[denny]

Yes, an absolutely awesome chart. Cool colors, with a nice graphic display. But we are having some difficulty parlaying the chart data into our real world brewing experience, and flavor profiles.

Without definition of the terms and nomenclatures used, it tells us nothing.

All it says basically is that S-04 attenuates slightly less than other yeasts like US-05, the Belgians, and the lager yeasts, which is well known even without the graph.  But in my experience it still gets 77-78%, which is no slouch either to be sure.

Actually I'm surprised by T-58, looks like that one struggles to eat complex sugars like maltotriose similar to S-33 and the likes of Windsor and London.

In response to some of your other comments.... maltotriose tastes like nothing meaningful.  In my view it just serves to keep the FG high and the ABV low.  That is all.

Is that attenuation regardless of recipe?

[dmtaylor]

Yes, an absolutely awesome chart. Cool colors, with a nice graphic display. But we are having some difficulty parlaying the chart data into our real world brewing experience, and flavor profiles.

Without definition of the terms and nomenclatures used, it tells us nothing.

All it says basically is that S-04 attenuates slightly less than other yeasts like US-05, the Belgians, and the lager yeasts, which is well known even without the graph.  But in my experience it still gets 77-78%, which is no slouch either to be sure.

Actually I'm surprised by T-58, looks like that one struggles to eat complex sugars like maltotriose similar to S-33 and the likes of Windsor and London.

In response to some of your other comments.... maltotriose tastes like nothing meaningful.  In my view it just serves to keep the FG high and the ABV low.  That is all.

Is that attenuation regardless of recipe?

Indeed.  One of my S-04 beers was an Imperial Brown Ale, 77% attenuation and almost 10% ABV.  Another was a partial mash with extract (and NON-hazy) IPA about 6.5% ABV.  Both of those included some crystal malt.  And finally a standard JZ BCS cream ale about 5% ABV.  So yeah, all over the place.  Mash parameters simply DO NOT MATTER with the S-04 yeast in my experience, at least not in a standard conventional sense.  And same for Notty where I have much more experience with many many styles.

EDIT: Or were you talking about maltotriose?  Attenuation can vary quite a bit with the yeasts that don't handle maltotriose very well.  In those cases the mash parameters seem to be very important, like opposite end of spectrum as far as that goes.

[Saccharomyces]

I guess I should have been more specific. It doesn’t metabolize maltotriose as much as say US-05 or W34/70.   I usually get 70-75%AA from S-04.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All of the lager strains on that graph belong to the Frohberg family.  Why? Becasue Saaz lager strains tend to be maltotriose challenged.  I recently read a fermentation research publication where the author claimed that most industrial lager breweries switched over to Frohberg strains during the twentieth century because Frohberg strains have superior fermentation performance.  One of the holdouts is Carlsberg.  That explains why the yeast cultures available to amateur brewers that were assumed to be Saaz strains are grouping genetically with the Frohberg strains.

[Bel Air Brewing]

I guess I should have been more specific. It doesn’t metabolize maltotriose as much as say US-05 or W34/70.   I usually get 70-75%AA from S-04.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All of the lager strains on that graph belong to the Frohberg family.  Why? Becasue Saaz lager strains tend to be maltotriose challenged.  I recently read a fermentation research publication where the author claimed that most industrial lager breweries switched over to Frohberg strains during the twentieth century because Frohberg strains have superior fermentation performance.  One of the holdouts is Carlsberg.  That explains why the yeast cultures available to amateur brewers that were assumed to be Saaz strains are grouping genetically with the Frohberg strains.

It would appear that the first 5 (or 6) yeasts on the chart (L TO R) are all very close in performance. Only a point or two separates them, which is most likely non-distinguishable taste wise. It's not until you get to the right hand side where the performance is all over the place, with large numbers separating each yeast.

But that's just my single-data-point observation. Your eyes might vary.

[dmtaylor]

It would appear that the first 5 (or 6) yeasts on the chart (L TO R) are all very close in performance. Only a point or two separates them, which is most likely non-distinguishable taste wise.

That might be true if fermentation of these specific sugars were the only variable responsible for "taste".  Fortunately there are thousands if not millions of other variables at play.

[Saccharomyces]

It would appear that the first 5 (or 6) yeasts on the chart (L TO R) are all very close in performance. Only a point or two separates them, which is most likely non-distinguishable taste wise. It's not until you get to the right hand side where the performance is all over the place, with large numbers separating each yeast.

But that's just my single-data-point observation. Your eyes might vary.

However, there is a big difference between lager yeast strains and ale yeast strains that is not shown on that graph; namely, the ability to metabolize melibiose.  Ale strains are melibiose challenged.

[BrewBama]

It would appear that the first 5 (or 6) yeasts on the chart (L TO R) are all very close in performance. Only a point or two separates them, which is most likely non-distinguishable taste wise.

That might be true if fermentation of these specific sugars were the only variable responsible for "taste".  Fortunately there are thousands if not millions of other variables at play.

+1. Esters quickly come to mind. That chart only analyzes four simple sugars. Taste characteristics between the strains vary widely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bel Air Brewing]

Before I get beat up too badly, my point was the sugar profile is remarkably similar. Yes, other items to consider, for sure.

The more we brew with W-34/70, the more we like it. It has become our house yeast.

Stand by for a full report on the S-04. Should be ready soon.

[dmtaylor]

Before I get beat up too badly, my point was the sugar profile is remarkably similar.

Indeed, I agree.  Cheers.

[Bel Air Brewing]

Okay...just kegged this London Porter, with the S-04 yeast.

The first thing that makes this yeast a bit different is it's very thick peanut butter like viscosity. I had to scrape it out of the fermenter bottom, as it would not drain through the yeast dump port. Never seen yeast this thick before.

A bit early to judge the flavor profile, but at first impression it is clean, allowing the malt to shine. Coffee, chocolate with a hint of caramel come through.

Very well balanced with the hops. Very smooth, an easy beer to consume.

I'll have a better report after the beer is carbonated and aged a bit.

[Megary]

I've been drinking my Brown for about a week.  I'm squinting, looking for anything to let me know I used S-04.  But this beer is pretty clean and really the taste is all about the malts.  Not getting bready, fruity, floral, nothing.  Main fermentation was in the low 60's with a bump to the upper 60's at the end.

Beer has dropped pretty clear and that's a nice plus, especially since a half-tablet of whirlfloc is my entire effort to aid clarity.

But as far as fermentation character, seems rather undistinguished to me. 

[Bel Air Brewing]

I've been drinking my Brown for about a week.  I'm squinting, looking for anything to let me know I used S-04.  But this beer is pretty clean and really the taste is all about the malts.  Not getting bready, fruity, floral, nothing.  Main fermentation was in the low 60's with a bump to the upper 60's at the end.

Beer has dropped pretty clear and that's a nice plus, especially since a half-tablet of whirlfloc is my entire effort to aid clarity.

But as far as fermentation character, seems rather undistinguished to me.

I forgot to mention the total lack of any bread character, and there is none.
A good generic English Ale yeast from my perspective. You could probably use this in almost any ale, American or otherwise.
My final number came in at 1.018, for 5.0 ABV.

[Bel Air Brewing]

I like this yeast, and will brew up a nice Ale with it. Not an IPA, just a nice ale using Pils malt and Cascade hops.

No dry hopping allowed. This will be similar to a Euro-Pils, but with S-04 yeast, and great hops. Will ferment a bit warmer, say around 60 degrees.

[dmtaylor]

I like this yeast, and will brew up a nice Ale with it. Not an IPA, just a nice ale using Pils malt and Cascade hops.

No dry hopping allowed. This will be similar to a Euro-Pils, but with S-04 yeast, and great hops. Will ferment a bit warmer, say around 60 degrees.

Sounds similar to what I've just done.  Yesterday I brewed a batch aiming for an Australian Sparkling Ale, actually I think it will be somewhere between that and a British Golden Ale (a.k.a. Summer Ale).  Simple recipe of half American Pale malt, half Maris Otter, with very small additions of wheat malt and honey malt.  It was a long 2-hour mash at an average 149 F.  Cascade and Calypso hops, 60-minute boil additions only, nothing late.  Pitched S-04 at 73 F, it since fell to 69 F and is hanging out there while I wait for activity.  I purposely intend to ferment this one in the low 70s just to see what happens.  The wort tasted very bitter and reminded me of breakfast cereal, like Lucky Charms but without the sweetness or marshmallows.  High hopes.  IF I remember I will try to keep ya'll posted.

[hopfenundmalz]

S-189 and 34/70 look similar at first glance, but there are some differences if you look.

I can say from experience that they are different. Split batches showed me that S-189 produces a more malty beer compared to 34/70.