Author Topic: WY vs WL  (Read 781 times)

Offline erockrph

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 6703
  • Chepachet, RI
    • The Hop WHisperer
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2020, 05:25:58 PM »


With new genetic information coming out about the parent of Chico; namely, Siebel BRY-96 (Tobias Fischborn let the cat out of the bag that Siebel BRY-97 is an isolate of BRY-96 with better flocculation characteristics), we can probably be assured that it is not Ballantine's ale culture, which is held by the NRRL as Y-7408.  That being said, I remember what a well-respected member of  BURP (the big DC brewing club) who brewed part-time at Old Dominion when it was in Virginia said about the culture back when I first started to brew.  She said that it was used by Narragansett to make Ballantine XXX after Falstaff shuttered the doors on the Ballantine brewery in Newark, NJ.  Even she assumed that the culture came from Ballantine.  However, now that genetic research has ruled out the Ballantine ale yeast culture being the parent of BRY-96, we have to look for a new source.  While someone has started brewing under the Narragansett label, Falstaff shuttered the original Narragansett brewery in 1981.  If what I was told in the early nineties is true, there is a high probability that somewhere in the Narragansett archives lies the source of BRY-96.  We have yet another yeast mystery on our hands.
Revival Brewing out in my area used to brew pilot batches for Narragansett when the new owners restarted the label. I doubt they had the old Narragansett yeast, especially since he wasn't brewing the lager. Still, if Revival ever reopens after COVID-19 and I run into Sean, I'll see if I can pick his brain about that.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Eric B.

Finally got around to starting a homebrewing blog: The Hop Whisperer

Offline Saccharomyces

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2020, 10:25:51 PM »
Revival Brewing out in my area used to brew pilot batches for Narragansett when the new owners restarted the label. I doubt they had the old Narragansett yeast, especially since he wasn't brewing the lager. Still, if Revival ever reopens after COVID-19 and I run into Sean, I'll see if I can pick his brain about that.

Narragansett also brewed ale.  Production of Ballantine XXX was moved to Narragansett after Falstaff shuttered Ballantine.  Y-7408 and Y-7407 were deposited into the NRRL in 1972 by G.W. Lange from Ballantine.  Siebel lists a reception date for BRY-96 of 4/1/1967.  That date precedes the NRRL deposits by five years, which kind of complicates the Narragansett narrative, that is, unless Narragansett brewed ale before they took over production of Ballantine XXX.  Siebel also claims that the yeast culture came a brewery formerly operating on the East Coast. How many breweries on the East Coast were still brewing ale in the sixties?  Ballantine made its fortune in blue-collar tavern and ethnic drinkers. 

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4090
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2020, 11:45:18 PM »
Maybe some strains, but I can confidently say that the WL and WY scottish ale yeasts are very different, with WL being more malty, full bodied and complex, and wyeast being more neutral. WL is much slower to ferment at lower temps as well.

Truth.  Genetic testing proved that the two Scottish strains are completely unrelated to one another.
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.

Offline dannyjed

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Toledo, OH
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2020, 01:01:55 AM »
I will say I prefer Wyeast over White Labs. I like 1056 over 001, 1728 over 028, 2206 over 830, and WL doesn’t have an equivalent to 1450. My LHBS carried WY for 15 years and I learned and got accustomed to many of the strains. About a year a half ago my LHBS switched over to WL and I tried many of their strains and I just don’t like them as much for the beers that I make. Now I order WY online or get it when I visit AIH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dan Chisholm

Offline reverseapachemaster

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • Brain Sparging on Brewing
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2020, 02:36:44 AM »
I'm also a WY user over WL. I never felt like I got as good of beer out of WL but I used their products so infrequently my sample size doesn't mean anything. I've just always liked the results I get from WY so don't see much reason to deviate. (I have used some other labs with success.) After WL was exposed for having infection problems a few years ago I just don't see a reason to keep trying them.
Heck yeah I blog about homebrewing: Brain Sparging on Brewing

Offline coolman26

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2020, 04:06:39 PM »
With the wy danish yeast now being a PC strain, I’ve tried a few other strains, one of them being S189. It’s pretty damn good for malty lagers I think. And wy San Francisco at colder temps is also really good.

