[Robert]

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.

See Jeff's reply #26 where he puts it nicely.  The world's gone topsy turvy; or has it?  The old theory makes sense only if we keep our old assumptions that we can distinguish cerevisiae and pastorianus by certain organoleptic qualities in beers.  Which it seems clear we can't do.

[dmtaylor]

Over the past couple months and again last week, I dove into the results pretty deep.  I still have a lot of questions about what's what and whether it's all truly valid.  I believe a lot of the so-called "equivalents" are either NOT equivalent, or are closely related but again, NOT equivalent.  However there might be some that are indeed one & the same.  I have a lot of notes at home on this (not here at work) and if I can find some time this weekend, I'll dive in again and see if I can figure out what's what regarding all the California/American "ale" strains.  As to whether any of them are truly lager yeasts, I honestly have a lot of doubts.  There's too much conflicting information bouncing around to make sense of it all.  Bottom line is I think we're going to need more research over the next year or 3 to confirm for certain which ones are lagers vs. ales.  I really question some of the declarations of "this is really a lager!"  Maybe true, but I remain skeptical.  It's not adding up.

Sorry I don't have more details to share right at this moment, but please wait a day or two and hopefully I can help stir the mud even more (vice clear it up!).  And anyone else, please feel free of course.

[denny]

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.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.

[BrewBama]

Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"

Me too!  I loved those guys.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[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.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.

Big shoes, Denny, but keep it up!

[mainebrewer]

Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"

Me too!  I loved those guys.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here in Maine, Tom and Ray always kept me company on my Saturday AM brew times.

[denny]

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.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.

Big shoes, Denny, but keep it up!

Indeed, but I'm getting close to the goofy laugh.

[ynotbrusum]

Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"

Me too!  I loved those guys.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here in Maine, Tom and Ray always kept me company on my Saturday AM brew times.

Me, too, I listened to them every show while brewing and even before I took up brewing way back when... and, yes, I now listen to Denny and Drew while I brew.  I guess it was a natural kind of substitution that occurrred without any conscious connection on my part (I am not that smart), but yeah, it is nearly parallel.

[hopfenundmalz]

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.

1. Maybe.
2. Yes
3. I don’t know.

I see the second link in my post no longer works.

[denny]

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.

1. Maybe.
2. Yes
3. I don’t know.

I see the second link in my post no longer works.

AFAIK, WY1056 came from Sierra Nevada, cultured from a bottle.

[Robert]

One thing that bothers me about the identification of 1056 with 051 is that White labs describes 051 as flocculent, producing bright beers without filtration, while Wyeast says the opposite about 1056.  I've never used 051 so can't make a real comparison myself, but agree 1056 is rather powdery.

[denny]

One thing that bothers me about the identification of 1056 with 051 is that White labs describes 051 as flocculent, producing bright beers without filtration, while Wyeast says the opposite about 1056.  I've never used 051 so can't make a real comparison myself, but agree 1056 is rather powdery.

Although it's entirely possible they have the same source but the characteristics have diverged over the years, isn't it?

[hopfenundmalz]

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.

1. Maybe.
2. Yes
3. I don’t know.

I see the second link in my post no longer works.

AFAIK, WY1056 came from Sierra Nevada, cultured from a bottle.

I looked at the tree in the first link. 1056 and 001 are not far apart on the branches. Are they closely related?
I don’t know.

It will take time before all of this is sorted out.

[dmtaylor]

Okay guys..... I spent a good 3 or 4 hours staring at all the genome data, and here's what I *think* I've figured out:

The original link contains 3 places on the tree for "WLP019/WLP051/WY1056".  I do NOT take this to mean that these 3 yeasts are identical!  Far from it!  I think they just weren't sure which one went where.  3 yeasts, 3 slots.  More sleuthing will be needed to figure which one goes where.  And I think I've figured it out, maybe.  My thoughts:

As I just said, to be clear, WLP051 and Wyeast 1056 are NOT equivalent.  They are very very distant cousins.

BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056, AND NOTHING ELSE!  NOTHING else is exactly equivalent!  1056 is unique!

BRY-97 = WLP051 = 1272, AND NOTHING ELSE!  Nothing else is exactly equivalent!  And if I'm right in my interpretation as explained above, then all 3 of these might be pastorianus, including 1272 and the dry version!(?)

WLP001 and WLP051 are close sisters or cousins, both from one origin (in the 1950s or whatever), which presumably is Ballantine, which might actually be Uncle WLP019 which is a relatively old strain.

BRY-97 = WLP051 = 1272 didn't have any babies yet, if I'm right.  This branch of the tree is unique.  And even if BRY-97, WLP051, and 1272 aren't exactly the same, they should be really close.  The family tree isn't clear enough and really only spelled out White Labs strains clearly, and very few dry yeasts, but not Wyeast ones, so this is a bit of a guess.

Wyeast 1056 is on a completely separate branch from all others, and US-05 is a very distant descendant of 1056.  These two strains actually aren't super closely related to any of the others discussed above, or even to each other.

1056 and US-05 *might* be lagers, but I have never seen evidence in that regard on suregork's site or other sources.  However... if I were a betting man, I *might* be willing to bet a 6-pack that they are pastorianus, maybe.  If that's the case...

It's possible that maybe ALL of these are pastorianus?!  But I am not savvy enough to figure that out yet.  I haven't bothered yet to look whether each of these were "confirmed to definitely be cerevisiae".  If they were, then the pastorianus *might* indeed be limited to just BRY-97 = WLP051 = 1272.  I really don't know where the mutation from c. to p. event occurred.  Could be a good question for suregork & qq if we can't find it ourselves.

I'm tired, I'm going to bed.  Curious to think if you all find this to make any sense, or not, or what.  Talk to you later.

[Robert]

Thanks for the effort, Dave.  I'll buy your interpretation.   (Or at least put a down payment on the lease.)  It'll be interesting times ahead.