Author Topic: WY vs WL  (Read 2059 times)

Offline BeerfanOz

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2020, 02:18:34 pm »
As far as getting the wort down to pitching temperature for a lager yeast in the cube

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

When I brew lagers I put the cube in the fermenting fridge at 10c and add my starter flask to the fridge ( after it’s at high krausen) and then when both are at pitch temp, pitch into the fermenter and put back in the fridge
Shellharbour, NSW, Australia

Offline Saccharomyces

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1136
  • Deus ex machina
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2020, 02:20:39 pm »
I have been brewing since February of 1993.  White Labs did not exist at the point in time, but Wyeast had been a player for several years. To be completely honest, after spending most of the time in brewing culturing my own yeast, I am looking seriously toward finding suitable dry cultures.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2020, 04:24:31 pm by Saccharomyces »

Offline Oiscout

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2020, 02:26:02 pm »
That's a long time !

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Offline RC

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2020, 05:11:38 pm »
For the same liquid strain, White Labs and Wyeast are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. Imperial beats both. However, there's a wider variety of strains at WL and WY, so I still use them occasionally.

But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.

Offline Saccharomyces

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1136
  • Deus ex machina
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2020, 06:09:21 am »
But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.

Dry brewing yeast in the early to mid-90s was just dreadful.  It is why a lot of us who started brewing during that period of time have rejected dry yeast for so long.  The state of dry brewing yeast at that point in time and the difficulty of obtaining reliable Wyeast smack packs on the East Coast is why I started plating and slanting my own yeast during my first year of brewing. Having my own bank of cultures on slant removed yeast culture availability constraints from my brewing. However, dry yeast cultures are not as sensitive to shipping conditions as are liquid yeast cultures. 

I pitched and repitched BRY-97 a couple of times several years ago. The slow onset of fermentation on the initial pitch was disturbing, but the repitches started like any other yeast culture. It is a good culture, but too me, it does not bring anything more to the table than W-34/70 when pitched at ale temperatures.  I am looking for a dry ale culture with British character that can be top-cropped.  I am hoping that Verdant IPA is that culture; however, I fear that it may be a little too tutti frutti.

Offline BrewBama

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 5267
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2020, 06:58:37 am »
...BRY-97 ...now my go-to...

+1


...it does not bring anything more to the table than W-34/70 when pitched at ale temperatures.

+1. It is a clean slate that allows hops and malt to shine thru.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 25622
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2020, 08:45:10 am »
For the same liquid strain, White Labs and Wyeast are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. Imperial beats both. However, there's a wider variety of strains at WL and WY, so I still use them occasionally.

But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.

I have found distinct differences between wga5 are supposedly the same strain.  For instance WLP001 and WY1056.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline Northern_Brewer

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • British - apparently some US company stole my name
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2020, 02:52:57 pm »
And we now know the mutations that cause the differences between different Chicos.

Offline Saccharomyces

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1136
  • Deus ex machina
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2020, 12:26:41 am »
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.

By the way, it is probably old news to most of us, but the original Ballantine ale culture is available from Al Buck's company as ECY-10 Old Newark Ale. Given his description of ECY-10's origin, Al definitely acquired the culture from the NRRL.  He has asserted for years that BRY-96 and Chico by extension are not the same culture as ECY-10.  Most people dismissed his claim.  However, we now know that his assertion is correct.  We know that NRRL Y-7408 was brought to Ballantine from Scotland, but the culture appears to have ceased to be used in the production of beer after it was deposited into the NRRL.

Offline BeerfanOz

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #24 on: October 26, 2020, 01:11:27 am »
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
Shellharbour, NSW, Australia

Offline hopfenundmalz

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 10430
  • Milford, MI
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2020, 07:14:25 am »
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.
Jeff Rankert
AHA Lifetime Member
BJCP National
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild
Home-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

Offline erockrph

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7416
  • Chepachet, RI
    • The Hop WHisperer
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2020, 12:22:40 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 :)
Eric B.

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

Offline Cliffs

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2020, 11:08:34 am »
For the same liquid strain, White Labs and Wyeast are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. Imperial beats both. However, there's a wider variety of strains at WL and WY, so I still use them occasionally.

But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.
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.

Offline Cliffs

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2020, 11:11:14 am »
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.

By the way, it is probably old news to most of us, but the original Ballantine ale culture is available from Al Buck's company as ECY-10 Old Newark Ale. Given his description of ECY-10's origin, Al definitely acquired the culture from the NRRL.  He has asserted for years that BRY-96 and Chico by extension are not the same culture as ECY-10.  Most people dismissed his claim.  However, we now know that his assertion is correct.  We know that NRRL Y-7408 was brought to Ballantine from Scotland, but the culture appears to have ceased to be used in the production of beer after it was deposited into the NRRL.

anyone who thinks ECY-10 is the same as Chico has probably never used ECY-10. ECY-10 is a much more robust top cropper and produces more sulfur during ferm than Chico.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 25622
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: WY vs WL
« Reply #29 on: October 27, 2020, 11:18:25 am »
For the same liquid strain, White Labs and Wyeast are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned. Imperial beats both. However, there's a wider variety of strains at WL and WY, so I still use them occasionally.

But...I've been brewing since 1996, when only awful dry yeast was available. I've carried that bias with me for a long time. Denny and dmtaylor have inspired me to broaden my horizons on the dry-yeast front. I have not been disappointed! Bias be gone! BRY-97 and S-189 are now my go-to house strains.
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.

I agree.  Even 001 and 1056 are worlds different IMO.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell