[denny]

I'm not Mark, but I'm not at all surprised by the idea that 1056 might be a lager strain. If not it's an ale strain that is so clean it might as well be, and it's an ale strain that works well at 50F...

Edit:
Once this is settled, it will rock the beer world when people are forced to admit that SNPA is actually an American Pilsner.

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation?  Using 2124 as my "house" strain, I know it can be warmed up to make old-timey American "ales" (cream ale, etc.)  Kind of curious if 1056 could be used the other way around, in a conventional lager fermentation.

I have often started 1056 at 52F with no problems.  I've used 1007 as low as 48F.

[ynotbrusum]

I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

[denny]

I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can't explain it.

[a10t2]

My experience with US-05 is the opposite; we'd pitch in the upper 50s and it would steadily cool to 48-52°F depending on the season. We were able to run pretty normal ale fermentation schedules that way.

[Robert]

I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can't explain it.

A lot of us have anecdotal evidence that dry strains don't perform like their wet sources even when there is no question of the origin (I'm one of the dry 34/70 skeptics.) As dry yeast becomes more and more favored by breweries, maybe this will be an area of research. 

As far as experimenting with 1056 in lager fermentation,  well, next time I decide to buy a new pitch,  I guess it's 1056 instead of 2124!  Brewing tomorrow, so a bit late for that now....but I'm eager to try this.

[hopfenundmalz]

I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can't explain it.

I remember it was US-56 or US-056 at first, then the name changed. Was it a full lawsuit, or a C&D?

[denny]

I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can't explain it.

I remember it was US-56 or US-056 at first, then the name changed. Was it a full lawsuit, or a C&D?

My understanding is that it was a full on suit.  The name change was a result of it.

[Robert]

I hadn't paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager ("beer" in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I'm missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

[klickitat jim]

I hadn't paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager ("beer" in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I'm missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

Question EVERYTHING!

[Robert]

You betcha.  And I'm definitely trying this.  Tomorrow is a reference beer as a baseline for the following brew, where I'm trying a local malthouse's products.  But that means a month from now I'll be ready to change something else, and I think the plan should be, brew batch 3 of this same Dortmunder recipe, but with 1056/051 at lager temps.  And if it drops bright better than 2124 I just might have my new house yeast.  The Fat Heads lager made with it has already almost sold me.

[narcout]

I hadn't paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager ("beer" in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I'm missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

The thinking before was that BRY-97 = Wyeast 1272 = WLP051 = Ballantine Ale, and that BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP001 = Ballantine Beer, right?

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation? 

I've never pitched 1056 that low, but I once tried to crash a starter of it at high krausen in the fridge, and it just kept chugging along.

[hopfenundmalz]

I hadn't paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager ("beer" in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I'm missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

The thinking before was that BRY-97 = Wyeast 1272 = WLP051 = Ballantine Ale, and that BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP001 = Ballantine Beer, right?

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation? 

I've never pitched 1056 that low, but I once tried to crash a starter of it at high krausen in the fridge, and it just kept chugging along.

Things have been turned upside down. It might be a few years before all of the dust settles.

[ynotbrusum]

Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters.....and our old theories may go by the boards.

[Robert]

Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters.....and our old theories may go by the boards.

Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"  But yeah, I think I've about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn't  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.

[BrodyR]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:
1) Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2) Is this is the reverse of Mark's theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3) Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.