are other good styles for it? Should I ask more questions?
 
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: hopfenundmalz on November 22, 2016, 07:37:00 am
I will often divide a batch of lager and ferment with 2 or 3 yeasts to taste the differences.

I have a Dunkel that was split 3 ways, WLP-830 (34/70), WLP-833, and WLP-835 lager X. I like the 830 best on this go round.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 22, 2016, 07:45:35 am
I will often divide a batch of lager and ferment with 2 or 3 yeasts to taste the differences.

I have a Dunkel that was split 3 ways, WLP-830 (34/70), WLP-833, and WLP-835 lager X. I like the 830 best on this go round.

Is one of those yeasts the same strain as 189?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: hopfenundmalz on November 22, 2016, 08:07:33 am
I will often divide a batch of lager and ferment with 2 or 3 yeasts to taste the differences.

I have a Dunkel that was split 3 ways, WLP-830 (34/70), WLP-833, and WLP-835 lager X. I like the 830 best on this go round.

Is one of those yeasts the same strain as 189?
No, 835 Lager X=Kloster Andechs, 833=Ayinger, S-189 is Hürlimann, a Swiss brewery.
34/70 is from the Hefe Bank Weihenstephan.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 22, 2016, 08:43:30 am
I have been wanting to use S-189 but am stuck on 34/70 due to it's reliability and ease of use. How do they compare? Is there anything I should know about using S-189? Is it more prone to diacetyl? I normally ferment lagers at 50F with an accelerated schedule.

I am planning a schwarzbier soon. Would 189 be a good choice for that? What are other good styles for it? Should I ask more questions?
 

I generally think pf 189 as more for malty styles and 34/70 for styles that don't have as much body.  Both are equally easy to use and reliable.  I think for a schwarz I'd go with the 34/70.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 22, 2016, 08:54:41 am
Sadly I think they are both sad excuses for real yeast... sorry :(
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 22, 2016, 08:55:31 am
Sadly I think they are both sad excuses for real yeast... sorry :(

Thanks for your sympathy
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 22, 2016, 08:56:25 am
I have been wanting to use S-189 but am stuck on 34/70 due to it's reliability and ease of use. How do they compare? Is there anything I should know about using S-189? Is it more prone to diacetyl? I normally ferment lagers at 50F with an accelerated schedule.

I am planning a schwarzbier soon. Would 189 be a good choice for that? What are other good styles for it? Should I ask more questions?
 

I generally think pf 189 as more for malty styles and 34/70 for styles that don't have as much body.  Both are equally easy to use and reliable.  I think for a schwarz I'd go with the 34/70.

Thanks Denny
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 22, 2016, 09:30:08 am
Sadly I think they are both sad excuses for real yeast... sorry :(

Happily, many of us disagree.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: majorvices on November 22, 2016, 10:41:59 am
Sadly I think they are both sad excuses for real yeast... sorry :(

Happily, many of us disagree.

+1 - if you use dry yeast these two strains can both pull of fantastic results. I did an Imperial Pils a couple years ago that was superb. And I have subbed 34/70 for our house lager yeast (WY2124) when necessary with little perceivable difference (and quite acceptable results).
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Steve Ruch on November 22, 2016, 04:20:33 pm
I generally think pf 189 as more for malty styles and 34/70 for styles that don't have as much body.  Both are equally easy to use and reliable.  I think for a schwarz I'd go with the 34/70.

The last beer I used 34/70 on (pilsner) I got 84% attenuation and the last S-189 I used (maibock which got my second highest score ever) got 79%.
Yes on the Schwarz with 34/70.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 22, 2016, 08:19:37 pm
I generally think pf 189 as more for malty styles and 34/70 for styles that don't have as much body.  Both are equally easy to use and reliable.  I think for a schwarz I'd go with the 34/70.

The last beer I used 34/70 on (pilsner) I got 84% attenuation and the last S-189 I used (maibock which got my second highest score ever) got 79%.
Yes on the Schwarz with 34/70.

So you agree that 189 is better suited for maltier lagers as well?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: ynotbrusum on November 23, 2016, 05:52:06 am
I use S-189 on a variety of lagers, especially American focused lagers with adjuncts.  I like 2206 for most Southern German lagers, but will use 830/2124 for Northern German Pils to hit the crisp finish that seems to go well in matching the style.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: HoosierBrew on November 23, 2016, 05:56:35 am
  I like 2206 for most Southern German lagers, but will use 830/2124 for Northern German Pils to hit the crisp finish that seems to go well in matching the style.


Same here. I like the 2206 tendency to drop out pretty easily, too.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 23, 2016, 08:00:07 am
Thanks all. So 2124 is the same as 34/70 right? I've got my first pilsner/hoppy lager with 34/70 ready to keg that I am super excited about.

I am brewing an Amber Lager Friday and a Schwazbier the following week so was just considering switching it up. The Amber Lager is an adjunct lager with corn. Maybe the 189 there?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: HoosierBrew on November 23, 2016, 08:10:55 am
So 2124 is the same as 34/70 right?

Yup. Those beers sound good, too.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 09:09:40 am
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: HoosierBrew on November 23, 2016, 09:24:25 am
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.


I agree that there are definite differences in fermentation characteristics/performance between dry and liquid. I much prefer liquid cultures myself.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 09:26:44 am
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.

I really wanted to love the dry lager yeasts, not having to oxygenate your wort could have been a huge benefit, but in the end the flavor, just didn't work for me.


I agree that there are definite differences in fermentation characteristics/performance between dry and liquid. I much prefer liquid cultures myself.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Philbrew on November 23, 2016, 10:23:53 am
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.
Where I live (110 mi. to nearest LHBS), the convenience of having 6-8 different dry yeasts in the fridge is a big plus.
In my two lodo attempts so far, I've used dry yeasts in a SNS starter to get the yeast going strong and the cell count up.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 10:46:03 am
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.
Where I live (110 mi. to nearest LHBS), the convenience of having 6-8 different dry yeasts in the fridge is a big plus.
In my two lodo attempts so far, I've used dry yeasts in a SNS starter to get the yeast going strong and the cell count up.  Thoughts?

They don't fit the flavor profiles and characteristics I want in a lager yeast.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Philbrew on November 23, 2016, 12:11:51 pm
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.
Where I live (110 mi. to nearest LHBS), the convenience of having 6-8 different dry yeasts in the fridge is a big plus.
In my two lodo attempts so far, I've used dry yeasts in a SNS starter to get the yeast going strong and the cell count up.  Thoughts?

They don't fit the flavor profiles and characteristics I want in a lager yeast.
So, there is no technical problem with dry yeasts for lodo, it's just a flavor preference thing?

My two batches are still in the fermenter.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 12:36:47 pm
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.
Where I live (110 mi. to nearest LHBS), the convenience of having 6-8 different dry yeasts in the fridge is a big plus.
In my two lodo attempts so far, I've used dry yeasts in a SNS starter to get the yeast going strong and the cell count up.  Thoughts?

They don't fit the flavor profiles and characteristics I want in a lager yeast.
So, there is no technical problem with dry yeasts for lodo, it's just a flavor preference thing?

My two batches are still in the fermenter.

Besides not enough sulfur, its purely just flavor(or really off flavors).
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: ynotbrusum on November 23, 2016, 12:48:03 pm
Is it a matter of re-pitching or are you finding the trouble in the initial pitch of dry yeast?  I have noticed a little lemon in a pilsner made with 34/70, but not to the degree of making it totally unacceptable.  But I acknowledge that I much prefer repitching with liquid yeasts and 2206 is my standard operating procedure (if I have it available) on Helles and Southern German beers.  I used to also use 838 quite a bit.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 12:56:13 pm
Is it a matter of re-pitching or are you finding the trouble in the initial pitch of dry yeast?  I have noticed a little lemon in a pilsner made with 34/70, but not to the degree of making it totally unacceptable.  But I acknowledge that I much prefer repitching with liquid yeasts and 2206 is my standard operating procedure (if I have it available) on Helles and Southern German beers.  I used to also use 838 quite a bit.
Heh, any lemon in a pilsner, well the ones I try to emulate is. I couldn't get any of them using any process( initial pitch, actual correct pitch rates, reptitches, etc) to do what I needed them to. 2206, or at this point( many many generations) some variant of is my house yeast, and I love it to death. I used to use a blend of 833/838, and that was nice as well.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 23, 2016, 01:04:41 pm
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 01:21:53 pm
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?

Maybe some folks can't taste it? Maybe its how you ferment it?

Using the methods I outline here http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/uncategorized/cold-fermentation-practices/ (http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/uncategorized/cold-fermentation-practices/)

It's like a lemon drop.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 23, 2016, 01:26:27 pm
Maybe some folks can't taste it? Maybe its how you ferment it?

Using the methods I outline here http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/uncategorized/cold-fermentation-practices/ (http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/uncategorized/cold-fermentation-practices/)

It's like a lemon drop.

Obviously everyone has differences in their tasting, but there are so many people who don't have issues with it that I find it hard to believe it's the yeast itself rather than the way it's being used.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 23, 2016, 01:29:47 pm
Thankfully I have not gotten any lemon out of 34/70 yet
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 01:31:24 pm
Maybe some folks can't taste it? Maybe its how you ferment it?

Using the methods I outline here http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/uncategorized/cold-fermentation-practices/ (http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/uncategorized/cold-fermentation-practices/)

It's like a lemon drop.

Obviously everyone has differences in their tasting, but there are so many people who don't have issues with it that I find it hard to believe it's the yeast itself rather than the way it's being used.

I had little to no issues with it when I basically treated the beer like an ale. Fermented warm, ramped temp up towards the end of fermentation.. I guess using all the standards that are taught today. However when low oxygen methods are implemented you really get clarity into where process and ingredients, can hurt flavor. Thats when the issues arose.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 23, 2016, 01:35:38 pm

I had little to no issues with it when I basically treated the beer like an ale. Fermented warm, ramped temp up towards the end of fermentation.. I guess using all the standards that are taught today. However when low oxygen methods are implemented you really get clarity into where process and ingredients, can hurt flavor. Thats when the issues arose.

