From: malodah@srv.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Subject: Re: WYEAST flavor differences
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:41:30 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell

In article <1993Jan25.160046.598@doc.bmd.trw.com> jharres@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Would someone explain what differences in flavor one would get using
>the following WYEAST cultures given that nothing else was changed from
>one batch to the next:

This is an experiment that I've never tried, so I can't answer with
rigor, but I've used all of these and can offer general opinions:

>    Belgian Ale       #1214

With both clove-like phenolics and alcohol spice, the Belgian will
tell you right away that it's no ordinary yeast.  Tartness often
develops over time.  Ferment warm or with inadequate aeration and
you're likely to get a bubblegum-like note.  Intended for abbey 
beers, and works very well for that.

>    German Ale        #1007

A good balance of sweetness and tartness, with a pronounced green-
apple note.  A very pleasing yeast.

>    American Ale      #1056

The cleanest of the bunch, but mutation-prone.  This is Sierra Nevada's
yeast.  Probably the best available all-around yeast, this strain can
be used for anything, without embarrassment.

>    Irish Ale         ##1084

Soft, round, malty;  the least attenuative of the Wyeast line.  Very
nice for any cold-weather ale, at its best in stouts and Scots bitters.

>    British Ale       #1098

Tart, crisp, clean.  Great in pale ales and bitters, good in porters.

>    European Ale      #1338

I'm a little unsure about this one.  If it's the one I'm thinking of,
it's clean and malty, especially well suited to Altbier.

>    London Ale        #1028

I've had a strange and intense relationship with this yeast for some
years.  I swear to never touch it again nearly every time I use it, 
but I keep coming back.  Complex, woody, tart, with strong mineral
notes, this one will bite you horribly if you over-hop or if your water
is high in carbonates.  If you avoid that Scylla and Charybdis, it
produces ales of marvelous complexity and sophistication.  The
greatest risk, and the greatest rewards, IMHO.  Most of the time
you'll wish you'd used 1098 or 1056.  I've had the best results
in porters.

>  I've been making batches using Muton & Fison dry yeast with various 
>makes and styles of malt extract (all extract/no sugar).

A few years ago it was common to see the assertion that "any liquid
yeast is better than any dry yeast", and many brewers were quite
disappointed by the results they got when they spent the extra money
on Wyeast.  All of these are outstanding strains, and Wyeast QA
is top-hole.  There is very little actual yeast in one of those
packets, though, and if the handling of it hasn't been very good
before it got to you, it could be very slow to start and your beer
could be badly damaged by bacterial infection before it gets going.
A look at the results in the last couple of years' Nationals suggests
that there are significant advantages to using Wyeast, but there
are no guarantees.  I personally don't hesitate to use it, and would
need a very specialized set of circumstances to consider using a
dry yeast.  Happy brewing!


-- 
= Martin Lodahl		Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell =
= malodah@pbbcdm.pacbell.com	  Sacramento, CA USA        916.972.4821 =
=    If it's good for ancient Druids runnin' nekkid through the wuids,   =
=  Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me!  (Unk.)   =
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing