Alright… so now that I’m thoroughly confused, I deleted EL-D1 back out entirely, for now.
source：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/mqFIM_e59x2eyfvPitzGZw
A Chinese liquid yeast company called Joyferm Labs conducted fermentation tests and gene sequence alignment on Mangrove Jack’s yeast, obtaining the results shown in the above image, with a claimed reliability of 95%.
M20=JFA1431=White Labs:WLP351;Wyeast:3638
M21=JFA1285=White Labs:WLP410
M29=JFA1510=WHITE LABS-WLP590
M84=JFL2001=White Labs:WLP800;Wyeast:2001
M47=JFA1255=White Labs:WLP530;Wyeast:3787;Imperial B48
1 Like
This information might be useful; however, I would need access to deeper source paper(s) to support these claims, as there are conflicts that I might not otherwise be able to resolve. Thank you, and welcome to this forum.
1 Like
(I’ll split this into a couple of posts as I have restrictions as new member of the forum.)
I recently took an interest in the pastime of trying to decipher MJ yeasts. Regarding M76, I found an interesting Chinese patent on a method for distinguishing lager and ale yeasts. They test a number of commercial yeasts, including M76, S-23, S-129, W-34/70 and Diamond. I made annotations of selected strains in their supplied gel image, and it seems fairly conclusive that M76 is not identical to any of the other strains, although it could be a mix. It clearly registers as a pastorianus in their test, showing that it at has least one part pastorianus (the band, shown in Figure 2 in the patent, seems weaker than for the known pure pastorianus yeasts, which would further strengthen the mixture hypothesis).
(There’s a typo: BRY-96 should be BRY-97.)
There are two further related patents (CN117327826A, CN117230237A/en) that mention that their yeasts are partly the same as those in a paper doing genetic testing on strains from a Chinese yeast bank. While the yeast identities were coded in that paper, I made a preliminary decoding by matching the specified fermentation temperatures between paper and patent, and knowing the country of origin of most of the commercial strains.
1 Like
The dendrogram in the paper shows S-23, S-129, W-34/70 and Diamond clustering together on what is presumably the pastorianus part of the tree. M76 on the other hand, is found on the ale side, and probably therefore not a (pure) pastorianus. That would fit with the specification from MJ that M76 is “Saccharomyces pastorianus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae”.
If I were to speculate, M76 is a mix with one part ale yeast and one part lager yeast. It has previously been suggested by qq that M76 is a mix, and apparently Lallemand advises breweries to combine Nottingham and Diamond. That would be consistent with the English origin (of Nottingham) entered in the Chinese yeast bank (I matched it based on the unique fermentation temperature, the only one that matched between patent and paper). And this mixing combination would also be consistent with the hypothesis that M36 is M15+M42.
As an aside: The dendrogram also roughly matches what we know of the lager strains. It’s not possible to disentangle S-23 and W-34/70 as they have both the same temperature range and country of origin, but it makes more sense to me that S-189 and W-34/70 would be more similar and closer on the tree. Diamond, as the 308 strain and S-23 as the “Urquell” strain are in distinct arms from the W-34/70-like strains. The outlier seems to be US-05, which should in principle cluster with BRY-97 as Chico strains, but is found in what is usually termed the “mixed” cluster (comparing to suregork’s diagram tree diagram).
(Note: In one of the patents, they mention that M76 should be SC2, but I think this is a mistake/misprint as the temperature ranges don’t match at all. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that M76 would fall in the ale side of the tree.)
2 Likes
Thanks for this information, and welcome to the AHA forum! I have incorporated a couple of tweaks in my table based on this. Much appreciated.
Thanks! I managed to track down the corresponding paper to the patent, where they also make a dendrogram of those specific yeasts. The gel images are the same as the patent. Funnily enough, M76 here clusters with the lager strains, and US-05 with BRY-97. I’m no geneticist, but from what I understand they use a different method from the other paper, so we shouldn’t expect results to be identical. I would presume that the behavior of a mix of cerevisiae and pastorianus would be quite sensitive to the method.