Interesting.  When I used it, it was with the traditional cold fermentation schedule, not the accelerated schedule.  Still no lemon.  Haven't used it since I started using the fast fermentation, but I haven't found it to make any difference with other lager yeasts.
Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: tommymorris on November 23, 2016, 01:55:57 pm
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.
Where I live (110 mi. to nearest LHBS), the convenience of having 6-8 different dry yeasts in the fridge is a big plus.
In my two lodo attempts so far, I've used dry yeasts in a SNS starter to get the yeast going strong and the cell count up.  Thoughts?

They don't fit the flavor profiles and characteristics I want in a lager yeast.
So, there is no technical problem with dry yeasts for lodo, it's just a flavor preference thing?

My two batches are still in the fermenter.

Besides not enough sulfur, its purely just flavor(or really off flavors).
I am curious about the sulfur. Do you prefer the flavor of sulfur? I know some German lagers have a sulfur flavor, but, personally, I am not a fan of that flavor. I prefer a yeast that doesn't leave sulfur flavor behind.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 01:58:10 pm
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties. For instance 34/70 can throw lemon( I have never had 2124/830 do that), and none throw enough sulfur to help you post fermentation. Also interestingly they don't have the same attenuation or floccuation characteristics. I have gone though my fair share of 500g bricks of both of these yeast, but for flavor and post fermentation protection nothing beats the liquid strains IMO, especially when you go with low oxygen brewing techniques. The game changes then.
Where I live (110 mi. to nearest LHBS), the convenience of having 6-8 different dry yeasts in the fridge is a big plus.
In my two lodo attempts so far, I've used dry yeasts in a SNS starter to get the yeast going strong and the cell count up.  Thoughts?

They don't fit the flavor profiles and characteristics I want in a lager yeast.
So, there is no technical problem with dry yeasts for lodo, it's just a flavor preference thing?

My two batches are still in the fermenter.

Besides not enough sulfur, its purely just flavor(or really off flavors).
I am curious about the sulfur. Do you prefer the flavor of sulfur? I know some German lagers have a sulfur flavor, but, personally, I am not a fan of that flavor. I prefer a yeast that doesn't leave sulfur flavor behind.

I do, but just a touch. However sulfur is a great antioxidant and will help you post fermentation to keep low DO rates, preserving flavors and helping keep away the staling ones.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: duelerx on November 23, 2016, 03:06:54 pm
I never used S-189, does this yeast bring the same maltiness as WLP-833?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Steve Ruch on November 23, 2016, 03:25:00 pm
I generally think pf 189 as more for malty styles and 34/70 for styles that don't have as much body.  Both are equally easy to use and reliable.  I think for a schwarz I'd go with the 34/70.

The last beer I used 34/70 on (pilsner) I got 84% attenuation and the last S-189 I used (maibock which got my second highest score ever) got 79%.
Yes on the Schwarz with 34/70.

So you agree that 189 is better suited for maltier lagers as well?

Yes.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: hopfenundmalz on November 23, 2016, 05:23:14 pm
I generally think pf 189 as more for malty styles and 34/70 for styles that don't have as much body.  Both are equally easy to use and reliable.  I think for a schwarz I'd go with the 34/70.

The last beer I used 34/70 on (pilsner) I got 84% attenuation and the last S-189 I used (maibock which got my second highest score ever) got 79%.
Yes on the Schwarz with 34/70.

So you agree that 189 is better suited for maltier lagers as well?

Yes.
Hurlimann used to brew Samichlaus. That is a Malty beer.  :o
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: HoosierBrew on November 23, 2016, 05:33:53 pm
Hurlimann used to brew Samichlaus. That is a Malty beer.  :o


Understatement. :)  I just tried a 10 year old Samichlaus courtesy of the owner of Great Fermentations (LHBS). I've tried it many times, never @ 10 years. It was fantastic.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: mabrungard on November 23, 2016, 06:13:53 pm
The descriptions of S-189 and W34/70 on the yeast website says that the S-189 attenuates 1% more than 34/70. In addition, it says that 189 is less fruity and is cleaner.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on November 23, 2016, 06:33:16 pm
Sadly I think they are both sad excuses for real yeast... sorry :(


I've used both with great results. I prefer dry yeast because I get ingredients thru the mail and have had a few unsuccessful results with liquid yeast. It's very 'real' for me. Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 23, 2016, 06:39:37 pm
I generally think pf 189 as more for malty styles and 34/70 for styles that don't have as much body.  Both are equally easy to use and reliable.  I think for a schwarz I'd go with the 34/70.

The last beer I used 34/70 on (pilsner) I got 84% attenuation and the last S-189 I used (maibock which got my second highest score ever) got 79%.
Yes on the Schwarz with 34/70.

So you agree that 189 is better suited for maltier lagers as well?

Yes.
Hurlimann used to brew Samichlaus. That is a Malty beer.  :o



Bet they didn't brew it with the dry equivalent of their yeast! ;D. Sorry had to.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: hopfenundmalz on November 23, 2016, 08:50:58 pm
I generally think pf 189 as more for malty styles and 34/70 for styles that don't have as much body.  Both are equally easy to use and reliable.  I think for a schwarz I'd go with the 34/70.

The last beer I used 34/70 on (pilsner) I got 84% attenuation and the last S-189 I used (maibock which got my second highest score ever) got 79%.
Yes on the Schwarz with 34/70.

So you agree that 189 is better suited for maltier lagers as well?

Yes.
Hurlimann used to brew Samichlaus. That is a Malty beer.  :o



Bet they didn't brew it with the dry equivalent of their yeast! ;D. Sorry had to.

No they didn't. i do find that some strains are close enough to use in a pinch. That is based on ale strains though.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 23, 2016, 11:11:49 pm
The descriptions of S-189 and W34/70 on the yeast website says that the S-189 attenuates 1% more than 34/70. In addition, it says that 189 is less fruity and is cleaner.

Fermentis has about the worst descriptions of their own yeast...
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 23, 2016, 11:45:11 pm
Thanks all. The goal of the thread was strictly to inquire about the differences between 34/70 and 189.

I have accepted that I am a lower tier of brewer because I don't employ LODO techniques or liquid yeast on most occasions. I get it...
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: PORTERHAUS on November 24, 2016, 03:50:11 am
Thanks all. The goal of the thread was strictly to inquire about the differences between 34/70 and 189.

I have accepted that I am a lower tier of brewer because I don't employ LODO techniques or liquid yeast on most occasions. I get it...

Makes two of us, I have many good reasons TO use dry yeasts. Anyway, I'll be following this thread, it's been a good read already. I just used 34/70 for the first time with an Amber Lager. I have brewed this recipe many times using Wyeast Bohemian Lager (the "same" strain) so I am looking forward to how they compare. In the spring I plan on giving S-189 a try for a Bock, seems that will be very fitting for the yeast.

goschman, every try any Mangrove Jack yeasts? They really kicked up their selection. They have both Bohemian and Bavarian dry lager yeasts. I have used the Bohemian and a couple other of their yeasts.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: hopfenundmalz on November 24, 2016, 04:06:25 am
Thanks all. The goal of the thread was strictly to inquire about the differences between 34/70 and 189.

I have accepted that I am a lower tier of brewer because I don't employ LODO techniques or liquid yeast on most occasions. I get it...
Brew the way you are comfortable brewing. Brew the way you can on your system. If you brew beer you like, you can be happy.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: theoman on November 24, 2016, 05:18:55 am
I'm a big fan of 37/70, but I used s-189 for my last lager and I will definitely use it again. It might even become my go-to yeast for lagers. I pitched at around 9C and ramped up over 5 or 6 days to 18 (the temp in my cellar), went on vacation, kegged it when I got back and put it in the fridge for about 3 weeks at 6-ish, then tapped. It's possibly the best lager I've brewed and definitely had the most authentic Germanic lageriness of the lagers I've brewed.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 24, 2016, 09:17:24 am
Thanks all. The goal of the thread was strictly to inquire about the differences between 34/70 and 189.

I have accepted that I am a lower tier of brewer because I don't employ LODO techniques or liquid yeast on most occasions. I get it...

Makes two of us, I have many good reasons TO use dry yeasts. Anyway, I'll be following this thread, it's been a good read already. I just used 34/70 for the first time with an Amber Lager. I have brewed this recipe many times using Wyeast Bohemian Lager (the "same" strain) so I am looking forward to how they compare. In the spring I plan on giving S-189 a try for a Bock, seems that will be very fitting for the yeast.

goschman, every try any Mangrove Jack yeasts? They really kicked up their selection. They have both Bohemian and Bavarian dry lager yeasts. I have used the Bohemian and a couple other of their yeasts.

I have not tried Mangrove Jack yet. I will have to give it a go. I mainly use fermentis unless I am brewing a kolsch as I tend to stick to American or German inspired beers. I do like their yeast for the most part if you stay away from some of the strains which don't seem to get the job done. I mainly stick with 05, K97, 34/70 and 04 every once in a while. I will use T58 if I want a mild Belgian character...

Other than the lager strains any other you recommend from MJ? I just derailed my own thread after complaining about it. Sorry...
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on November 24, 2016, 09:19:07 am
I'm a big fan of 37/70, but I used s-189 for my last lager and I will definitely use it again. It might even become my go-to yeast for lagers. I pitched at around 9C and ramped up over 5 or 6 days to 18 (the temp in my cellar), went on vacation, kegged it when I got back and put it in the fridge for about 3 weeks at 6-ish, then tapped. It's possibly the best lager I've brewed and definitely had the most authentic Germanic lageriness of the lagers I've brewed.

What did you brew with the 189?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Philbrew on November 24, 2016, 09:21:33 am
Thanks all. The goal of the thread was strictly to inquire about the differences between 34/70 and 189.

I have accepted that I am a lower tier of brewer because I don't employ LODO techniques or liquid yeast on most occasions. I get it...

Makes two of us, I have many good reasons TO use dry yeasts. Anyway, I'll be following this thread, it's been a good read already. I just used 34/70 for the first time with an Amber Lager. I have brewed this recipe many times using Wyeast Bohemian Lager (the "same" strain) so I am looking forward to how they compare. In the spring I plan on giving S-189 a try for a Bock, seems that will be very fitting for the yeast.

goschman, every try any Mangrove Jack yeasts? They really kicked up their selection. They have both Bohemian and Bavarian dry lager yeasts. I have used the Bohemian and a couple other of their yeasts.
Makes three of us.  The 110 miles one way to the LHBS is enough reason for me.

