Author Topic: Safale S-04  (Read 4230 times)

Offline jeffy

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3888
  • Tampa, Fl
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #120 on: January 21, 2021, 05:35:24 PM »

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.
The Pugsley systems had a bricked-in mash tun and used open fermenters.  Shipyard had one in Orlando, at the airport, for a while.  They had a clean, temperature controlled room for the fermenters.
Jeff Gladish, Tampa (989.3, 175.1 Apparent Rennarian)
Homebrewing since 1990
AHA member since 1991, now a lifetime member
BJCP judge since 1995

Offline Fire Rooster

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #121 on: January 21, 2021, 07:04:07 PM »
Brewing tomorrow using S-04 dated Sep 2023.
SEP 2023 ? Struck while the iron was hot, ordered 9 more (received, all are SEP 2023) to store in fridge.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 07:08:00 PM by Fire Rooster »

Offline TXFlyGuy

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #122 on: January 23, 2021, 03:40:01 PM »
Brewing tomorrow using S-04 dated Sep 2023.
SEP 2023 ? Struck while the iron was hot, ordered 9 more (received, all are SEP 2023) to store in fridge.

I will make this one of my two “House Yeasts”, the other being the ubiquitous W-34/70.

Using these I will be able to brew everything and anything that I care to drink!
Now On Tap:

1. Oktoberfest
2. London Porter
3. Oktoberfest (Sam Adams)
4. Vienna Lager

Offline Fire Rooster

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #123 on: January 23, 2021, 04:37:46 PM »
Brewing tomorrow using S-04 dated Sep 2023.
SEP 2023 ? Struck while the iron was hot, ordered 9 more (received, all are SEP 2023) to store in fridge.

I will make this one of my two “House Yeasts”, the other being the ubiquitous W-34/70.

Using these I will be able to brew everything and anything that I care to drink!

Also ordered 9 US-05 packets, because they also are dated SEP 2023.
Guess for 2021 my house yeasts are S-04, and US-05.
I like using Nottingham in the winter, but I keep getting packets with a short fuse.

Offline fredthecat

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #124 on: January 23, 2021, 10:51:44 PM »
Brewing tomorrow using S-04 dated Sep 2023.
SEP 2023 ? Struck while the iron was hot, ordered 9 more (received, all are SEP 2023) to store in fridge.

I will make this one of my two “House Yeasts”, the other being the ubiquitous W-34/70.

Using these I will be able to brew everything and anything that I care to drink!

Also ordered 9 US-05 packets, because they also are dated SEP 2023.
Guess for 2021 my house yeasts are S-04, and US-05.
I like using Nottingham in the winter, but I keep getting packets with a short fuse.

im eager to try out BRY97, the highly recommended alternative to S05. I used S05 for years because it was just.. there and supposedly "neutral". but it just wasnt all there with some brews, there was just something just a tiny bit less than perfect with it for me.

ive got bry97 right now, but it'll be late winter before i brew with it. ill post results.

Offline Fire Rooster

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #125 on: January 29, 2021, 11:06:30 AM »
Brewing tomorrow using S-04 dated Sep 2023.
SEP 2023 ? Struck while the iron was hot, ordered 9 more (received, all are SEP 2023) to store in fridge.

I will make this one of my two “House Yeasts”, the other being the ubiquitous W-34/70.

Using these I will be able to brew everything and anything that I care to drink!

Also ordered 9 US-05 packets, because they also are dated SEP 2023.
Guess for 2021 my house yeasts are S-04, and US-05.
I like using Nottingham in the winter, but I keep getting packets with a short fuse.

im eager to try out BRY97, the highly recommended alternative to S05. I used S05 for years because it was just.. there and supposedly "neutral". but it just wasnt all there with some brews, there was just something just a tiny bit less than perfect with it for me.

ive got bry97 right now, but it'll be late winter before i brew with it. ill post results.

S-04 and US-05 were selected because (1) they're popular (2) have best by/exp dates of SEP-2023
(3) capable of lows temps in basement (4) have a wide temp range.

