[dmtaylor]

Well, I guess it shows that biological activity is not always uniform.  As to what might have caused the second boost stage, it may have been oxygen ingress or swirling?  I use a Tilt hydrometer and pressure ferment most lagers (at lager temps though) and I have been more into watching the fermentation profiles of my yeast pitches.  What is universal is how quickly the fermentation completes, despite from appearances it sometimes holds a fairly long krausen.

Well, this is a blended product with two yeast strains.  Perhaps one strain took off like a rocket, got tired and then the second strain found a lot of uneaten sugars and was able to finally take off to finish the job.

[Megary]

This beer fermented from 1.051 ---> 1.008.  That was 15 days in the fermenter, the last 7 being at 58°.

84% attenuation, but that's with a 4% sugar addition.

Decent flocculation, though the fallout wasn't very compact, looking more like lumpy mashed potatoes (the best kind!)

The hydrometer sample pulled from the bottom of the fermenter was relatively clear, though not crystal.  Taste was very clean with a hint of lemon...I can't explain the lemon part...from the ale half of the yeast or from the Saaz?  Aroma did have a faint touch of sulfur, enough to make you think lager, but not enough to put you off.  Not sure that will even last conditioning.  No diacetyl that I could detect, but I haven't ever detected diacetyl, so there's that.

Right now, I'm getting definite lager-like characteristics from this yeast.  It's kegged and I'll probably let it settle and carb up for 2 weeks before I give it a go.  That crispy, fizziness of carbonation is really needed here to make a final call.  Cautiously optimistic at this point.   

[denny]

Well, I guess it shows that biological activity is not always uniform.  As to what might have caused the second boost stage, it may have been oxygen ingress or swirling?  I use a Tilt hydrometer and pressure ferment most lagers (at lager temps though) and I have been more into watching the fermentation profiles of my yeast pitches.  What is universal is how quickly the fermentation completes, despite from appearances it sometimes holds a fairly long krausen.

Well, this is a blended product with two yeast strains.  Perhaps one strain took off like a rocket, got tired and then the second strain found a lot of uneaten sugars and was able to finally take off to finish the job.

Which is a great argument against using blended strains if you want predictable results

[dmtaylor]

This beer fermented from 1.051 ---> 1.008...

Thanks for the update!  I'll bet this ends up being delicious.

Taste was very clean with a hint of lemon...I can't explain the lemon part...from the ale half of the yeast or from the Saaz?

I think I pick up a slight lemon from Saaz sometimes.  Could also be the yeast though.  Difficult to say for sure.

[Megary]

Tapped the beer today for the Super Bowl and I’d be surprised if it makes it to halftime.  (Small keg and I have help, don’t worry  ).  One of the best beers I’ve ever made.  Definite lager character…clean, crisp, Saaz-y…so crushable…if there’s any sulfur you’d have to squint to find it.  And it has dropped pretty clear for 2 weeks cold and 1/2 a whirlfloc.  If there’s a fault it might be too lager like.  But I can’t imagine ever using another yeast for a Cream Ale and now I’m wondering what other styles this yeast might work with.  How has this yeast received so little traction?

I can’t post pictures here so for a look, if you’re interested.

https://www.brewersfriend.com/forum/threads/what-are-you-drinking-right-now.2751/page-671#post-177744

[Megary]

(it isn't either of those)

Well, then my theory is officially updated to WLP001 with WLP830.  I'll bet I'm at least 50% correct.  It's kind of like the Monty Hall problem -- oh, it's not behind door #2?  Sure I'll change my answer from door #1 to door #3.   

I just saw this comment on another board and thought of this conversation.  It's from 8 years ago...so take that for what its worth.

"The rumor is that it is a blend of WLP 810 (San Francisco Lager) and WLP 029 (Kolsch/German Ale). The WLP 810 is a great floccer. White Labs identifies WLP 029 as medium flocculation."

Seems possible to me.

[reverseapachemaster]

Certainly could be but it's not the only lager strain that is forgiving in the upper 60s.

The steam beer lager strain is forgiving at higher temperatures. It has a particular taste that seems unique to that strain. I think if it's in there and you've had a California common/steam beer, you'd pick up that flavor in the beer. I picked up a pack of WLP810 out of the expired yeast bin at my LHBS a month ago and used it in my fresh hop beer. Even with a little over 12oz of fresh hops per gallon, the yeast flavor is still identifiable.

[dmtaylor]

(it isn't either of those)

Well, then my theory is officially updated to WLP001 with WLP830.  I'll bet I'm at least 50% correct.  It's kind of like the Monty Hall problem -- oh, it's not behind door #2?  Sure I'll change my answer from door #1 to door #3.   

I just saw this comment on another board and thought of this conversation.  It's from 8 years ago...so take that for what its worth.

"The rumor is that it is a blend of WLP 810 (San Francisco Lager) and WLP 029 (Kolsch/German Ale). The WLP 810 is a great floccer. White Labs identifies WLP 029 as medium flocculation."

Seems possible to me.

But the manufacturer already told you that WLP029 is not in the blend.  So we are stuck guessing what other ale strain it could be.  I'll stick with my guess for the ale side to be WLP001.  It just seems like the obvious choice.

What I am less sure of is which lager strain they used.  Might be WLP810, 830, or maybe 838 (the manufacturer also said it isn't WLP800), might also be WLP820.  Somehow I don't believe it could be WLP802, WLP833, or anything >WLP838 in the numbering scheme.  If it matters.  And I could be wrong.  We've all been wrong before, I know I have.  Speaking of which...

WLP029 is truly cerevisiae.  It got re-tested, confirming what we thought was true in the past before genomic studies began.  So, my confusing comments on page 1 of this thread regarding the species of WLP029 can and should be ignored.  New evidence overrules the previous.

Meanwhile, as far as I know, WLP800 is actually cerevisiae and not pastorianus.  I'll keep my eyes peeled for this and any other updates based on newest studies.  A new one seems to pop up every year or two now.