[hopfenundmalz]

Wyeast calls it London III so if it's Anchor maybe they got it from a British brewery.

I should have been more specific.  I was not referring to the Anchor brewery in San Francisco.  I was referring to the Anchor brewery in London, which was originally owned by Barclay Perkins & Co and later Courage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Brewery

The Anchor pub is still on the south side of the Thames. The old brewery buildings are nearby.

[denny]

Wyeast calls it London III so if it's Anchor maybe they got it from a British brewery.

I should have been more specific.  I was not referring to the Anchor brewery in San Francisco.  I was referring to the Anchor brewery in London, which was originally owned by Barclay Perkins & Co and later Courage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Brewery

That makes sense.

[chinaski]

Do you think US-05 has slowly drifted from the liquid versions or was always peachy? I used to use it a lot the 2010-2015 time frame. I don’t remember the peach but I was new to brewing so I might not have noticed.

I believe that the seed culture is close to the original, but we are talking about an industrial process that takes a colony that grows from a single yeast cell on a plate and turns it into tens of tons of yeast via the respirative (aerobic) metabolic pathway.  That is a lot of cell generations to go without actually fermenting anything.  Fermentation is a selective stress because fermentation produces ethanol and ethanol places stress on a yeast culture.  If you viewed the webinar, the speaker alluded to replicating yeast in a way that maximizes ATP production. ATP is a form of energy that can be used directly by cells.  When we pitch yeast, the medium is above the Crabtree threshold; therefore, yeast cells replicate using their fermentative (anaerobic) metabolic pathway.  Ethanol, esters, and diketones (e.g., diacetyl) are metabolic waste products that are the result of inefficiency in the fermentative metabolic pathway.   The guys at the dry yeast plants are keeping the medium below the Crabtree threshold, so that the culture never produces any of these carbon-based metabolic products.  It converts a carbon source (sugar is carbon bound to water) into energy, carbon dioxide, and water.  It is a very efficient way to propagate yeast, but I believe that it has side effects. However, that is just my opinion.

I think the question to ask is: does the way that yeast is produced to make it available in the dry form different than the way for liquid yeast?  If so, does this lend itself to drift of those dry yeasts in a certain direction in terms of brewing qualities?

I'm assuming there are certain production differences between liquid and dry yeast that make some strains more amenable to being produced in dry form?

 

[fredthecat]

I think the question to ask is: does the way that yeast is produced to make it available in the dry form different than the way for liquid yeast?  If so, does this lend itself to drift of those dry yeasts in a certain direction in terms of brewing qualities?

I'm assuming there are certain production differences between liquid and dry yeast that make some strains more amenable to being produced in dry form?

yup, apparently that is the reason why they havent made certain popular liquid yeast varieties into dry yet, though im not an expert on the exact whys.

[BrewBama]

The mfr processes for dry yeast may influence which strains are produced but I’d say the biggest influence is the market. Notice the newest strains from one mfr are the Voss kveik and Verdant. The release of those strains  follows the influence of the market.

If you look across the portfolio you see they have covered most styles with at least one product and in some cases they may offer a choice between two products per style. They may never offer the subtle nuance of multiple strains across a style (i.e. three or four lager or English strains) like other mfrs.

In any case, I believe the mfr process has advanced to a point that the products they do offer are head and shoulders above what was offered years ago despite the old timers turned off by the recollection of the crap that used to be offered. A bad reputation can be hard to live down.

“Do what you want to do. If you like the results you did it right.” —Brew Dudes

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Saccharomyces]

I agree that the dry brewer's yeast cultures offered today are more reliable than what was offered years ago, but I believe that research still needs to be performed with respect to propagating brewer's yeast aerobically that performs exactly like brewer's yeast that is propagated anaerobically.  The brewers yeast strain's that we enjoy have been propagated under anaerobic conditions for hundreds of years; therefore, they are what they are because of the stresses placed on a culture when propagated anaerobically.   We are taking about yeast cultures that are used to the stresses incurred during the lag, exponential growth, stationary, and quiescent phases that occur in anaerobic (fermentative) use.  Unlike wild most yeast strains, domesticated brewer's yeast strains can handle ethanol levels found in fermentation.  That is due to the stresses they have been subjected to over hundreds of years.  I have my doubts that the dry yeast propagators have a reached a point where they can cause this selective process to occur under aerobic conditions.  One place that the dry yeast manufactures need to research is the loss of flocculation in many of the dry cultures.  Sure, there are standouts such as S-04, but most dry yeast cultures are significantly more powdery than their liquid reference cultures.

[denny]

Do you think US-05 has slowly drifted from the liquid versions or was always peachy? I used to use it a lot the 2010-2015 time frame. I don’t remember the peach but I was new to brewing so I might not have noticed.

I believe that the seed culture is close to the original, but we are talking about an industrial process that takes a colony that grows from a single yeast cell on a plate and turns it into tens of tons of yeast via the respirative (aerobic) metabolic pathway.  That is a lot of cell generations to go without actually fermenting anything.  Fermentation is a selective stress because fermentation produces ethanol and ethanol places stress on a yeast culture.  If you viewed the webinar, the speaker alluded to replicating yeast in a way that maximizes ATP production. ATP is a form of energy that can be used directly by cells.  When we pitch yeast, the medium is above the Crabtree threshold; therefore, yeast cells replicate using their fermentative (anaerobic) metabolic pathway.  Ethanol, esters, and diketones (e.g., diacetyl) are metabolic waste products that are the result of inefficiency in the fermentative metabolic pathway.   The guys at the dry yeast plants are keeping the medium below the Crabtree threshold, so that the culture never produces any of these carbon-based metabolic products.  It converts a carbon source (sugar is carbon bound to water) into energy, carbon dioxide, and water.  It is a very efficient way to propagate yeast, but I believe that it has side effects. However, that is just my opinion.

I think the question to ask is: does the way that yeast is produced to make it available in the dry form different than the way for liquid yeast?  If so, does this lend itself to drift of those dry yeasts in a certain direction in terms of brewing qualities?

I'm assuming there are certain production differences between liquid and dry yeast that make some strains more amenable to being produced in dry form?

Yes, yes, and yes

[Saccharomyces]

Yes, yes, and yes

Concur!   The way dry yeast is manufactured is foreign to brewing yeast.  Brewing yeast is unique in that is meant to be re-used.  Baker's strains are not usually re-used and neither are stains used in wine and spirits productions.

[chinaski]

Interesting- thank you.  Two more questions:
Wouldn't you expect that the strains offered by the dry yeast labs have also passed through the same selection up until they get into production at the said manufacturer?  Are you saying that once those strains go into production for dry yeast they again experience enough selection through that unique process to make them qualitatively (and quantitatively) different?

Finally, why is dry yeast production and liquid yeast production not exposing the yeast to similar selection?
Thanks for the education Sac!

[Saccharomyces]

Interesting- thank you.  Two more questions:
Wouldn't you expect that the strains offered by the dry yeast labs have also passed through the same selection up until they get into production at the said manufacturer?  Are you saying that once those strains go into production for dry yeast they again experience enough selection through that unique process to make them qualitatively (and quantitatively) different?

Finally, why is dry yeast production and liquid yeast production not exposing the yeast to similar selection?
Thanks for the education Sac!

I am really tired, so I am going to keep this explanation short because I have explained the difference at least a hundred times on this site.  Dry yeast is propagated in a medium that is held in a steady state below the Crabtree threshold.  That is an S.G. 1.0008 or less.  Yeast cells have two metabolic pathways.  Batch liquid culture propagation uses the anaerobic (fermentative) metabolic pathway.  Dry yeast producers propagate yeast cells using their aerobic (respirative) metabolic pathway because they propagate below the Crabtree threshold.  A yeast cell's aerobic metabolic pathway converts carbon (sugar is carbon bound to water) to energy, carbon dioxide gas, and water.  Its anaerobic metabolic pathway converts carbon to energy, alcohols, esters, and diketones.  Herein lies a big difference between how dry yeast and liquid yeast is propagated.  Not only is dry yeast not subjected to much in the way of osmotic pressure from the medium.  It is also not subject to the stresses imposed alcohols, esters, and diketones, which are all metabolic waste products of the anaerobic metabolic pathway.  These are the very stresses brewers place on a culture when they pitch it into a batch of wort because all brewer's wort is above an S.G. 1.0008.  There is lot of science between the two different ways of propagating yeast cells, but it suffices to say, no, dry yeast and liquid yeast are not propagated the same way, not even close.  That is why dry yeast does not need to be aerated on the initial pitch whereas liquid yeast, like cropped yeast, needs to be aerated.  Liquid yeast is propagated in a way that is more natural to beer production.

[chinaski]

Thanks- that is helpful. 

[RC]

I am really tired, so I am going to keep this explanation short because I have explained the difference at least a hundred times on this site.  Dry yeast is propagated in a medium that is held in a steady state below the Crabtree threshold.  That is an S.G. 1.0008 or less.  Yeast cells have two metabolic pathways.  Batch liquid culture propagation uses the anaerobic (fermentative) metabolic pathway.  Dry yeast producers propagate yeast cells using their aerobic (respirative) metabolic pathway because they propagate below the Crabtree threshold.  A yeast cell's aerobic metabolic pathway converts carbon (sugar is carbon bound to water) to energy, carbon dioxide gas, and water.  Its anaerobic metabolic pathway converts carbon to energy, alcohols, esters, and diketones.  Herein lies a big difference between how dry yeast and liquid yeast is propagated.  Not only is dry yeast not subjected to much in the way of osmotic pressure from the medium.  It is also not subject to the stresses imposed alcohols, esters, and diketones, which are all metabolic waste products of the anaerobic metabolic pathway.  These are the very stresses brewers place on a culture when they pitch it into a batch of wort because all brewer's wort is above an S.G. 1.0008.  The is lot of science between the two different ways of propagating yeast cells, but it suffices to say, no, dry yeast and liquid yeast are not propagated the same way, not even close.  That is why dry yeast does not need to be aerated on the initial pitch whereas liquid yeast, like cropped yeast, needs to be aerated.  Liquid yeast is propagated in a way that is more natural to beer production.