I don't possess the experience/knowledge to determine if yeast is truly responsible for certain tastes.
Was it the mash temp & time, boil length, grains, hops, water, fermentation temp & time,
bottle conditioning temp and time, yeast, I dunno.  Many times it was strongly believed something was fact,
when in actuality it was false.   Although I can say, the beers are beginning to get really good with attention to detail.

Offline Saccharomyces

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 765
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #126 on: January 30, 2021, 10:18:52 AM »
The Pugsley systems had a bricked-in mash tun and used open fermenters.  Shipyard had one in Orlando, at the airport, for a while.  They had a clean, temperature controlled room for the fermenters.

The Peter Austin and Partners systems that Alan Pugsley installed near me were basically replicas of the original Ringwood brewery in Hampshire England.  They had direct-fired, bricked-in kettles, wood clad mash tuns and hot liquor backs, hop percolators (a Peter Austin hopback design), and fish tail-equipped open fermentation vessels (even the yeast propagator was an open fermenter). They all used the multii-strain Ringwood yeast culture that Peter Austin acquired when he worked at the Hull Brewery in Northern England. It is a high O2 demand Yorkshire-style yeast culture.  Ringwood makes really good beer in the right hands, but it is a mean and cruel mistress in the wrong hands. 

If it had not been for these Pugsley-installed breweries, I would have never started to brew.  Their impact on craft brewing on the East Coast cannot be ignored.  The largest Peter Austin and Partners system in Maryland was installed in the Wild Goose Brewery in Cambridge, Maryland, which is on the Delmarva (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia) Peninsula.  There is very little doubt in my mind that Dogfish Head Brewing exists because of the Wild Goose Brewery.  Their house strain is derived from Ringwood.  It has Ringwood written all over its ester and diketone profile.

Here is a article about brewing at Geary's that shows the kettle, mashtun, and one of the open fermentation vessels:

http://wouldbebrewmaster.blogspot.com/2015/10/brew-day-geary-summer-ale-clone.html

Even the top of the mash tun on a Peter Austin and Partners system is insulated with wood.

Here is Peter Austin's Wiki Page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Austin_(brewer)
« Last Edit: January 30, 2021, 07:19:24 PM by Saccharomyces »

Offline Saccharomyces

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 765
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #127 on: January 30, 2021, 10:37:22 AM »
By the way, do not ferment US-05 cold.  BRY-96 and Chico by extension is best used above 65F.  I have never gotten peach from that strain because I do not ferment ales below 18C.

Offline TXFlyGuy

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #128 on: January 30, 2021, 04:52:08 PM »
By the way, do not ferment US-05 cold.  BRY-96 and Chico by extension is best used above 65F.  I have never gotten peach from that strain because I do not ferment ales below 18C.

The head brewer (J. Morrison, Siebel graduate) at the Hoffbrau in Addison, Texas, used Wyeast 1056 as their house yeast. He would ferment it cold (not sure the actual temp, but below 60 degrees), and have the beer on tap as a lager.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2021, 05:32:00 PM by TXFlyGuy »
Now On Tap:

1. Oktoberfest
2. London Porter
3. Oktoberfest (Sam Adams)
4. Vienna Lager

Offline Saccharomyces

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 765
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #129 on: January 30, 2021, 07:21:30 PM »
The head brewer (J. Morrison, Siebel graduate) at the Hoffbrau in Addison, Texas, used Wyeast 1056 as their house yeast. He would ferment it cold (not sure the actual temp, but below 60 degrees), and have the beer on tap as a lager.

However, the strain can become unstable with unpredictable results below 18C.  There are better strains for cold ale fermentation than BRY-96.

Offline clibit

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: Safale S-04
« Reply #130 on: February 10, 2021, 08:41:57 PM »

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.
Whitbread acquired Boddington's Brewery in 1989. I was a big fan of Bodds from the late 70s into the mid 80s but the Whitbread takeover diminished it and then AB Inbev completely wrecked it.