Mangrove Jack's M79 Burton Union makes a tasty bitters.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 24, 2016, 09:52:26 am
I have accepted that I am a lower tier of brewer because I don't employ LODO techniques or liquid yeast on most occasions. I get it...

That is just not true.  Homebrewing is not a contest...well, you know....
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: HoosierBrew on November 24, 2016, 11:30:47 am
I have accepted that I am a lower tier of brewer because I don't employ LODO techniques or liquid yeast on most occasions. I get it...

That is just not true.  Homebrewing is not a contest...well, you know....


Yep, not a contest at all. Just a damn fun hobby.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Steve Ruch on November 24, 2016, 03:11:23 pm
In the spring I plan on giving S-189 a try for a Bock, seems that will be very fitting for the yeast.

I made a fantastic hellesbock with it.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: theoman on November 25, 2016, 01:06:09 am
I'm a big fan of 37/70, but I used s-189 for my last lager and I will definitely use it again. It might even become my go-to yeast for lagers. I pitched at around 9C and ramped up over 5 or 6 days to 18 (the temp in my cellar), went on vacation, kegged it when I got back and put it in the fridge for about 3 weeks at 6-ish, then tapped. It's possibly the best lager I've brewed and definitely had the most authentic Germanic lageriness of the lagers I've brewed.

What did you brew with the 189?

Pretty basic, hop-forward German-ish lager. Pils, Vienna, some flaked barley and a bit of carapils. Lots of hops, mostly Saaz. If you want more specifics, I can dig up the recipe.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 25, 2016, 08:37:00 am
As with most things in life the 80/20 rule also applies here. Some people are happy where they are and some strive for more. For some this is a hobby, and some this is an obsession.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bayareabrewer on November 25, 2016, 10:40:47 am
I would switch to your lodo principles in a heartbeat if there was measurable imperial evidence that it produced superior beer. From what I see, there isn't. There are two men on the internet telling everyone who will listen about how great it is, and plugging their website at every opportunity. And comments like the one above are condescending absolutions. Sorry man, but talking down to people like that and implying people that don't adhere to your brewing technique are not striving for better beer is just rude.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bboy9000 on November 25, 2016, 11:09:08 am
In my two lodo attempts so far, I've used dry yeasts in a SNS starter to get the yeast going strong and the cell count up.  Thoughts?
Maybe I misunderstood but you don't need to do a starter with dry yeasts as the the process was done for you in the lab.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bboy9000 on November 25, 2016, 11:12:39 am
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties.
Actually the dry yeasts don't start out as the liquid equivalent and neither do the different brands of liquid yeasts.  They are often different isolates of the same strain which explains why they have slightly different characteristics.  Man I miss having Mark on the forum.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 25, 2016, 11:16:31 am
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties.
Actually the dry yeasts don't start out as the liquid equivalent and neither do the different brands of liquid yeasts.  They are often different isolates of the same strain which explains why they have slightly different characteristics.  Man I miss having Mark on the forum.

So 34/70 isn't based off of 34/70, nor is 830, or 2124?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 25, 2016, 11:21:15 am
I would switch to your lodo principles in a heartbeat if there was measurable imperial evidence that it produced superior beer. From what I see, there isn't. There are two men on the internet telling everyone who will listen about how great it is, and plugging their website at every opportunity. And comments like the one above are condescending absolutions. Sorry man, but talking down to people like that and implying people that don't adhere to your brewing technique are not striving for better beer is just rude.

Thank you


LOL- Pot meet kettle!

Many of your very own are seeing quite nice results...

Anywho-I was simply trying to say to each their own.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 25, 2016, 11:25:27 am
In my two lodo attempts so far, I've used dry yeasts in a SNS starter to get the yeast going strong and the cell count up.  Thoughts?
Maybe I misunderstood but you don't need to do a starter with dry yeasts as the the process was done for you in the lab.

You can certainly do a starter to up your pitch count, obviously forgoing all the benefits of the dry. Those packs are quite expensive now-a-days so it may have been cheaper to propagate.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bayareabrewer on November 25, 2016, 11:34:38 am
I would switch to your lodo principles in a heartbeat if there was measurable imperial evidence that it produced superior beer. From what I see, there isn't. There are two men on the internet telling everyone who will listen about how great it is, and plugging their website at every opportunity. And comments like the one above are condescending absolutions. Sorry man, but talking down to people like that and implying people that don't adhere to your brewing technique are not striving for better beer is just rude.

Thank you


LOL- Pot meet kettle!

Many of your very own are seeing quite nice results...

Anywho-I was simply trying to say to each their own.


Perhaps they are, but you did not state "to each their own" you were condescending and insulting. Your techniques might be the next amazing breakthrough, or it may not, but regardless you really need to work on your delivery sometimes.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Big Monk on November 25, 2016, 11:37:15 am
I would switch to your lodo principles in a heartbeat if there was measurable imperial evidence that it produced superior beer. From what I see, there isn't. There are two men on the internet telling everyone who will listen about how great it is, and plugging their website at every opportunity. And comments like the one above are condescending absolutions. Sorry man, but talking down to people like that and implying people that don't adhere to your brewing technique are not striving for better beer is just rude.

OFF TOPIC: Quite a few brewers, here and elsewhere, are seeing great results by incorporating aspects of the Low Oxygen process. As of recently, positive results are coming from active members on this forum.

We put the website together to revamp the image of the process. We have offered up the spreadsheet for free, a wealth of academic and technical information for free, and worked to craft a process document that offered the incremental approach that people were interested in. We don't benefit from doing so in any other way other than to help out.

As far as EMPIRICAL evidence is concerned, I can't find one shred of the Low Oxygen process that wasnt developed using the empirical method and seeing that many people are experiencing the same results (all results that seem to coincide with all the literature written on the subject) I struggle to find error in such a good body of information.

If you are looking for blind testing to give you the go ahead on whether to pull the trigger on Low Oxygen or not, i'd say skip it and do a mini-mash. Let your taste buds decide for you.

In the end, all the information is on the table and people are now deciding to give it a try. They are liking the results.

BACK ON TOPIC: I was working on aspects of the spreadsheet when Bryan was testing batch after batch of S-189 yeast. It had major flavor and performance drawbacks IN HIS brewery. Take that for what it's worth. Flocculation was poor and the flavor was lacking.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bayareabrewer on November 25, 2016, 11:42:41 am
And when the competition medals come rolling in for you guys, I will eat humble pie and bow to the shrine of lodo. Right now, it feels alike like you are selling wolf tickets, I hope I'm wrong, and even if you aren't, implying that anyone that doesn't follow your principles as gospels are casual hobbyists and not serious passionate homebrewers is ridiculous.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 25, 2016, 11:45:31 am
I would switch to your lodo principles in a heartbeat if there was measurable imperial evidence that it produced superior beer. From what I see, there isn't. There are two men on the internet telling everyone who will listen about how great it is, and plugging their website at every opportunity. And comments like the one above are condescending absolutions. Sorry man, but talking down to people like that and implying people that don't adhere to your brewing technique are not striving for better beer is just rude.

Thank you


LOL- Pot meet kettle!

Many of your very own are seeing quite nice results...

Anywho-I was simply trying to say to each their own.

My apology.  My remark was uncalled for and I have removed it.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 25, 2016, 11:47:22 am
And when the competition medals come rolling in for you guys, I will eat humble pie and bow to the shrine of lodo. Right now, it feels alike like you are selling wolf tickets, I hope I'm wrong, and even if you aren't, implying that anyone that doesn't follow your principles as gospels are casual hobbyists and not serious passionate homebrewers is ridiculous.

I think you've nailed one of my main points.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Big Monk on November 25, 2016, 11:51:22 am
As someone who historically battled with Bryan here on this forum (when you all knew me as RPIScotty), I have to say I think everyone is overreacting.

Despite what you all think, it's all in the spirit of moving things forward. All the info is there for you to ponder over. If there isnt anything wrong with what your doing, i.e. you like your beer, then don't change it.

If you feel that you can benefit from any of the incremental improvements, then by all means, charge forward.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 25, 2016, 11:52:49 am
And when the competition medals come rolling in for you guys, I will eat humble pie and bow to the shrine of lodo. Right now, it feels alike like you are selling wolf tickets, I hope I'm wrong, and even if you aren't, implying that anyone that doesn't follow your principles as gospels are casual hobbyists and not serious passionate homebrewers is ridiculous.

I think you've nailed one of my main points.

To clarify, they are not MY principals, they are the principals of professional German brewers, and they are taught to those who hope to achieve the same level, at the world renowned brewing universities. I am simply reading and trying to understand and implement them on the homebrewing level. I know the common dogma is that what professional breweries do doesn't pertain to us, but science is science and scale doesn't matter. Its pretty black and white here.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bayareabrewer on November 25, 2016, 11:53:18 am
Back to 34/70 I've had great results with the stuff and don't consider it excessively dusty at all. I use gelatin on my beers though.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on November 25, 2016, 11:54:07 am
Science is science, but my experience has shown me that scale can matter.  Not always, but certainly sometimes.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: hopfenundmalz on November 25, 2016, 11:55:40 am
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties.
Actually the dry yeasts don't start out as the liquid equivalent and neither do the different brands of liquid yeasts.  They are often different isolates of the same strain which explains why they have slightly different characteristics.  Man I miss having Mark on the forum.

So 34/70 isn't based off of 34/70, nor is 830, or 2124?


Actually, 34/70 is the 70th isolate of station 34. There is a product on Hefebank Weihenstephan's page that is 34/78, which is less flocculant, but has many of the same attributes.

The Chico strains are all a little different, as they are different isolates. Sierra Nevada says what they are using today is a little different. The Chico strain came from Seidel as BRY-96, the Ballantine Beer strain.

Yeah, I miss Mark's wisdom too.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bayareabrewer on November 25, 2016, 11:58:34 am
And when the competition medals come rolling in for you guys, I will eat humble pie and bow to the shrine of lodo. Right now, it feels alike like you are selling wolf tickets, I hope I'm wrong, and even if you aren't, implying that anyone that doesn't follow your principles as gospels are casual hobbyists and not serious passionate homebrewers is ridiculous.

I think you've nailed one of my main points.

To clarify, they are not MY principals, they are the principals of professional German brewers, and they are taught to those who hope to achieve the same level, at the world renowned brewing universities. I am simply reading and trying to understand and implement them on the homebrewing level. I know the common dogma is that what professional breweries do doesn't pertain to us, but science is science and scale doesn't matter. Its pretty black and white here.

