[Bel Air Brewing]

I’ve fermented quite a few batches with S-04 and though very clear, lager-like would not be the term I would use to describe the pint.

...but then again, is lager-like from an English strain desirable?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lager Like - adj., having a clean refreshing taste. Void of off flavors, such as bread and/or fruit. Suitable for ales and lagers in brewing various styles of beer.

In my examples, both the APA and the BGA, the cleanliness makes for a refreshing, easy to consume beverage. The drinkability and the refreshing quality are critical components of the style (from BJCP).

The judging is in about 6 to 8 weeks. As soon as the scorecards come in, you will be the second to know what the judges think.

[dmtaylor]

is lager-like from an English strain desirable?

It is if you want to make a pseudo-lager at 69 F!  I'm very happy with my result even though it is NOTHING like I intended.

[BrewBama]

is lager-like from an English strain desirable?

It is if you want to make a pseudo-lager at 69 F!  I'm very happy with my result even though it is NOTHING like I intended.

I’m not trying to pour cold water on your brew. If you enjoy it that’s great.

...but I guess that’s kinda my point. If it’s what you intended then that’s fantastic. If it’s not, then that’s a bit different. It could be a very pleasant surprise, but it could be the opposite or varying degrees in between.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dmtaylor]

Of course. I got lucky that I enjoy lagers.

The real reason I stopped back in here is... I found the esters now. As the beer warms, there is an eensy-weensy bit of Juicy Fruit gum. Very very slight. But thats what it is - Juicy Fruit. So its not a perfect lager-like ale. But pretty dang close.

I will never use this yeast for an English style again if I want esters. I will however never hesitate to use this yeast for any clean styles, especially if/when this yeast might be on sale or cheaper than other options. And fermentation temperature seems to make little or no difference, which can be a big benefit.

English, no it isnt.  Great yeast anyway, you bet it is.

[erockrph]

Of course. I got lucky that I enjoy lagers.

The real reason I stopped back in here is... I found the esters now. As the beer warms, there is an eensy-weensy bit of Juicy Fruit gum. Very very slight. But thats what it is - Juicy Fruit. So its not a perfect lager-like ale. But pretty dang close.

I will never use this yeast for an English style again if I want esters. I will however never hesitate to use this yeast for any clean styles, especially if/when this yeast might be on sale or cheaper than other options. And fermentation temperature seems to make little or no difference, which can be a big benefit.

English, no it isnt.  Great yeast anyway, you bet it is.

I've been following this thread struggling to find some reason to give S04 another try, and the Juicyfruit ester thing just gave me a thought. I typically pitch a full pack of dry yeast for a 2.5 gallon batch. Maybe the lack of esters and doughiness comes from overpitching? If I pitch at a much lower rate (like 2 grams for a 2.5 gallon batch instead of 11g), maybe that might bring out the esters a bit - especially if I ferment in the upper 60s. Not sure I've convinced myself yet, but I might try this sometime.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[denny]

Of course. I got lucky that I enjoy lagers.

The real reason I stopped back in here is... I found the esters now. As the beer warms, there is an eensy-weensy bit of Juicy Fruit gum. Very very slight. But thats what it is - Juicy Fruit. So its not a perfect lager-like ale. But pretty dang close.

I will never use this yeast for an English style again if I want esters. I will however never hesitate to use this yeast for any clean styles, especially if/when this yeast might be on sale or cheaper than other options. And fermentation temperature seems to make little or no difference, which can be a big benefit.

English, no it isnt.  Great yeast anyway, you bet it is.

I've been following this thread struggling to find some reason to give S04 another try, and the Juicyfruit ester thing just gave me a thought. I typically pitch a full pack of dry yeast for a 2.5 gallon batch. Maybe the lack of esters and doughiness comes from overpitching? If I pitch at a much lower rate (like 2 grams for a 2.5 gallon batch instead of 11g), maybe that might bring out the esters a bit - especially if I ferment in the upper 60s. Not sure I've convinced myself yet, but I might try this sometime.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Overpitching is certainly a possibility to explore.

[dmtaylor]

Of course. I got lucky that I enjoy lagers.

The real reason I stopped back in here is... I found the esters now. As the beer warms, there is an eensy-weensy bit of Juicy Fruit gum. Very very slight. But thats what it is - Juicy Fruit. So its not a perfect lager-like ale. But pretty dang close.

