[denny]

I just bought 4 packs of Diamond for my Märzen, it is projected to have an SG of 1.060

It seems that rehydrating is really recommended and suggests not to direct pitch. Has anyone use the direct pitch method on this and if so, what were the results?

I always direct pitch Diamond and get great results.

[ynotbrusum]

I have had good success with both S-189 and Diamond; 34/70 a bit less so, but still favorable.  I tried a rehydrated Diamond recently in a low abv Lichtbier and it worked perfectly well...but I usually just dry pitch the dry yeasts anymore.  Has anyone determined the genomic relationship of Diamond (or its brewery heritage?)  I was thinking maybe Ayinger?

[dmtaylor]

Has anyone determined the genomic relationship of Diamond (or its brewery heritage?)  I was thinking maybe Ayinger?

I don't know, and dare not guess any specific breweries.  However given its great reputation, I'm confident that it must have come from SOME good brewery in Germany, as opposed to so many other strains that are really just clean English yeast or bread yeast or wine yeast or whatever -- Diamond is *probably* a good, legit German lager yeast.  Probably.  I've not seen any genomic tests done on it yet though.

I'd love to brew with it soon to see what it does, as this is one I've not yet tried myself.  I'm still LOVING S-189 and see little reason to try anything else, it's THAT good.

[denny]

I have had good success with both S-189 and Diamond; 34/70 a bit less so, but still favorable.  I tried a rehydrated Diamond recently in a low abv Lichtbier and it worked perfectly well...but I usually just dry pitch the dry yeasts anymore.  Has anyone determined the genomic relationship of Diamond (or its brewery heritage?)  I was thinking maybe Ayinger?

Yes.  Direct from Lallemand, it's the Wienstephan (sp?) strain.  Same as 2124 or 34/70.

[Cliffs]

I love this yeast for lagers

https://omegayeast.com/yeast/lagers/german-bock

[dmtaylor]

I have had good success with both S-189 and Diamond; 34/70 a bit less so, but still favorable.  I tried a rehydrated Diamond recently in a low abv Lichtbier and it worked perfectly well...but I usually just dry pitch the dry yeasts anymore.  Has anyone determined the genomic relationship of Diamond (or its brewery heritage?)  I was thinking maybe Ayinger?

Yes.  Direct from Lallemand, it's the Wienstephan (sp?) strain.  Same as 2124 or 34/70.

But you see, this gets messy, because genomic testing shows that Fermentis W-34/70 is more equivalent to Wyeast 2035 American Lager than anything else, whereas Wyeast 2124 is the same as... WLP029 Kolsch, which is actually pastorianus!!

This is part of the reason I don't dare to declare any brewery names next to ANY yeast, because 95% of the time, the claims are in fact totally wrong.

[nateo]

I thought the "Weihenstephaner" lager yeast was just a strain from the brewing school's yeast bank, not necessarily the strain used by the commercial brewery of the same name.

[denny]

I have had good success with both S-189 and Diamond; 34/70 a bit less so, but still favorable.  I tried a rehydrated Diamond recently in a low abv Lichtbier and it worked perfectly well...but I usually just dry pitch the dry yeasts anymore.  Has anyone determined the genomic relationship of Diamond (or its brewery heritage?)  I was thinking maybe Ayinger?

Yes.  Direct from Lallemand, it's the Wienstephan (sp?) strain.  Same as 2124 or 34/70.

But you see, this gets messy, because genomic testing shows that Fermentis W-34/70 is more equivalent to Wyeast 2035 American Lager than anything else, whereas Wyeast 2124 is the same as... WLP029 Kolsch, which is actually pastorianus!!

This is part of the reason I don't dare to declare any brewery names next to ANY yeast, because 95% of the time, the claims are in fact totally wrong.

Maybe genetic drift?  I have been assured of the origin of both 34/70 and Diamond by the companies that produce them.

[denny]

I thought the "Weihenstephaner" lager yeast was just a strain from the brewing school's yeast bank, not necessarily the strain used by the commercial brewery of the same name.

AFAIK, that is correct.

[dmtaylor]

There could be errors in the genomic studies as well.  Furthermore, I wonder if these yeasts are all just so very closely related that it's like splitting hairs.  Like for years we've been saying WLP001 and 1056 were the same, when in fact they are not super closely related, but by their RESULTS... perhaps "close enough for most intents & purposes" !?

[fredthecat]

There could be errors in the genomic studies as well.  Furthermore, I wonder if these yeasts are all just so very closely related that it's like splitting hairs.  Like for years we've been saying WLP001 and 1056 were the same, when in fact they are not super closely related, but by their RESULTS... perhaps "close enough for most intents & purposes" !?

yup, im intellectually interested in this, but with my own homebrewing i try to step back a bit sometimes and go "so what is the real drastic difference between even WLP007 and WLP001"? i mean you can name several. but at a party where youre passing around your beer to the average people, you'd be in your own world imagining subtle differences to yourself, and no one else would really care. and after 2 or 3 yourself it would become less an exercise of taste and more of knowledge.

even moreso when it comes to lager strains.

I know some of you do this stuff for a living, and im always happy to hear about it though. i was listening to a podcast on the university of leuven( i think?)'s yeast microbiology studies and stuff today.

[denny]

There could be errors in the genomic studies as well.  Furthermore, I wonder if these yeasts are all just so very closely related that it's like splitting hairs.  Like for years we've been saying WLP001 and 1056 were the same, when in fact they are not super closely related, but by their RESULTS... perhaps "close enough for most intents & purposes" !?

One of the reasons I don't take those too seriously.

[RC]

There could be errors in the genomic studies as well.  Furthermore, I wonder if these yeasts are all just so very closely related that it's like splitting hairs.  Like for years we've been saying WLP001 and 1056 were the same, when in fact they are not super closely related, but by their RESULTS... perhaps "close enough for most intents & purposes" !?

One of the reasons I don't take those too seriously.

Same. Functional resemblance is the only thing of consequence AFAIC, rather than genetic resemblance. For example, the "Chico" strains all have a similar flavor profile to me (except for US-05 with that dang apricot), regardless of how they cluster on the phylogenetic tree. I will always consider WLP001 and 1056 to be the same because they are the same functionally IMO, a little drift notwithstanding, if not genetically.

Viewed from another perspective, the position of a strain on the tree does not seem to be a good predictor of its fermentation characteristics. In some cases functional and genetic similarity are congruent, e.g. WY2112 and WLP810, but in other cases they are not, e.g. WLP029 and WY2565 or A15 and 34/70.

[reverseapachemaster]

The Andechs strain is a great lager yeast with tons of versatility. It's not the best if you want to brew dry lagers but it's used by a lot of breweries because it does a good job from maltbombs to lighter pale lagers.

[Cliffs]

The Andechs strain is a great lager yeast with tons of versatility. It's not the best if you want to brew dry lagers but it's used by a lot of breweries because it does a good job from maltbombs to lighter pale lagers.

Do any yeast labs offer it year round?