Not sure why they do seasonal strains? As a business, why encourage people to try other businesses products?. I love the danish lager yeast from wyeast. The WLP one is similar but I prefer the wyeast one

Either way, for homebrewers now there are so many good yeast strains to choose from dry or liquid

The seasonals have lower demand. When the produce yeast in bulk, it goes out to the supply chain. Yearly production would result in a lot of product getting old on the shelf. Seasonsl strains concentrate the demand, so less product goes to waste.
This, plus not every seasonal strain is available from one of the other labs. WY3864 Canadian/Belgian (i.e., Unibroue), for example, is only available from Wyeast and only as a PC strain. I've also been told by the folks at Wyeast that they use how well a PC strain sells as one way of determining whether to move it to their permanent lineup.

On a self-serving note, 3864 is also one of my favorite yeast strains and is available now, so go buy some! Maybe one day I'll be able to get it year round without having to culture up from a bottle :)
I’ve had mine going for a couple of years. I just save from a starter. I learned to keep it going after it wasn’t offered. I just had some delivered on Tues this week!  Going to make an IPA with it this time.
Jeff B

Offline Oiscout

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2020, 04:13:49 PM »
Thanks for the information everyone

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Offline Cliffs

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2020, 05:19:53 PM »
I will say I prefer Wyeast over White Labs. I like 1056 over 001, 1728 over 028, 2206 over 830, and WL doesn’t have an equivalent to 1450. My LHBS carried WY for 15 years and I learned and got accustomed to many of the strains. About a year a half ago my LHBS switched over to WL and I tried many of their strains and I just don’t like them as much for the beers that I make. Now I order WY online or get it when I visit AIH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
for me, these two strains are too different to really compare them. I strongly prefer WL, as it has more body and gives the beer a nice oaky and malty flavor, whereas WY is very neutral, almost like a slightly lower attenuating 1056 strain.

Offline erockrph

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 6703
  • Chepachet, RI
    • The Hop WHisperer
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2020, 05:27:54 PM »
With the wy danish yeast now being a PC strain, I’ve tried a few other strains, one of them being S189. It’s pretty damn good for malty lagers I think. And wy San Francisco at colder temps is also really good.

Not sure why they do seasonal strains? As a business, why encourage people to try other businesses products?. I love the danish lager yeast from wyeast. The WLP one is similar but I prefer the wyeast one

Either way, for homebrewers now there are so many good yeast strains to choose from dry or liquid

The seasonals have lower demand. When the produce yeast in bulk, it goes out to the supply chain. Yearly production would result in a lot of product getting old on the shelf. Seasonsl strains concentrate the demand, so less product goes to waste.
This, plus not every seasonal strain is available from one of the other labs. WY3864 Canadian/Belgian (i.e., Unibroue), for example, is only available from Wyeast and only as a PC strain. I've also been told by the folks at Wyeast that they use how well a PC strain sells as one way of determining whether to move it to their permanent lineup.

On a self-serving note, 3864 is also one of my favorite yeast strains and is available now, so go buy some! Maybe one day I'll be able to get it year round without having to culture up from a bottle :)
I’ve had mine going for a couple of years. I just save from a starter. I learned to keep it going after it wasn’t offered. I just had some delivered on Tues this week!  Going to make an IPA with it this time.
It works very well with hops for a Belgian strain. I went through a phase years ago where I brewed many beers that were essentially various styles crossed with an APA. Most were lackluster at best, but my 3864 "Belgian Dark Ale" (dubbel meets APA) remains one of my favorite recipes. I ordered an extra pack to leave lying around, and I might have to try some straight-up IPA's with it.
Eric B.

Finally got around to starting a homebrewing blog: The Hop Whisperer