You may be right, but your delivery is crumby sometimes. And many other, equally great, equally amazing breweries with amazing brewers do t use those German principles.

Listen dude, I'm sure I'm not going to be the one to change your mind, and you probably aren't going to be the one the change mine. Have a good one man.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: HoosierBrew on November 25, 2016, 12:41:14 pm
I wanna say that I couldn't be a bigger believer in people brewing how they want to brew. Everyone has different equipment, time to dedicate (kids have put a definite dent in mine for 2 years now), processes, etc. And different goals for their hobby which is perfectly fine - I'm a prime example. When I started in '93, I just wanted to make good beer to share with my friends on the weekend, and for the most part it was pretty good. But when I went all grain, I had some spectacular failures (pH related in hindsight, some sanitation failures) and I got serious. I don't doubt that brewers here are serious as well.

But as was posted by someone, I feel that low O2 brewing has many similarities to Mark's many yeast postings. New info was presented that flew in the face of what most of us felt was conventional homebrewing wisdom. I was a critic of Mark's approach, then finally broke down and tried his method and use it now for ales (though I still don't want to pitch 1/2 gallon of spent wort into a lager). As for the low O2 stuff, I was a vocal critic of the refusal to share info. But thankfully the info has been shared and I doubt that the source materials of the info would be seen as snake oil. What I can totally see is questioning whether most homebrewers can implement these techniques at home, or whether it improves our beer. I've tried it and believe it noticeably improved a beer I've brewed many times, but there's more experimentation to be done. But that's why we're here- to take in new info and decide if it works for us, then experiment. Example - I remember trying hop stands back when many brewers scoffed at the idea, and it's pretty much SOP for many brewers doing APAs and AIPAs now.

 I'd be proud to drink anyone's beer here and don't care how they brewed it, because we all know that there are many ways to make good beer. Just don't dismiss potentially good info because you don't like the delivery or you could miss out, like with the yeast info. $0.02 (possibly less). :)

Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bboy9000 on November 25, 2016, 01:31:02 pm
Back on topic-  all of the yeast brands available to us Homebrewers- even if the same isolate- are likely sourced from different places so can have different characteristics.  The dry version from Fermentis is likely from the Siebel Institute yeast bank while Wyeast and White Labs likely sourced theirs from breweries.

EDIT: the "W" is for Weinstephan (duh) but still,  I'd guess the different companies sourced the strain from several different breweries likely accounting for the differences.  I doubt it has anything to do with the quality of dry yeast.
Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bboy9000 on November 25, 2016, 04:35:24 pm
While the dry do start out life as the liquid strain equivalents, they don't really exhibit the same properties.
Actually the dry yeasts don't start out as the liquid equivalent and neither do the different brands of liquid yeasts.  They are often different isolates of the same strain which explains why they have slightly different characteristics.  Man I miss having Mark on the forum.

So 34/70 isn't based off of 34/70, nor is 830, or 2124?

BSI used to have WL 820 listed as 34/70 and WL 830 as W
206.

Apparently they now have 830 as 34/70:
http://www.brewingscience.com/PDF/prodlist/BSI_Yeast_Descriptions_Guide.pdf (http://www.brewingscience.com/PDF/prodlist/BSI_Yeast_Descriptions_Guide.pdf)

Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bigmunchez on November 26, 2016, 12:54:16 am
Last month I split 10G of german pilsner wort between 34/70 and S189.  I conducted a total of 7 blind triangle tests, 3 of those correctly identified the odd one out.  The differences I noted were slightly more malt character in the S189 and the aroma of the 34/70 was slightly more 'lagerish' - terrible descriptor, I know...  Other correct tasters also commented on the aroma being different.
I also noted that the 34/70 dropped clear slightly sooner than the S189.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: brewinhard on November 26, 2016, 11:58:15 am
Last month I split 10G of german pilsner wort between 34/70 and S189.  I conducted a total of 7 blind triangle tests, 3 of those correctly identified the odd one out.  The differences I noted were slightly more malt character in the S189 and the aroma of the 34/70 was slightly more 'lagerish' - terrible descriptor, I know...  Other correct tasters also commented on the aroma being different.
I also noted that the 34/70 dropped clear slightly sooner than the S189.

Good data. Thanks for sharing. Which did you prefer for your pilsner?
Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bboy9000 on November 26, 2016, 01:00:56 pm
Last month I split 10G of german pilsner wort between 34/70 and S189.  I conducted a total of 7 blind triangle tests, 3 of those correctly identified the odd one out.  The differences I noted were slightly more malt character in the S189 and the aroma of the 34/70 was slightly more 'lagerish' - terrible descriptor, I know...  Other correct tasters also commented on the aroma being different.
I also noted that the 34/70 dropped clear slightly sooner than the S189.
Did you record the qualitative descriptions from the participants too?  I'd like to see what those who didn't know what the experiment was about had to say about flavor and aroma.  Would be interesting for the forum to read.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bigmunchez on November 26, 2016, 06:16:16 pm
I was one of the 3 correct tasters (so not technically 'blind' as I was aware of the variable).  It wasn't massively late hopped but I thought there was a bit more hop character (mainly aroma) in the 34/70.  The other two correct tasters didn't pick much on flavour, but both thought the aroma was different.  They thought the 34/70 smelled more like a typical lager (? sulphur) - I guess its the most widely used lager yeast so maybe its more familiar to their palettes.

I found the 34/70 slightly more crisp and perhaps better suited to the pilsner style. So in that regard I guess I preferred it, but the general consensus was that if you were served a pint of one and then served your next pint from the other tap, it's unlikely you'd notice the switch.

Also, I harvested the slurry of the S189 for a dunkel and its my best dunkel yet. (no science here...)
Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on November 26, 2016, 06:28:14 pm
Last month I split 10G of german pilsner wort between 34/70 and S189.  I conducted a total of 7 blind triangle tests, 3 of those correctly identified the odd one out.  The differences I noted were slightly more malt character in the S189 and the aroma of the 34/70 was slightly more 'lagerish' - terrible descriptor, I know...  Other correct tasters also commented on the aroma being different.
I also noted that the 34/70 dropped clear slightly sooner than the S189.

I was one of the 3 correct tasters (so not technically 'blind' as I was aware of the variable).  It wasn't massively late hopped but I thought there was a bit more hop character (mainly aroma) in the 34/70.  The other two correct tasters didn't pick much on flavour, but both thought the aroma was different.  They thought the 34/70 smelled more like a typical lager (? sulphur) - I guess its the most widely used lager yeast so maybe its more familiar to their palettes.

I found the 34/70 slightly more crisp and perhaps better suited to the pilsner style. So in that regard I guess I preferred it, but the general consensus was that if you were served a pint of one and then served your next pint from the other tap, it's unlikely you'd notice the switch.

Also, I harvested the slurry of the S189 for a dunkel and its my best dunkel yet. (no science here...)


Thank you. This is VERY helpful. Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: erockrph on November 26, 2016, 11:12:57 pm
I know that I'm a bit late to the conversation, but I wanted to chime in on a few things.

I use 34/70 quite a bit. I have fermented it using traditional lager fermentation schedules, accelerated lager schedules, and ale-like fermentations at temps anywhere from the mid 50's to the mid 60's. I have never gotten a lemon flavor from it. As a matter of fact, I find that 34/70 mutes lemon character from hops like Sterling, Motueka, Kazbek, etc. - varieties that give distinct citrus character with other yeasts.

I can't refute that LODO could have something to do with it, as I have yet to incorporate that in the hot side. One other thing that comes to mind is that if the LODO brewers that get this character are using saurgut, maybe the yeast is somehow enhancing the lemony, Berliner Weisse character from the acid fermentation rather than producing this during fermentation.

I have also noticed the lack of sulfur production from dry lager strains. While I don't want my beer to smell like eggs, there are certain beers where I prefer just a whiff of sulfur on the nose. I have used 34/70 on several occasions in my Märzen, and it makes a damn good beer, but when I use 2633 it leaves a subtle sulfur note on the nose that takes it to the next level.

Regarding S-189, I have only used it once, using an accelerated lager fermentation schedule, and I wasn't a fan of the results. It was kind of muddled, with some fusel alcohol notes. If I used it again, I'd be sure to stick to a traditional low & slow lager fermentation.

And yes, 34/70 finishes crisp enough for a pilsner, but WY2278 is even crisper. 2278 is the only yeast I'll use for a hoppy lager like an IPL. Every other lager strain I've used tends to strip some late hop character (especially fruitier varietals), even 34/70.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: hopfenundmalz on November 27, 2016, 06:55:34 am
I know that I'm a bit late to the conversation, but I wanted to chime in on a few things.

I use 34/70 quite a bit. I have fermented it using traditional lager fermentation schedules, accelerated lager schedules, and ale-like fermentations at temps anywhere from the mid 50's to the mid 60's. I have never gotten a lemon flavor from it. As a matter of fact, I find that 34/70 mutes lemon character from hops like Sterling, Motueka, Kazbek, etc. - varieties that give distinct citrus character with other yeasts.

I can't refute that LODO could have something to do with it, as I have yet to incorporate that in the hot side. One other thing that comes to mind is that if the LODO brewers that get this character are using saurgut, maybe the yeast is somehow enhancing the lemony, Berliner Weisse character from the acid fermentation rather than producing this during fermentation.

I have also noticed the lack of sulfur production from dry lager strains. While I don't want my beer to smell like eggs, there are certain beers where I prefer just a whiff of sulfur on the nose. I have used 34/70 on several occasions in my Märzen, and it makes a damn good beer, but when I use 2633 it leaves a subtle sulfur note on the nose that takes it to the next level.

Regarding S-189, I have only used it once, using an accelerated lager fermentation schedule, and I wasn't a fan of the results. It was kind of muddled, with some fusel alcohol notes. If I used it again, I'd be sure to stick to a traditional low & slow lager fermentation.