Going further into the rabbit hole, I mapped out a possible timeline of the MJ yeasts since the beginning. In the initial launch in 2013, they had the following yeasts with my approximate assignments (largely but not completely consistent with the Google sheet).
| # | Name | Likely source |
|---|---|---|
| M03 | Newcastle Dark Ale | Lallemand Windsor |
| M07 | British Ale | Lallemand Nottingham |
| M10 | Workhorse Beer | Mauribrew Ale 514? |
| M20 | Bavarian Wheat | Mauribrew Weiss? |
| M27 | Belgian Ale | Lallemand Belle Saison |
| M44 | US West Coast | Lallemand BRY-97 |
| M79 | Burton Union | Lallemand Nottingham + Windsor |
| M84 | Bohemian Lager | Mauribrew Lager 497? |
M07 and M44 should be fairly well established as coming from Lallemand. At this point in time, they probably didn’t have any contract with Fermentis, and the proximity to Australia would make it natural to incorporate the most commonly used Mauribrew yeasts. Specifications are also completely consistent between the Mauribrew and MJ yeasts. If this is correct, that would mean that M84 is Mauribrew Lager (which also means that M54 is probably something else).
In 2015, MJ expanded their line-up, adding a number of Belgian-type yeasts, renaming some of their yeasts (M03→M15, M07→M42, M27→M29, M79→M36) and removing M10. They also added two “lagers”: M76 and M54. Interestingly, a Mangrove Jack’s representative has stated that
“M-84 Bohemian is a bottom fermenting S. Cerevisiae, M-76 Bavarian is a bottom fermenting combination of S. Cerevisiae and S. Pastorianus, and M-54 Cali Lager is a combination of bottom and top fermenting S. Cerevisiae.”
Considering that we can be quite confident that M76 is a mix, then it is likely also true that M54 is a mix, while M84 is a pure strain.
For the expansion in 2015, they could have kept to only Lallemand and Mauribrew, or expanded to include Fermentis yeasts. Reported conversations with previous employees indicates that MJ sourced from both Fermentis and Lallemand. It is also likely that some of the new Belgian-style yeasts were sourced from Fermentis. The M76 and M54 could therefore be mixtures either of Lallemand, Fermentis or Mauribrew yeasts. I think it is less likely that they would cross-mix themselves rather than source mixtures directly from the manufacturers. Speculative assignments could therefore be the following.
M76
Here it is clear that there is at least one pastorianus component. Mauribrew is therefore discarded as they don’t offer pastorianus.
- Lallemand: Nottingham + Diamond. Well-established and recommended by Lallemand themselves to reduce cost.
- Fermentis: S-23/S-189/W-34/70 + US-05/S-04. Would presume similar reasons for this blend.
M54
Here I cannot come up with any good Lallemand alternative as they don’t have an ale yeast capable of lager-style fermentation except Nottingham and BRY-97, but what would they be combined with? And if not combined, they already exist as separate yeasts in the catalogue. Only alternative would be Nottingham + BRY-97 which doesn’t make sense as they are similar.
- Mauribrew: Lager 497 + Draught. This combination doesn’t seem plausible from a style perspective as Draught is supposed to have a higher ester profile at higher temperatures. Ale 514 is not consistent with high attenuation and flocculation of M54.
- Lallemand: K-97 + US-05/S-04. This seems the most plausible to me. Side-to-side fermentation of K-97 and M54 have also shown similar profile and taste (and inconsistent with Mauribrew L 497). There is also a rationale for mixing, as K-97 has slow sedimentation, that could be fixed by adding the faster sedimenting US-05/S-04. This is consistent with the good sedimentation for M54, which is inconsistent with pure K-97.
Summary of speculation:
- M84 is Mauribrew Lager 497
- M76 is either Nottingham + Diamond or S-23/S-189/W-34/70 + US-05/S-04
- M54 is likely K-97 + US-05/S04
Extra link for side-by-side fermentation of K-97, M54 and Mauribrew Lager 497.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/dry-yeasts-identified-your-opinions-please.670466/post-9121744
1 Like
I gave a shot at the Belgian yeasts, but it is hard. Some notes regarding the assignments in your sheet @dmtaylor. Given that I have zero experience with these yeasts it should be taken with a grain of salt.