I will never use this yeast for an English style again if I want esters. I will however never hesitate to use this yeast for any clean styles, especially if/when this yeast might be on sale or cheaper than other options. And fermentation temperature seems to make little or no difference, which can be a big benefit.

English, no it isnt.  Great yeast anyway, you bet it is.

I've been following this thread struggling to find some reason to give S04 another try, and the Juicyfruit ester thing just gave me a thought. I typically pitch a full pack of dry yeast for a 2.5 gallon batch. Maybe the lack of esters and doughiness comes from overpitching? If I pitch at a much lower rate (like 2 grams for a 2.5 gallon batch instead of 11g), maybe that might bring out the esters a bit - especially if I ferment in the upper 60s. Not sure I've convinced myself yet, but I might try this sometime.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Overpitching is certainly a possibility to explore.

Indeed.  By most standards, I underpitch.  This time around I used 1/4 pack in 1.25 gallons, which equates to 1 whole pack for 5 gallons.  For me this would be an overpitch.  For others, it's right in line with what they would use.  Initially I pitched just 1/10 pack but it didn't have any activity after 36 hours so I added a little more.  Then it took off just a few hours later.

[Saccharomyces]

That yeast culture is definitely the same as Wyeast 1098, which was tied with Wyeast 1056 in popularity in my area when I first started to brew.  It may not come across as estery, but it does when drank at a club cookout where the majority of beers were fermented with either 1056 or 1098.  Juicy fruit and tartness are definitely there with 1098.  However, I never encountered breadiness until the culture arrived in the form of S-04.

[Bel Air Brewing]

My few taste samples have been at 32 degrees F, and that might have an impact. But this is certainly not a lager yeast! Lager-like, maybe. But I can taste the "Aleness" in it. No, not fruity, or very estery, similar to 1056.

By the standards on this forum, I overpitch every brew. Again, no bread taste here.

[Bel Air Brewing]

Of course. I got lucky that I enjoy lagers.

The real reason I stopped back in here is... I found the esters now. As the beer warms, there is an eensy-weensy bit of Juicy Fruit gum. Very very slight. But thats what it is - Juicy Fruit. So its not a perfect lager-like ale. But pretty dang close.

I will never use this yeast for an English style again if I want esters. I will however never hesitate to use this yeast for any clean styles, especially if/when this yeast might be on sale or cheaper than other options. And fermentation temperature seems to make little or no difference, which can be a big benefit.

English, no it isnt.  Great yeast anyway, you bet it is.

I'm with you here, this S-04 is a fine yeast. Brewed a London Porter, and an American Pale Ale with this.

[dmtaylor]

That yeast culture is definitely the same as Wyeast 1098, which was tied with Wyeast 1056 in popularity in my area when I first started to brew.  It may not come across as estery, but it does when drank at a club cookout where the majority of beers were fermented with either 1056 or 1098.  Juicy fruit and tartness are definitely there with 1098.  However, I never encountered breadiness until the culture arrived in the form of S-04.

S-04 is more closely related to 1026, 1028, 1187, 1318, 1469, and 1728 than it is to 1098.  Reference the right hand branches of:

http://beer.suregork.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brewing_yeast_tree_Oct_2019.pdf

[Saccharomyces]

S-04 is more closely related to 1026, 1028, 1187, 1318, 1469, and 1728 than it is to 1098.  Reference the right hand branches of:

http://beer.suregork.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brewing_yeast_tree_Oct_2019.pdf

S-04 is on the same sub-tree; therefore, it shares a relatively close common ancestor with 1098.  What is interesting is that several of the cultures on that sub-tree are acid producers.  Wyeast 1026 and 1098 are both acid producers and so is S-04.  There two true top-croppers on the sub-tree as well.  What is further interesting is that Wyeast 1318 groups so closely with Wyeast 1098.   That grouping adds credence to Northern Brewer's claim that  Wyeast 1318 is not the original Boddington's culture.  Wyeast 1098 is without a doubt a Whitbread culture.  It appears that Whitbread acquired Boddingtons around 1969.   Having spent way too much time reading the culture descriptions in the NCYC catalog,  I know that Whitbread had a sizeable culture collection at one point, so the culture known as Wyeast 1318 could have been substituted for the original Boddington's culture. 