And yes, 34/70 finishes crisp enough for a pilsner, but WY2278 is even crisper. 2278 is the only yeast I'll use for a hoppy lager like an IPL. Every other lager strain I've used tends to strip some late hop character (especially fruitier varietals), even 34/70.
Interesting comment on the 2278 in a Pils. I have used it in a Czech Pils, trying to do a PU clone, but that was a split batch that I blended back together, using the D and H strain, to do what they used to do. Now they just use the H strain from what I have read. I will split a batch of German Pils with 830 and 2278 and see which I like best.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Steve Ruch on November 27, 2016, 09:13:34 am
I'll be doing a vienna lager with the S-34/70 today after breakfast.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: brewinhard on November 27, 2016, 03:49:37 pm
I'll be doing a vienna lager with the S-34/70 today after breakfast.

Oh Steve, you're gonna screw it up without the S-189!!!  ;D
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on November 28, 2016, 07:08:08 am


I can't refute that LODO could have something to do with it, as I have yet to incorporate that in the hot side. One other thing that comes to mind is that if the LODO brewers that get this character are using saurgut, maybe the yeast is somehow enhancing the lemony, Berliner Weisse character from the acid fermentation rather than producing this during fermentation.

I have also noticed the lack of sulfur production from dry lager strains. While I don't want my beer to smell like eggs, there are certain beers where I prefer just a whiff of sulfur on the nose. I have used 34/70 on several occasions in my Märzen, and it makes a damn good beer, but when I use 2633 it leaves a subtle sulfur note on the nose that takes it to the next level.

Regarding S-189, I have only used it once, using an accelerated lager fermentation schedule, and I wasn't a fan of the results. It was kind of muddled, with some fusel alcohol notes. If I used it again, I'd be sure to stick to a traditional low & slow lager fermentation.

And yes, 34/70 finishes crisp enough for a pilsner, but WY2278 is even crisper. 2278 is the only yeast I'll use for a hoppy lager like an IPL. Every other lager strain I've used tends to strip some late hop character (especially fruitier varietals), even 34/70.

Interesting observation, regarding sauergut. Although my SG tastes more like orange juice than lemon juice, you may be on to something.

Glad to see someone else, seeing the same attributes to the dry yeasts as far as sulfur, and whatnot.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Steve Ruch on November 28, 2016, 04:00:18 pm
I'll be doing a vienna lager with the S-34/70 today after breakfast.

Oh Steve, you're gonna screw it up without the S-189!!!  ;D

What?  :o
I went with the 34/70 to get a drier finish. S-189 goes into my next marzen.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: duelerx on November 29, 2016, 08:38:29 am
Is S-189 a good candidate for a tropical stout?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: brewinhard on November 29, 2016, 09:39:55 am
Is S-189 a good candidate for a tropical stout?

Tropical Stouts are typically fermented warm(er) with a traditional lager yeast. Not sure how this strain would fare at warmer temps.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on December 15, 2016, 08:59:42 am
http://brulosophy.com/2016/12/15/yeast-comparison-saflager-w-3470-vs-saflager-s-189-exbeeriment-results/
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: PORTERHAUS on December 15, 2016, 10:45:00 am
I seen the Brulosophy experiment this morning. I recently used 34/70 for the first time on my last lager. I plan on trying the S-189. So far I have been happier with Mangrove Jacks's Bohemian Lager dry yeast. Its just a bit more to my liking and really performs and tastes closer to to Wyeast Bohemian Lager which I have used a lot.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Frankenbrew on December 15, 2016, 03:48:27 pm
My experience with both yeasts (same maibock recipe) is that that S-189 produces a lager that is a bit more malty. The other thing is that the one into which I pitched the S-189 had better head/foam. Not exactly scientific, that's what I got.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: ynotbrusum on December 16, 2016, 11:34:16 am
And I can't help but wonder if there are perceptible differences at a colder fermentation temperature.  The LODO process holds at 48F for the full fermentation and spunding.

I noted the lemon in 34/70 when fermenting at the lower end of the spectrum; maybe I was imagining, but it was reinforced when I had a friend try the beer (unknowing of anything about it) and unprompted, he said that it was a good beer, but the lemon he detected made him ask if I had dosed it with lemon.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on December 16, 2016, 11:38:58 am
And I can't help but wonder if there are perceptible differences at a colder fermentation temperature.  The LODO process holds at 48F for the full fermentation and spunding.

I noted the lemon in 34/70 when fermenting at the lower end of the spectrum; maybe I was imagining, but it was reinforced when I had a friend try the beer (unknowing of anything about it) and unprompted, he said that it was a good beer, but the lemon he detected made him ask if I had dosed it with lemon.

48, try 45 :)

Yea 34/70 AND s189 hate life down there. Just look at the proper pitch rates( dry yeast) they want you to have for those temps! I was pitching 50 grams into a 5.5gal batch.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: brewinhard on December 16, 2016, 11:42:33 am
And I can't help but wonder if there are perceptible differences at a colder fermentation temperature.  The LODO process holds at 48F for the full fermentation and spunding.

I noted the lemon in 34/70 when fermenting at the lower end of the spectrum; maybe I was imagining, but it was reinforced when I had a friend try the beer (unknowing of anything about it) and unprompted, he said that it was a good beer, but the lemon he detected made him ask if I had dosed it with lemon.

48, try 45 :)

 Just look at the proper pitch rates( dry yeast) they want you to have for those temps! I was pitching 50 grams into a 5.5gal batch.

Jesus!  Really?  Rehydrated too?  And you still noticed off-flavors when using them?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: The Beerery on December 16, 2016, 11:53:14 am
And I can't help but wonder if there are perceptible differences at a colder fermentation temperature.  The LODO process holds at 48F for the full fermentation and spunding.

I noted the lemon in 34/70 when fermenting at the lower end of the spectrum; maybe I was imagining, but it was reinforced when I had a friend try the beer (unknowing of anything about it) and unprompted, he said that it was a good beer, but the lemon he detected made him ask if I had dosed it with lemon.

48, try 45 :)

 Just look at the proper pitch rates( dry yeast) they want you to have for those temps! I was pitching 50 grams into a 5.5gal batch.

Jesus!  Really?  Rehydrated too?  And you still noticed off-flavors when using them?

Off flavors, lack of flavors, etc. I tried playing with pitch rates as well.. My 2206 is just way easier ;D
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: ynotbrusum on December 16, 2016, 01:36:09 pm
And I can't help but wonder if there are perceptible differences at a colder fermentation temperature.  The LODO process holds at 48F for the full fermentation and spunding.

I noted the lemon in 34/70 when fermenting at the lower end of the spectrum; maybe I was imagining, but it was reinforced when I had a friend try the beer (unknowing of anything about it) and unprompted, he said that it was a good beer, but the lemon he detected made him ask if I had dosed it with lemon.

48, try 45 :)

Yea 34/70 AND s189 hate life down there. Just look at the proper pitch rates( dry yeast) they want you to have for those temps! I was pitching 50 grams into a 5.5gal batch.

I could have sworn I read 48 F somewhere in your stuff.  Maybe it was for those unable to go to 45F....Well, we will see what I get from a currently fermenting 10 gallon batch of S-189 at 45 (it's so cold in my garage that the carboy heater - aquarium type - can't get it above that temperature).  this is the tough time of the year for me with lagers...I hate warming a cold environment when the rest of the year I strive for the opposite.  I should start a thread on the effects of heating fermenters of lager beer to get into the 46F range in a colder garage (I find that they alter the flavor to a more skunky tone, however slight).
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Chino Brews on December 20, 2016, 04:15:27 pm
How did the brulosophy results on S-189 vs. W-34/70 not get posted in this discussion?
http://brulosophy.com/2016/12/15/yeast-comparison-saflager-w-3470-vs-saflager-s-189-exbeeriment-results/

Spoiler: out of 22 tasters in a blind triangle, a significant number were unable to tell the difference between 1.053 OG Vienna Lagers fermented with S-189 vs. W-34/70. Maybe the difference would have been significant in a high gravity lager. Who knows?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: majorvices on December 20, 2016, 04:30:32 pm
And I can't help but wonder if there are perceptible differences at a colder fermentation temperature.  The LODO process holds at 48F for the full fermentation and spunding.

I noted the lemon in 34/70 when fermenting at the lower end of the spectrum; maybe I was imagining, but it was reinforced when I had a friend try the beer (unknowing of anything about it) and unprompted, he said that it was a good beer, but the lemon he detected made him ask if I had dosed it with lemon.

48, try 45 :)

Yea 34/70 AND s189 hate life down there. Just look at the proper pitch rates( dry yeast) they want you to have for those temps! I was pitching 50 grams into a 5.5gal batch.

Totally and completely untrue. Totally and completely false. I have a hard time believing you have used these yeasts. I'm not going to go out so far as to say I like the 34/70 as well as the liquid equivalent but I know for a fact you can make great beer out of that strain and S-189.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bayareabrewer on December 20, 2016, 05:26:49 pm
I want to make a LODO lager with these yeast just to see if I can taste this mythical lemon flavor from these yeasts.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Big Monk on December 20, 2016, 06:36:09 pm
I want to make a LODO lager with these yeast just to see if I can taste this mythical lemon flavor from these yeasts.

That's the spirit!
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: bayareabrewer on December 21, 2016, 12:25:56 pm
I want to make a LODO lager with these yeast just to see if I can taste this mythical lemon flavor from these yeasts.

That's the spirit!

Or I could do it the easy way and just zest some lemon. Lemme weigh my options here, LODO or taking 5 seconds to zest a lemon.

yeah, think I'll stick with the simpler, easy and most importantly proven method of getting lemon flavor.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Big Monk on December 21, 2016, 12:33:46 pm
I want to make a LODO lager with these yeast just to see if I can taste this mythical lemon flavor from these yeasts.

That's the spirit!

Or I could do it the easy way and just zest some lemon. Lemme weigh my options here, LODO or taking 5 seconds to zest a lemon.

yeah, think I'll stick with the simpler, easy and most importantly proven method of getting lemon flavor.

Whatever works for you man. You sound like a man with a plan.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on December 21, 2016, 12:59:34 pm
How did the brulosophy results on S-189 vs. W-34/70 not get posted in this discussion?
http://brulosophy.com/2016/12/15/yeast-comparison-saflager-w-3470-vs-saflager-s-189-exbeeriment-results/

Spoiler: out of 22 tasters in a blind triangle, a significant number were unable to tell the difference between 1.053 OG Vienna Lagers fermented with S-189 vs. W-34/70. Maybe the difference would have been significant in a high gravity lager. Who knows?