- M21 could also be T-58 instead of Lallemand Wit
- M31 cannot be BE-256 because the former is diastatic while the latter is not. My guess is that M31 is Lallemand Belle Saison + Abbaye. It is reported to have two grains of different color, indicating a mix. Belle Saison + Abbaye is one of the recommended mixes from Lallemand for fruit + spice.
- M41 cannot be BE-134, as M41 was released in 2015, while BE-134 didn’t appear until 2017 or so. My guess based on the stats is that M41 could be WB-06.
- M47 could be either T-58 or Lallemand Abbaye
Ok, I think this is the final deep dive for a while 
I found this study looking at M21, M31, T-58 and WB-06 in bread fermentation (among other yeasts). It’s quite interesting, including among other quantification of specific esters. Based on their data, I find it doubtful that (a) M21 could be T-58 or (b) M31 could contain WB-06.
Furthermore, I think the key to determining M47 would be the flocculation. MJ states that it is “highly flocculant” (4/5 for both flocculation and “compaction”) which doesn’t match pure T-58, but would match BE-256. On the other hand, it has lower attenuation (73-77%, doesn’t ferment maltotriose very well) than you would expect from either BE-256 (82-86%) or Lallemand Abbaye (77-83%). As it is said to exhibit “spice and fruity esters” and “fewer phenols than Belgian Ale”, it is likely not pure BE-256 which is POF negative. My guess is therefore that it is T-58 + BE-256, which gives some spice, lots of esters and also flocculates and might attenuate better than pure T-58. Incidentally, BE-256 was originally called “SafBrew Abbaye” until this was changed in 2015 (likely after the MJ names were fixed). While much of this is speculation, it would fit with the general design pattern of co-pitching to improve flocculation/sedimentation.
So summary of speculation for the new “Belgians” introduced in 2015:
- M21: Lallemand Wit
- M31: Lallemand Belle Saison + Abbaye
- M41: Fermentis WB-06
- M47: Fermentis T-58 + BE-256
1 Like
Thank you for these new insights! What you are saying makes a whole lot of sense. I agree with your logic on M84 and M76, and I’ll go so far as to assert a belief that MJ is sticking with Lallemand as much as possible, which leads me to believe that M76 must be Notty + Diamond, and M54 is I think likely Koln + BRY-97, which you hadn’t considered but I think makes a lot of sense, being that BRY-97 is a derivative of the old “Chicos” from California. This avoids the whole question about US-05 or Fermentis, at least for the lager strains, which of course is possible, but perhaps slightly less likely given MJ’s preference to using Lallemand for so many other products. I don’t think there’s any getting around their use of Fermentis for some of the Belgian strains, a newer topic which I’ll dive into deeper in another response later this week.
Cheers!!
one little way further potentially to confirm some of these hypotheses could be to quiz MJ on which of their yeasts are diastaticus+.
lallemand wit is neg, abbaye is neg, belle saison i believe is pos, WB-06 is pos, T-58 and BE256 are neg.
@dmtaylor: I was actually considering Lallemand Köln, and that would have been a perfect fit if it was not for the fact that it was introduced in 2019 and then discontinued again a couple of years ago. It would be unlikely that MJ packaged Köln already in 2015 when it was not even offered by Lallemand, and they would likely have had to withdraw/rebrand M54 when Köln was discontinued. On second thought, the BRY-97 + Nottingham idea is maybe not too crazy considering the quote from the MJ representative:
“M-84 Bohemian is a bottom fermenting S. Cerevisiae, M-76 Bavarian is a bottom fermenting combination of S. Cerevisiae and S. Pastorianus, and M-54 Cali Lager is a combination of bottom and top fermenting S. Cerevisiae.”