What is interesting about Boddington's is that they owned the Hull Brewery. That is where Peter Austin allegedly acquired the Ringwood mixed culture.  For those who do not known, Peter Austin was a major player in craft brewing in Great Britain as well as the East Coast of North America. The brew houses that Alan Pugsley installed in the United States were based on the brew house used at the Ringwood Brewery.   I can honestly say that I would have never taken up brewing without Peter Austin's influence.

[Bel Air Brewing]

Here is what makes this yeast different from most other yeasts we have used...after cold crashing, it sediments into an incredibly thick cake. Think cold-peanut-butter.
Has this been your experience? This makes harvesting a bit more challenging. This viscosity does not allow the yeast to run, so it requires a small shovel or very large spoon to extract from the fermenter.

[fredthecat]

S-04 is more closely related to 1026, 1028, 1187, 1318, 1469, and 1728 than it is to 1098.  Reference the right hand branches of:

http://beer.suregork.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brewing_yeast_tree_Oct_2019.pdf

S-04 is on the same sub-tree; therefore, it shares a relatively close common ancestor with 1098.  What is interesting is that several of the cultures on that sub-tree are acid producers.  Wyeast 1026 and 1098 are both acid producers and so is S-04.  There two true top-croppers on the sub-tree as well.  What is further interesting is that Wyeast 1318 groups so closely with Wyeast 1098.   That grouping adds credence to Northern Brewer's claim that  Wyeast 1318 is not the original Boddington's culture.  Wyeast 1098 is without a doubt a Whitbread culture.  It appears that Whitbread acquired Boddingtons around 1969.   Having spent way too much time reading the culture descriptions in the NCYC catalog,  I know that Whitbread had a sizeable culture collection at one point, so the culture known as Wyeast 1318 could have been substituted for the original Boddington's culture. 

What is interesting about Boddington's is that they owned the Hull Brewery. That is where Peter Austin allegedly acquired the Ringwood mixed culture.  For those who do not known, Peter Austin was a major player in craft brewing in Great Britain as well as the East Coast of North America. The brew houses that Alan Pugsley installed in the United States were based on the brew house used at the Ringwood Brewery.   I can honestly say that I would have never taken up brewing without Peter Austin's influence.

cool post, i've read some books from 90s homebrew authors, and have a vague idea of how this whole homebrewing and small scale commercial (craft/micro) brewing happened, but only vague. i might start searching out the long story. but i can imagine a fair bit of the initial things would have had to have been created entirely from scratch. ie. single digit BBL kettles and fermentors?

im googling those names now.

[denny]

S-04 is more closely related to 1026, 1028, 1187, 1318, 1469, and 1728 than it is to 1098.  Reference the right hand branches of:

http://beer.suregork.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Brewing_yeast_tree_Oct_2019.pdf

S-04 is on the same sub-tree; therefore, it shares a relatively close common ancestor with 1098.  What is interesting is that several of the cultures on that sub-tree are acid producers.  Wyeast 1026 and 1098 are both acid producers and so is S-04.  There two true top-croppers on the sub-tree as well.  What is further interesting is that Wyeast 1318 groups so closely with Wyeast 1098.   That grouping adds credence to Northern Brewer's claim that  Wyeast 1318 is not the original Boddington's culture.  Wyeast 1098 is without a doubt a Whitbread culture.  It appears that Whitbread acquired Boddingtons around 1969.   Having spent way too much time reading the culture descriptions in the NCYC catalog,  I know that Whitbread had a sizeable culture collection at one point, so the culture known as Wyeast 1318 could have been substituted for the original Boddington's culture. 

What is interesting about Boddington's is that they owned the Hull Brewery. That is where Peter Austin allegedly acquired the Ringwood mixed culture.  For those who do not known, Peter Austin was a major player in craft brewing in Great Britain as well as the East Coast of North America. The brew houses that Alan Pugsley installed in the United States were based on the brew house used at the Ringwood Brewery.   I can honestly say that I would have never taken up brewing without Peter Austin's influence.

cool post, i've read some books from 90s homebrew authors, and have a vague idea of how this whole homebrewing and small scale commercial (craft/micro) brewing happened, but only vague. i might start searching out the long story. but i can imagine a fair bit of the initial things would have had to have been created entirely from scratch. ie. single digit BBL kettles and fermentors?

im googling those names now.

In the early days, craft breweries repurposed dairy equipment.