I don't think that's too surprising.  There is far less variation among lager yeasts than ale yeasts.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Philbrew on February 27, 2017, 08:45:23 pm
My apologies for bringing this ancient thread back to the top, but I said I'd report when my try with S-189 was ready to drink.

A Maibock:  SG = 1.067,  FG = 1.014

42%  Weyermann Pils
31%  GW 2 row
19%  Vienna
 6%  Cara Munich
 1.5% Special Roast
30  IBUs

Wonderful malt aroma and flavor.  Initial malty sweetness is nicely balanced by the smooth hop bitterness and leads to a somewhat dry finish.  The Sterling hop flavor and aroma is there but you really have to look for it.  lovely orange/amber clarity and persistent white head.  Nice mouthfeel.  Seems to check all the boxes for a Maibock except maybe a little more caramel than ideal.

I will brew malt forward lagers again with S-189.  Maybe the next Maibock will swap out the Cara Munich for 10% Munich 20L.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: pinnah on February 28, 2017, 05:30:41 am
I should start a thread on the effects of heating fermenters of lager beer to get into the 46F range in a colder garage (I find that they alter the flavor to a more skunky tone, however slight).

 :) I had to fire up the wood stove in the shop the other day and move my fermenter a little closer.
ghetto ambient brewing.  hope I don't get the skunk!

s189 schwartzbier btw
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on February 28, 2017, 08:48:26 am
I should start a thread on the effects of heating fermenters of lager beer to get into the 46F range in a colder garage (I find that they alter the flavor to a more skunky tone, however slight).

 :) I had to fire up the wood stove in the shop the other day and move my fermenter a little closer.
ghetto ambient brewing.  hope I don't get the skunk!

s189 schwartzbier btw

Skunk is from light, not heat.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Iliff Ave on February 28, 2017, 09:27:56 am
My apologies for bringing this ancient thread back to the top, but I said I'd report when my try with S-189 was ready to drink.

A Maibock:  SG = 1.067,  FG = 1.014

42%  Weyermann Pils
31%  GW 2 row
19%  Vienna
 6%  Cara Munich
 1.5% Special Roast
30  IBUs

Wonderful malt aroma and flavor.  Initial malty sweetness is nicely balanced by the smooth hop bitterness and leads to a somewhat dry finish.  The Sterling hop flavor and aroma is there but you really have to look for it.  lovely orange/amber clarity and persistent white head.  Nice mouthfeel.  Seems to check all the boxes for a Maibock except maybe a little more caramel than ideal.

I will brew malt forward lagers again with S-189.  Maybe the next Maibock will swap out the Cara Munich for 10% Munich 20L.

Thanks for the update. I am brewing a malty brown lager on Friday and will be using S-189 for the first time. 34/70 has been my go to but reports that 189 is good for malty styles seemed like a good reason to try it.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 20, 2021, 12:30:34 pm
If you do a low and slow s-189 fermentation in the low 50s, should you do a diacetyl rest?

note: I don't exactly have a place that is a nice low 60s for what would, i perceive, be a good temp for a diacetyl rest. only straight 70F+ indoors or in my garage where its a stable low 50s.

should i just let it sit for 6 weeks + with no diacetyl rest?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 20, 2021, 12:43:33 pm
If you do a low and slow s-189 fermentation in the low 50s, should you do a diacetyl rest?

note: I don't exactly have a place that is a nice low 60s for what would, i perceive, be a good temp for a diacetyl rest. only straight 70F+ indoors or in my garage where its a stable low 50s.

should i just let it sit for 6 weeks + with no diacetyl rest?

Does the beer have diacetyl?  That's how I decide.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 20, 2021, 12:56:29 pm
If you do a low and slow s-189 fermentation in the low 50s, should you do a diacetyl rest?

note: I don't exactly have a place that is a nice low 60s for what would, i perceive, be a good temp for a diacetyl rest. only straight 70F+ indoors or in my garage where its a stable low 50s.

should i just let it sit for 6 weeks + with no diacetyl rest?

it's going now. i don't generally taste test my beers as theyre going. i don't even have an auto-siphon actually.
Does the beer have diacetyl?  That's how I decide.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: dmtaylor on January 20, 2021, 01:54:32 pm
If you do a low and slow s-189 fermentation in the low 50s, should you do a diacetyl rest?

note: I don't exactly have a place that is a nice low 60s for what would, i perceive, be a good temp for a diacetyl rest. only straight 70F+ indoors or in my garage where its a stable low 50s.

should i just let it sit for 6 weeks + with no diacetyl rest?

Does the beer have diacetyl?  That's how I decide.

^^^This.  AND... if I recall correctly, the last time I used S-189 in the low 50s, I got no diacetyl anyway.  Very clean yeast.  Love it.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 20, 2021, 02:12:57 pm
If you do a low and slow s-189 fermentation in the low 50s, should you do a diacetyl rest?

note: I don't exactly have a place that is a nice low 60s for what would, i perceive, be a good temp for a diacetyl rest. only straight 70F+ indoors or in my garage where its a stable low 50s.

should i just let it sit for 6 weeks + with no diacetyl rest?

Does the beer have diacetyl?  That's how I decide.

^^^This.  AND... if I recall correctly, the last time I used S-189 in the low 50s, I got no diacetyl anyway.  Very clean yeast.  Love it.

I have never gotten diacetyl form S-189 or Wy2206.  Very seldom from any yeast, actually.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 20, 2021, 02:13:48 pm
If you do a low and slow s-189 fermentation in the low 50s, should you do a diacetyl rest?

note: I don't exactly have a place that is a nice low 60s for what would, i perceive, be a good temp for a diacetyl rest. only straight 70F+ indoors or in my garage where its a stable low 50s.

should i just let it sit for 6 weeks + with no diacetyl rest?

it's going now. i don't generally taste test my beers as theyre going. i don't even have an auto-siphon actually.
Does the beer have diacetyl?  That's how I decide.

I generally take a gravity reading toward the end of fermentation and taste it.  That's when I decide.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 20, 2021, 03:09:58 pm
If you do a low and slow s-189 fermentation in the low 50s, should you do a diacetyl rest?

note: I don't exactly have a place that is a nice low 60s for what would, i perceive, be a good temp for a diacetyl rest. only straight 70F+ indoors or in my garage where its a stable low 50s.

should i just let it sit for 6 weeks + with no diacetyl rest?

it's going now. i don't generally taste test my beers as theyre going. i don't even have an auto-siphon actually.
Does the beer have diacetyl?  That's how I decide.

I generally take a gravity reading toward the end of fermentation and taste it.  That's when I decide.

i got a turkey baster a while ago, but even that i try to not use unless i think there's a problem. what do you use?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: ynotbrusum on January 20, 2021, 03:48:50 pm
I should start a thread on the effects of heating fermenters of lager beer to get into the 46F range in a colder garage (I find that they alter the flavor to a more skunky tone, however slight).

 :) I had to fire up the wood stove in the shop the other day and move my fermenter a little closer.
ghetto ambient brewing.  hope I don't get the skunk!

s189 schwartzbier btw

Skunk is from light, not heat.

Funny that this thread came up - I distinctly recall stating the foregoing back then, but I was incorrectly describing what I was perceiving - not skunk like Heineken, but rather sulfur - very low rotten eggs.  For what that is worth...
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Ellismr on January 21, 2021, 05:16:29 am
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?

I use W 34/70 quite a bit in German Pilsner and Schwartzbier and I’ve never got lemon but I’m starting to wonder if the people that use dry yeast we’re not treating it correctly in terms of the whole process such as mash PHPH going to the fermenter Ph, yeast nutrient proper level of oxygenation and proper pitch rate there’s so many factors in there that I think if one of those is off or a combination of them maybe it does produce that but I’ve never got that. 

We’ve seen things with other strains if you are under pitch and stress yeast you get different aroma or pheonlic characteristics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on January 21, 2021, 06:34:44 am
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?

I use W 34/70 quite a bit in German Pilsner and Schwartzbier and I’ve never got lemon but I’m starting to wonder if the people that use dry yeast we’re not treating it correctly in terms of the whole process such as mash PHPH going to the fermenter Ph, yeast nutrient proper level of oxygenation and proper pitch rate there’s so many factors in there that I think if one of those is off or a combination of them maybe it does produce that but I’ve never got that. 

We’ve seen things with other strains if you are under pitch and stress yeast you get different aroma or pheonlic characteristics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 21, 2021, 08:27:04 am
If you do a low and slow s-189 fermentation in the low 50s, should you do a diacetyl rest?

note: I don't exactly have a place that is a nice low 60s for what would, i perceive, be a good temp for a diacetyl rest. only straight 70F+ indoors or in my garage where its a stable low 50s.

should i just let it sit for 6 weeks + with no diacetyl rest?

it's going now. i don't generally taste test my beers as theyre going. i don't even have an auto-siphon actually.
Does the beer have diacetyl?  That's how I decide.

I generally take a gravity reading toward the end of fermentation and taste it.  That's when I decide.

i got a turkey baster a while ago, but even that i try to not use unless i think there's a problem. what do you use?

Turkey baster when I ferment in buckets.  Why don't you want to use it?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 21, 2021, 08:28:20 am
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?

I use W 34/70 quite a bit in German Pilsner and Schwartzbier and I’ve never got lemon but I’m starting to wonder if the people that use dry yeast we’re not treating it correctly in terms of the whole process such as mash PHPH going to the fermenter Ph, yeast nutrient proper level of oxygenation and proper pitch rate there’s so many factors in there that I think if one of those is off or a combination of them maybe it does produce that but I’ve never got that. 

We’ve seen things with other strains if you are under pitch and stress yeast you get different aroma or pheonlic characteristics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I do nothing with dry yeast but pour it in.
Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on January 21, 2021, 10:00:09 am
I do the same. But the question is not how the dry yeast is pitched but how much, what it’s pitched into (wort composition , pH, etc) and what with (nutrients).
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 21, 2021, 10:52:52 am
I do the same. But the question is not how the dry yeast is pitched but how much, what it’s pitched into (wort composition , pH, etc) and what with (nutrients).

Sometimes I do one pack, sometimes 2...doesn't seem to matter in most of my lagers.  My attitude toward the rest of it is "it is what it is".
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 21, 2021, 03:29:15 pm
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?

