In a single trial. Anyone else’s results are equally valid.
Or, equally invalid! Never done a blind trio taste test myself.
But it is surprising to learn that in nearly every taste test at Brulosophy, less than 50% can accurately pick the sample.
It can be a challenge, as I failed back to back taste tests of Heineken. Comparing the beer we purchased in Amsterdam (hyper fresh), to beer bought locally off the store shelf here in Texas. Yes, there is a difference.
And I consider myself very educated on taste, flavor profiles, etc.
Is there a possibility that this yeast enhances fruity characters in the presence of certain compounds and not others? Maybe certain noble hops normally associated with the beers this yeast would be used in don’t have the compounds other hops do. …or certain water minerals, or maybe a process of some sort kicks in the fruit factor. Or maybe it’s individual based. [emoji2369]
I find it interesting that some don’t get the results others do. There must be a variable.
Based on my observation of perception and confirmation bias over the last 20 years, I think it’s based on individuals.
I was making a “British Blonde” once and I harvested the english yeast (1028 or something) prior to brewday and noticed that something funky occurred with that previous batch and the 1028 was no longer an option. I had S-23 as the only dry yeast in the house and so I made an English Lager :P What I ended up with was a delicious batch of beer. This was years ago and I don’t remember much but the batch was not disappointing in any way.
On the topic of S-189… it’s a nice yeast but I find it quite boring. I like yeast strains that contribute some nice bready notes to the beer and I got that from the Lallemand Diamond (and some say they get it from 34/70) but not S-189. It may just be that there IS no dry Czech-style yeast out there.
As mentioned Mangrove Jack MJ84 is named Bohemian Lager. I had good results the one time I used it however I prefer higher attenuation. According to Dave, it is repackaged S-23. Take that for what it’s worth.
I’m going to say yes. We brewed up a double batch, two different yeasts. One yeast accents the hop bitterness, the other yeast subdues the bitterness. Same exact beer, just different yeast.
Chumley once sent me some of my BVIP recipe that he’d made with S-23. It was great.
I emailed Fermentis and asked their opinion as to which of their yeasts is considered most appropriate for Czech (Bohemian) Pilsner, and their reply was S-23.
Annie Johnson past AHA Homebrewer of the Year said on an interview right after winning that award that she used it a lot. She’s know for light lagers.
Time 58:45.
http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/post2143/
I’ve only used s-23 once and didn’t detect the fruitiness that some people get.
Do you remember the temperature regimen you followed?
She also said she loves US-05. Maybe she uses it warmer to avoid the peach off flavor.
All I know that I’ll drink any beer Annie makes. Everything I’ve had from her was stunning.
No, it was a long time ago and I’ve only recently started keeping much in the way of notes.
I have used US-05 in hoppy ambers with out noticing the peach flavor too much. It’s definitely a problem with lighter beers.
I have always wanted to try S-23. Just haven’t gotten around to it. I like 34/70 so inertia generally wins out when I buy yeast.
This whole conversation reminds me that dry yeast has come a long way. For many years I stayed away from them thinking that they produced subpar beer when compared to liquid yeast. 34/70, Diamond, S-189 and even S-04 have their place and can produce very nice beer. Denny and I have compared notes on the peachy-apricot thing that US-05 can produce and I think we agreed that we had both experienced it. At the time I guessed that I was trying to use it on the cool side because I typically brew ales somewhat cool (between 60 and maybe 62°) and maybe US-05 is just not about it. This latest run of lagers I made with Lallemand Diamond has been excellent all the way through. I hope the dry yeast companies keep churning out good, high-quality strains for us. Cheers brothers.
To answer OP’s question, I do not believe W34-70 is “too clean” for Czech Pilsner. In fact, I think it is a great choice for the style. I have been to the Czech Republic many times and had tons of Czech Pilsner from at least a dozen breweries. I think plenty of them are clean and dry and even crisp. Others are more soft and delicate, but a lot of that softness comes from the water profile and (according to the Czechs) the way it is poured into the glass.
To address the Brulosophy test, I also did that same test myself. I brewed a Czech Premium Pale Lager (came in big at ~1.058 due to a larger-than-expected efficiency boost from the single decoction Hochkurz mash) and split it, fermenting half with S-189 and half with W34/70 and I personally far preferred the W34/70 beer. The beers were very similar and had the same final gravity, but I found the S-190 tasted more “flat” and less lively, if that makes any sense. I similarly split a dunkel between S-189 and MJ Bohemian Lager yeast and found I liked them equally, though neither tasted “flat.”
I am currently fermenting a festbier with WLP 802 Czech Budejovice (I assume the Czechvar strain) and intend to brew up a Czech Pilsner with the slurry.
More conversation (via email) with my contact at Fermentis. It is his belief that for specifically Pilsner Urquell, they pitch their yeast at 36 degrees F. and allow it to rise to 48 degrees F… He still feels that S-23 is the best match in the dry yeast arena, but admits that he has never pitched at 36 degrees F., and he stated that doing so would place a huge burden load of challenge upon the dry yeast.
You’re not using PU yeast, right? So why try to force it into a PU fermentation schedule?