Friendly suggestion: of those >100 explanations, why don't you just pick your best one and then put a link to it in a reply. It would save you time, ATP, tiredness, and eye-rolling.

[roger]

IDK who decides a post worthy to be pinned, but one of Saccharomyces' posts on this subject seems a good one. I find it curious there are no pinned posts in the Yeast and Fermentation category.

Sent from my LM-V450 using Tapatalk

[clibit]

I purchased four packages of Verdant IPA in the fall.  I gave two packages to BrewBama when I mailed my remaining packages of W-34/70 to him.

By way, I now agree with you that 1318 is not Boddington's.  It is probably not Youngs or Fullers.  What about the Anchor brewery?  Is that a possibility?

Sorry, I missed this.
I don't know but one theory is that 1318 might be a Whitbread strain. This is from the suregork website:

"Wyeast 1318 London Ale III – Seems to be another member of that little Whitbread II subfamily.  Traditionally it’s linked to Boddington’s which I never quite believed but Boddies had all sorts of yeast problems in the 1980s (I've heard this from other places, I live about 3 miles from the site of the Bodds brewery) and were bought by Whitbread in 1989 so it’s plausible that the original yeast was ultimately replaced by one from the yeast bank at head office (perhaps after they’d tried others?)."

I don't know when Wyeast acquired the 1318 strain. The timing might be helpful.

The suregork chart places 1318 closest to Wy1945, and then 1098 and WLP017.

Have you tried the Verdant yet? I like it, to me it is a bit different to 1318 but behaves in a very similar manner. I am enjoying using it across a variety of styles, especially brown and dark ales and American hopped pales. I'll happily use it in English pales but it's a bit too vanilla and apricot to be ideal, for my taste at least. So there's still a gap with the dry options, for me.

I do use S-33 occasionally. It's similar to Windsor I feel. I've recently blended some dry yeasts in a few brews and found S-33 and Nottingham quite effective. Much better flocc for one thing. Bry-97 and Windsor might be better. It's keeping me amused anyway, trying things. Notty and Belle Saison produced a fruity dry session pale, slightly tart, that's going down very nicely. Tastes more APA than EPA, I used Crystal hops for the first time.

[fredthecat]

I purchased four packages of Verdant IPA in the fall.  I gave two packages to BrewBama when I mailed my remaining packages of W-34/70 to him.

By way, I now agree with you that 1318 is not Boddington's.  It is probably not Youngs or Fullers.  What about the Anchor brewery?  Is that a possibility?

Sorry, I missed this.
I don't know but one theory is that 1318 might be a Whitbread strain. This is from the suregork website:

"Wyeast 1318 London Ale III – Seems to be another member of that little Whitbread II subfamily.  Traditionally it’s linked to Boddington’s which I never quite believed but Boddies had all sorts of yeast problems in the 1980s (I've heard this from other places, I live about 3 miles from the site of the Bodds brewery) and were bought by Whitbread in 1989 so it’s plausible that the original yeast was ultimately replaced by one from the yeast bank at head office (perhaps after they’d tried others?)."

I don't know when Wyeast acquired the 1318 strain. The timing might be helpful.

The suregork chart places 1318 closest to Wy1945, and then 1098 and WLP017.

Have you tried the Verdant yet? I like it, to me it is a bit different to 1318 but behaves in a very similar manner. I am enjoying using it across a variety of styles, especially brown and dark ales and American hopped pales. I'll happily use it in English pales but it's a bit too vanilla and apricot to be ideal, for my taste at least. So there's still a gap with the dry options, for me.

I do use S-33 occasionally. It's similar to Windsor I feel. I've recently blended some dry yeasts in a few brews and found S-33 and Nottingham quite effective. Much better flocc for one thing. Bry-97 and Windsor might be better. It's keeping me amused anyway, trying things. Notty and Belle Saison produced a fruity dry session pale, slightly tart, that's going down very nicely. Tastes more APA than EPA, I used Crystal hops for the first time.

hey, i keep seeing your posts and while i have nothing to really add to this post, i appreciate the (for me) fresh perspectives from across the pond. as i might have said in another thread this coming brewing year (october to may - yes its actually just a practical schedule for me to follow here in canada) im aiming for mostly english styles.

i  feel like 1318 is used as a catchall for "use this yeast instead of this one". i tried it this year and i don't imagine i'll be using it again in the near future.