I use W 34/70 quite a bit in German Pilsner and Schwartzbier and I’ve never got lemon but I’m starting to wonder if the people that use dry yeast we’re not treating it correctly in terms of the whole process such as mash PHPH going to the fermenter Ph, yeast nutrient proper level of oxygenation and proper pitch rate there’s so many factors in there that I think if one of those is off or a combination of them maybe it does produce that but I’ve never got that. 

We’ve seen things with other strains if you are under pitch and stress yeast you get different aroma or pheonlic characteristics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I do nothing with dry yeast but pour it in.

i used to for my entire brewing history, but have been rehydrating for quite a while now, and i perceive better results overall. i wouldnt go back to direct addition again personally.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on January 22, 2021, 08:36:21 am
I do the same. But the question is not how the dry yeast is pitched but how much, what it’s pitched into (wort composition , pH, etc) and what with (nutrients).

Sometimes I do one pack, sometimes 2...doesn't seem to matter in most of my lagers.  My attitude toward the rest of it is "it is what it is".
Denny, I gotta admit: I find it interesting that such a nonchalant attitude is taken to one of the four integral components of our hobby.

Especially given all the specialty maltsters encouraged, hop terroir discussion, water adjustments in a computer spreadsheet, attention to grain preparation, mash temp control thru pumps and computers, glycol fermentation control... and on and on.

I respect the pragmatic ‘fun’ aspect as your shtick. I even agree with it. None of this has to be as hard as some try to make it. It’s not rocket science.

...but fun doesn’t have to give way to disregard.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 22, 2021, 09:00:26 am
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?

I use W 34/70 quite a bit in German Pilsner and Schwartzbier and I’ve never got lemon but I’m starting to wonder if the people that use dry yeast we’re not treating it correctly in terms of the whole process such as mash PHPH going to the fermenter Ph, yeast nutrient proper level of oxygenation and proper pitch rate there’s so many factors in there that I think if one of those is off or a combination of them maybe it does produce that but I’ve never got that. 

We’ve seen things with other strains if you are under pitch and stress yeast you get different aroma or pheonlic characteristics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I do nothing with dry yeast but pour it in.

i used to for my entire brewing history, but have been rehydrating for quite a while now, and i perceive better results overall. i wouldnt go back to direct addition again personally.

Checked all my Lallemand yeasts yesterday....every pack says sprinkle in. When I did rehydrate, I forget differwnt results than I do without. What do you perceive that you think is different?
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 22, 2021, 09:01:32 am
I do the same. But the question is not how the dry yeast is pitched but how much, what it’s pitched into (wort composition , pH, etc) and what with (nutrients).

Sometimes I do one pack, sometimes 2...doesn't seem to matter in most of my lagers.  My attitude toward the rest of it is "it is what it is".
Denny, I gotta admit: I find it interesting that such a nonchalant attitude is taken to one of the four integral components of our hobby.

Especially given all the specialty maltsters encouraged, hop terroir discussion, water adjustments in a computer spreadsheet, attention to grain preparation, mash temp control thru pumps and computers, glycol fermentation control... and on and on.

I respect the pragmatic ‘fun’ aspect as your shtick. I even agree with it. None of this has to be as hard as some try to make it. It’s not rocket science.

...but fun doesn’t have to give way to disregard.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's all driven by experience.  I don't nonchalantly disregard things.  I try different ways and do what works best for me.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on January 22, 2021, 09:58:52 am
I can certainly understand and respect that. I have my own experiences to fall back on. ...but new brewers may not and they could be looking to you for guidance which may result in unintended consequences.

A couple dollars or three is cheap insurance for a quick start, vigorous healthy ferment, complete attenuation, etc. especially after all the other attention to detail and investment.

It may be that the insurance is not required but that’s true of all insurance. ...until you need it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 22, 2021, 10:15:42 am
I can certainly understand and respect that. I have my own experiences to fall back on. ...but new brewers may not and they could be looking to you for guidance which may result in unintended consequences.

A couple dollars or three is cheap insurance for a quick start, vigorous healthy ferment, complete attenuation, etc. especially after all the other attention to detail and investment.

It may be that the insurance is not required but that’s true of all insurance. ...until you need it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I advise new and experienced brewers based on the experiences I've had.  If my experience contradicts conventional wisdom, why shouldn't I pass it along?  I tell people to try it both ways and decide for themselves, as I did.

FWIW, your point is the same one I got when I began advocating batch sparging 20 some years ago.  I was told that I was driving newbies in a bad direction and that I had a responsibility to tell them differently.  Not much different than the pushback Mark got from talking about the SNS method.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 22, 2021, 10:29:44 am
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?

I use W 34/70 quite a bit in German Pilsner and Schwartzbier and I’ve never got lemon but I’m starting to wonder if the people that use dry yeast we’re not treating it correctly in terms of the whole process such as mash PHPH going to the fermenter Ph, yeast nutrient proper level of oxygenation and proper pitch rate there’s so many factors in there that I think if one of those is off or a combination of them maybe it does produce that but I’ve never got that. 

We’ve seen things with other strains if you are under pitch and stress yeast you get different aroma or pheonlic characteristics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I do nothing with dry yeast but pour it in.

i used to for my entire brewing history, but have been rehydrating for quite a while now, and i perceive better results overall. i wouldnt go back to direct addition again personally.

Checked all my Lallemand yeasts yesterday....every pack says sprinkle in. When I did rehydrate, I forget differwnt results than I do without. What do you perceive that you think is different?

we know that instructions on liquid or dry yeast can be the best method or a decidedly inferior method just as easily...

i simply perceive better fermentations, less unwanted flavours, of course that could be based on other improvements i've made concurrently with starting to rehydrate yeast.

however, i do recall hearing in a podcast a very detailed description of how dried yeast sort of untangle themselves best in a low gravity wort or water and get ready to resume their job of eating sugars. i know this is perhaps considered "parroting" conventional wisdom, but it was a recent listen. if dumped directly into wort, i cant rememeber what the exact issue is, if they are malformed, more tired(?) or a higher percentage are dead or inactive, but it was not advised.

however, then we might consider the pitching rate of the packets... and if they are already well over 100%, say 150% or more of the necessary cell count and 25% are dead or inactive from direct pitch... then it doesnt matter.

anyway, my experience has been that it is not inconvenient for me to rehydrate and i perceive a better yeast character. so i will continue on with this.

would be happy to discuss any ones alternative views on this.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 22, 2021, 12:55:39 pm
What about all the people who haven't gotten lemon out of 34/70?

I use W 34/70 quite a bit in German Pilsner and Schwartzbier and I’ve never got lemon but I’m starting to wonder if the people that use dry yeast we’re not treating it correctly in terms of the whole process such as mash PHPH going to the fermenter Ph, yeast nutrient proper level of oxygenation and proper pitch rate there’s so many factors in there that I think if one of those is off or a combination of them maybe it does produce that but I’ve never got that. 

We’ve seen things with other strains if you are under pitch and stress yeast you get different aroma or pheonlic characteristics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I do nothing with dry yeast but pour it in.

i used to for my entire brewing history, but have been rehydrating for quite a while now, and i perceive better results overall. i wouldnt go back to direct addition again personally.

Checked all my Lallemand yeasts yesterday....every pack says sprinkle in. When I did rehydrate, I forget differwnt results than I do without. What do you perceive that you think is different?

we know that instructions on liquid or dry yeast can be the best method or a decidedly inferior method just as easily...

i simply perceive better fermentations, less unwanted flavours, of course that could be based on other improvements i've made concurrently with starting to rehydrate yeast.

however, i do recall hearing in a podcast a very detailed description of how dried yeast sort of untangle themselves best in a low gravity wort or water and get ready to resume their job of eating sugars. i know this is perhaps considered "parroting" conventional wisdom, but it was a recent listen. if dumped directly into wort, i cant rememeber what the exact issue is, if they are malformed, more tired(?) or a higher percentage are dead or inactive, but it was not advised.

however, then we might consider the pitching rate of the packets... and if they are already well over 100%, say 150% or more of the necessary cell count and 25% are dead or inactive from direct pitch... then it doesnt matter.

anyway, my experience has been that it is not inconvenient for me to rehydrate and i perceive a better yeast character. so i will continue on with this.

would be happy to discuss any ones alternative views on this.

You've obviously tried different ways and made your decision.  Your choice is as valid for you as mine is for me.
Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on January 22, 2021, 02:37:52 pm
Actually, in this case I believe you’re perpetuating conventional wisdom that one pack a batch is a proper pitch (two for a lager). I am the one saying one pack in an Ale is rarely enough. Likewise, for two in a Lager.

We buy all this fancy equipment to ensure exact mash and fermentation temps, measure grain, hops, and water minerals but somehow when it comes to yeast, measurements go out the window.

If I recall correctly i’ve even read to cut a whirlflock tablet in half.

It doesn’t make sense to me. How does the amount a yeast mfr sells in a retail unit all of a sudden equate to a proper pitch regardless of other factors. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Just because i buy C60 by the pound doesn’t mean that’s the qty to use in a batch of beer. The same logic should apply to dry yeast.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 22, 2021, 02:53:33 pm
Again, I do what I've found works for me.  I tell others it works for me if they want to try it and see if it works for them.
It has nothing to do with cost.  It's simply pragmatism.  If someone doesn't want to try my methods that's fine with me, but I won't stop saying that they work for me.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: dmtaylor on January 22, 2021, 04:07:57 pm
I pitch less yeast than conventional wisdom based on real science AND personal experience AND discussions on forums like this.  The real proof is in the personal experience of course.  Dry yeast is pretty awesome stuff and doesn't need to be babied.  Relative to liquid yeast it is virtually indestructible and way more reliable after long term storage.

Like Denny says... don't just take my word for it.  Experiment on your own, then do what you feel you need to do.

Here's just a small amount of science and discussion and experience:

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=27438.msg358328#msg358328
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 22, 2021, 05:03:24 pm
Actually, in this case I believe you’re perpetuating conventional wisdom that one pack a batch is a proper pitch (two for a lager). I am the one saying one pack in an Ale is rarely enough. Likewise, for two in a Lager.

We buy all this fancy equipment to ensure exact mash and fermentation temps, measure grain, hops, and water minerals but somehow when it comes to yeast, measurements go out the window.

If I recall correctly i’ve even read to cut a whirlflock tablet in half.