Nottingham would be the “bottom-fermenting S. Cerevisiae” (whatever that means) in both M76 and M54, while BRY-97 would lend the “Californian” touch. Incidentally, the Lallemand recommended yeasts for California Common are Nottingham, Diamond and NovaLager, and for Kölsch they recommend BRY-97 and Nottingham. The recommended yeast from MJ for these beer styles is … M54 (the only styles where it is #1 recommended yeast).
@freddthecat: Yes, that’s a great idea. I didn’t mention it, but I was checking that in the MJ catalogue already. The following ones are listed as diastatic: M29, M31, M41. The only available diastatic yeasts from Lallemand and Fermentis at the time (2013 for M29, 2015 for M31 and M41) were WB-06 and Belle Saison. M29 is almost certainly Belle Saison, and M31 is a mix (also confirmed in this master thesis). That would make it likely that M41 is WB-06, unless both M31 and M41 would be Belle Saison mixes.
In the meantime, I think I also switched on M47. T-58 + BE-256 is reported as having very high attenuations up towards 90%, which is not consistent with M47. Considering the flocculation (high), I am therefore thinking it could rather be Lallemand Abbaye (medium-high) instead of T-58 (low). Alternatively could be T-58 + S-04 or something. Pure speculation here.
regarding your last thought on lallemand abbaye’s attenuation vs BE256. i just brewed a beer with abbaye, and got 81% attenuation with only D180 added which i always presumed isnt super fermentable like dextrose/sucrose is. in my experience with abbaye i get 75 to 80% attenuation without say a significant amount of sucrose/dextrose added.
IMHO listed attenuation suggestions for many yeasts are not accurate, especially for yeasts that arent super commonly used. idk if it was you discussing lager yeasts and their rated attenuations, but i purchased some less commonly used lager yeasts from whitelabs that had rated attenuations that were low - https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-single?id=232&type=YEAST&srsltid=AfmBOopF42sKYqZAC8LRCo_UhePO05_014EIa87zig_ZUjG_8qbKV-ZW
this one says 66-73% attenuation. i got mid 80s on it in two beers with no special or weird treatment. you can’t trust internet based specs on a lot of stuff imho.
3 Likes
Yeah, I agree that the attenuations are a bit tricky. Overall, I think we would have three categories:
- Low (~65-75%): Mostly due to being maltotriose negative. Examples would be Windsor (spec.: 65-72%) which allows plausible matching with M15 (spec.: 70-75%) for example.
- Medium (~75-85%): Most yeasts. Difficult to distinguish
- High (>~85%): Mostly diastatic yeasts.
Then the specified attenuations would depend on the conditions under which they measured them (gravity of the wort, temperature of the fermentation). I presume that that the ones reported are for the temperatures and gravities appropriate for the recommended styles. When doing the matching, I’m mostly looking for consistency. For example, a yeast like M47 with specified attenuation of 73-77% (and where people have reported 70-83%, is unlikely to be the same as BE-256 with specified attenuation of 82-86%, where people have reported up towards 90%. On the other hand, T-58 is measured (p. 43) by Fermentis to take up very little maltotriose, so the specified attenuation of 72-78% makes sense and is not very consistent with the higher attenuations like the 82% measured by Grainfather.
D180 is highly fermentable
I’m brewing a Kölsch today and will use M54 as the yeast. I took a look at the grains, and it is clear that there are grains of two different colors, one darker and one lighter. This is the first time I actually look at yeast like this, but I would take it as clear indication of it being a mix of two different yeasts.
1 Like
I don’t know if I would necessarily interpret that as 2 different yeasts without more evidence. All you can say for certain is they’re different colors.
I haven’t paid much attention in general, so I am curious on how consistent grain size and shape is for known single strains. Anyone have photos to compare? I suspect it may vary by manufacturer…
Not easy to find photos of dried brewing yeast apparently… The best I could do is a post on HomebrewTalk which shows microscopic images. Looks fairly uniform to me. Lallemand also has a couple of Instagram photos that are not very high resolution but also looks uniform. [1] [2] This baking yeast in a transparent container as well. I’ll take a look next time I use Fermentis or Lallemand.