It doesn’t make sense to me. How does the amount a yeast mfr sells in a retail unit all of a sudden equate to a proper pitch regardless of other factors. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Just because i buy C60 by the pound doesn’t mean that’s the qty to use in a batch of beer. The same logic should apply to dry yeast.

the sentence i wrote about assuming say one packet has 150% of the recommended cells needed was just thinking. just to kind of counterpoint potentially.

good point about assuming one packet is correct for the usual 5 or 6 gallons. lallemand has a calculator, but again this is trusting their opinion on the matter: https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/canada/brewers-corner/brewing-tools/pitching-rate-calculator/

the by the lb sale of grains is also an issue. i would always do max of 1lb of crystal/roasted/etc to add to a base malt, without really thinking.

i do cut whirflocs in half and campden tabs into half, which is apparently too much of a dose, should be 1/3rds or something.

what keeps me from buying 500g sachets of dry yeast is that people and the manufacturer say they go bad quickly unless vacuum re-sealed again immediately after opening. any thoughts?
Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on January 22, 2021, 06:08:26 pm
... Experiment on your own, then do what you feel you need to do.
...

I have. ...and I do. I did not like my experience with under pitching: slow start, slugging performance, didn’t finish well. I cringe when i hear folks talk about the two week fermentations that i used to experience.

Cheers!

...

what keeps me from buying 500g sachets of dry yeast is that people and the manufacturer say they go bad quickly unless vacuum re-sealed again immediately after opening. any thoughts?

I bought a brick of dry yeast. I keep it vacuum sealed, cut it open, measure out what I need, reseal it and put it back in the fridge. Works great.

I do agree with Dave in that dry yeast is fairly indestructible. I’ve never heard of anyone keeping a pack of liquid yeast on stand by just in case dry yeast fails.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 22, 2021, 07:34:48 pm
... Experiment on your own, then do what you feel you need to do.
...

I have. ...and I do. I did not like my experience with under pitching: slow start, slugging performance, didn’t finish well. I cringe when i hear folks talk about the two week fermentations that i used to experience.

Cheers!

...

what keeps me from buying 500g sachets of dry yeast is that people and the manufacturer say they go bad quickly unless vacuum re-sealed again immediately after opening. any thoughts?

I bought a brick of dry yeast. I keep it vacuum sealed, cut it open, measure out what I need, reseal it and put it back in the fridge. Works great.

I do agree with Dave in that dry yeast is fairly indestructible. I’ve never heard of anyone keeping a pack of liquid yeast on stand by just in case dry yeast fails.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

yup, forgot to mention above that i get really consistent and short lag-phases when i rehydrate. as has been said by everyone several times "to each his own", but again. i see no reason to risk a whole batches quality by potentially underpitching and by not rehydrating. very little extra time and money, and i believe that i see the results. had visible krausen covering the top only 12 hours after pitching 2 rehydrated packets. i used to dry pitch fermentis products many years ago and i'd be checking on my beer 36 hours later and just begin to see it starting up.


cool about the 500g packets. someone else i was talking to here was saying that dry yeast is the way of the future. crazy how we're easily 20/25 years into homebrewing being able to be picked up without scrounging and searching all over for our stuff, and yeast is still such an unknown in so many regards.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BeerfanOz on January 23, 2021, 01:28:32 pm
Rehydrate vs sprinkle has to be the longest running debate in home brewing by far haha
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Bel Air Brewing on January 23, 2021, 02:55:04 pm
Rehydrate vs sprinkle has to be the longest running debate in home brewing by far haha

The manufacturers now recommend pitching direct, no rehydration. Not much debate among them.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 23, 2021, 04:10:35 pm
Rehydrate vs sprinkle has to be the longest running debate in home brewing by far haha

The manufacturers now recommend pitching direct, no rehydration. Not much debate among them.

i disagree with the "now". they waffle back and forth on it, and have at various times recommended both. fermentis has one PDF dated 2019 where they state rehydration is not necessary, but then state benefits of it on the same page. lallemand currently recommends rehydration.

 when i go to lallemands website, they state that rehydrating does x process which is beneficial to yeast health. https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/canada/products/brewing-yeast/

this is also interesting in that they suggest against direct pitching if you belief the wort will have a low Ph (ie. sour or ??) https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/docs/products/bp/BEST-PRACTICES_REHYDRATION_DIGITAL.pdf



again, the next thing would be the viable cell count upon packaging of the dried yeast and how that plays out upon adding it to wort. because i absolutely concede that if the cell count is 150% of what is necessary for 20 litres of 1.045 wort, then if not rehydrating makes it say 10% less viable, it really doesn't matter.

as stated already though, my personal findings and experiences, which were not scientifically discovered are that rehydrating makes better beer for a minimal effort (i don't follow the instructions lallemand has to the letter ie. autoclaving, slowly lowering the wort from ~30C to wort temp etc)
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BeerfanOz on January 23, 2021, 09:52:26 pm
I’ve done both with good results. I use liquid 95% if the time, although have tried a few of the new varieties, of which verdant is my favourite. I just sprinkled it, worked great.


It just seems to come up now and then and always goes round and round. Goes to show there’s more than one way of arriving at the same place in brewing. Which applies to most aspects of brewing.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: denny on January 24, 2021, 08:26:02 am
Rehydrate vs sprinkle has to be the longest running debate in home brewing by far haha

The manufacturers now recommend pitching direct, no rehydration. Not much debate among them.

i disagree with the "now". they waffle back and forth on it, and have at various times recommended both. fermentis has one PDF dated 2019 where they state rehydration is not necessary, but then state benefits of it on the same page. lallemand currently recommends rehydration.

 when i go to lallemands website, they state that rehydrating does x process which is beneficial to yeast health. https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/canada/products/brewing-yeast/

this is also interesting in that they suggest against direct pitching if you belief the wort will have a low Ph (ie. sour or ??) https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/docs/products/bp/BEST-PRACTICES_REHYDRATION_DIGITAL.pdf



again, the next thing would be the viable cell count upon packaging of the dried yeast and how that plays out upon adding it to wort. because i absolutely concede that if the cell count is 150% of what is necessary for 20 litres of 1.045 wort, then if not rehydrating makes it say 10% less viable, it really doesn't matter.

as stated already though, my personal findings and experiences, which were not scientifically discovered are that rehydrating makes better beer for a minimal effort (i don't follow the instructions lallemand has to the letter ie. autoclaving, slowly lowering the wort from ~30C to wort temp etc)

I have talked to microbiologists at both Lallemand and Fermentis. They tell me there is no need to rehydrate. Websites obviously have not caught up.  Do what your experience tells you to do.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: neuse on January 24, 2021, 09:06:19 am
Although Fermentis is comfortable with direct pitching, they recommend a specific procedure. From https://fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brochure_Tips_and_Tricks_BAT_BD.pdf:
"If the brewery is not equipped with a system designed for the rehydration step,
we highly recommend a direct pitch.

To do so we recommend using the necessary quantity in weight of ADY and to
put it into the fermentation vessel during the first part of the wort cooling step.
The temperature of cooling will be the same as the temperature used to start
fermentation. There is no need for aeration during this process.

Step 1
Start to fill your fermenter with hopped wort until the cone is filled

Step 2
Sprinkle dry yeast directly in the hopped wort

Step 3
Finish to fill the fermenter"

I also emailed Fermentis about dry pitching and was advised not to pitch on foam: "Sprinkling the yeast on the foam will leave some yeast outside of the liquid which is no good."

By the way, this is a great discussion. Thanks to all who commented.
Title: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: BrewBama on January 24, 2021, 09:31:56 am
...

To do so we recommend using the necessary quantity in weight of ADY and to
put it into the fermentation vessel during the first part of the wort cooling step.
The temperature of cooling will be the same as the temperature used to start
fermentation. There is no need for aeration during this process.

Step 1
Start to fill your fermenter with hopped wort until the cone is filled

Step 2
Sprinkle dry yeast directly in the hopped wort

Step 3
Finish to fill the fermenter"


...

This is what i do. Just toss in the necessary qty dry as the fermenter is filling. Simple. Works as advertised.
Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: PORTERHAUS on January 24, 2021, 10:13:21 am
I came across this and thought it helped shine some light on why the dry yeast manufactures have changed their recommendations as of lately. The video gets into the experiment at about the 3:20 min mark.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=yeast+rehrate&&view=detail&mid=A46D04ABD74A5E0B5BD1A46D04ABD74A5E0B5BD1&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dyeast%2Brehrate%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: fredthecat on January 24, 2021, 11:00:39 am
Rehydrate vs sprinkle has to be the longest running debate in home brewing by far haha

The manufacturers now recommend pitching direct, no rehydration. Not much debate among them.

i disagree with the "now". they waffle back and forth on it, and have at various times recommended both. fermentis has one PDF dated 2019 where they state rehydration is not necessary, but then state benefits of it on the same page. lallemand currently recommends rehydration.

 when i go to lallemands website, they state that rehydrating does x process which is beneficial to yeast health. https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/canada/products/brewing-yeast/

this is also interesting in that they suggest against direct pitching if you belief the wort will have a low Ph (ie. sour or ??) https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/docs/products/bp/BEST-PRACTICES_REHYDRATION_DIGITAL.pdf



again, the next thing would be the viable cell count upon packaging of the dried yeast and how that plays out upon adding it to wort. because i absolutely concede that if the cell count is 150% of what is necessary for 20 litres of 1.045 wort, then if not rehydrating makes it say 10% less viable, it really doesn't matter.

as stated already though, my personal findings and experiences, which were not scientifically discovered are that rehydrating makes better beer for a minimal effort (i don't follow the instructions lallemand has to the letter ie. autoclaving, slowly lowering the wort from ~30C to wort temp etc)

I have talked to microbiologists at both Lallemand and Fermentis. They tell me there is no need to rehydrate. Websites obviously have not caught up.  Do what your experience tells you to do.

thats a good bit of evidence. i'll take that and i'll stop poking this thread.

thanks denny.

Title: Re: W34/70 vs S-189
Post by: Saccharomyces on January 24, 2021, 03:44:02 pm
I do agree with Dave in that dry yeast is fairly indestructible. I’ve never heard of anyone keeping a pack of liquid yeast on stand by just in case dry yeast fails.

Lol! That is so true.  One thing I promised myself this time around was that I would focus on the beer instead of the yeast.  I also wanted try to capture the fun I had when I brewed all-grain beer with a very minimal kit.  I so easy to get wrapped around the axle with brewing.