Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study

[hopfenundmalz]

@denny

@ynotbrusum

I think it is experiment time …It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can’t explain it.

I remember it was US-56 or US-056 at first, then the name changed. Was it a full lawsuit, or a C&D?

[denny]

@hopfenundmalz

@denny

@ynotbrusum

I think it is experiment time …It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can’t explain it.

I remember it was US-56 or US-056 at first, then the name changed. Was it a full lawsuit, or a C&D?

My understanding is that it was a full on suit.  The name change was a result of it.

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

I hadn’t paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager (“beer” in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I’m missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

[klickitat_jim]

I hadn’t paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager (“beer” in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I’m missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

Question EVERYTHING!

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

You betcha.  And I’m definitely trying this.  Tomorrow is a reference beer as a baseline for the following brew, where I’m trying a local malthouse’s products.  But that means a month from now I’ll be ready to change something else, and I think the plan should be, brew batch 3 of this same Dortmunder recipe, but with 1056/051 at lager temps.  And if it drops bright better than 2124 I just might have my new house yeast.  The Fat Heads lager made with it has already almost sold me.

[narcout]

I hadn’t paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager (“beer” in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I’m missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

The thinking before was that BRY-97 = Wyeast 1272 = WLP051 = Ballantine Ale, and that BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP001 = Ballantine Beer, right?

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation?

I’ve never pitched 1056 that low, but I once tried to crash a starter of it at high krausen in the fridge, and it just kept chugging along.

[hopfenundmalz]

@narcout

I hadn’t paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager (“beer” in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I’m missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

The thinking before was that BRY-97 = Wyeast 1272 = WLP051 = Ballantine Ale, and that BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP001 = Ballantine Beer, right?

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation?

I’ve never pitched 1056 that low, but I once tried to crash a starter of it at high krausen in the fridge, and it just kept chugging along.

Things have been turned upside down. It might be a few years before all of the dust settles.

[ynotbrusum]

Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters…and our old theories may go by the boards.

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

@ynotbrusum

Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters…and our old theories may go by the boards.

Damn, I miss “Click and Clack!”  But yeah, I think I’ve about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn’t  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.

[BrodyR]

Correct me if I’m wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:

1. Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2. Is this is the reverse of Mark’s theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3. Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

@BrodyR

Correct me if I’m wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:

1. Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2. Is this is the reverse of Mark’s theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3. Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.

See Jeff’s reply #26 where he puts it nicely.  The world’s gone topsy turvy; or has it?  The old theory makes sense only if we keep our old assumptions that we can distinguish cerevisiae and pastorianus by certain organoleptic qualities in beers.  Which it seems clear we can’t do.

[dmtaylor (Dave Taylor)]

Over the past couple months and again last week, I dove into the results pretty deep.  I still have a lot of questions about what’s what and whether it’s all truly valid.  I believe a lot of the so-called “equivalents” are either NOT equivalent, or are closely related but again, NOT equivalent.  However there might be some that are indeed one & the same.  I have a lot of notes at home on this (not here at work) and if I can find some time this weekend, I’ll dive in again and see if I can figure out what’s what regarding all the California/American “ale” strains.  As to whether any of them are truly lager yeasts, I honestly have a lot of doubts.  There’s too much conflicting information bouncing around to make sense of it all.  Bottom line is I think we’re going to need more research over the next year or 3 to confirm for certain which ones are lagers vs. ales.  I really question some of the declarations of “this is really a lager!”  Maybe true, but I remain skeptical.  It’s not adding up.

Sorry I don’t have more details to share right at this moment, but please wait a day or two and hopefully I can help stir the mud even more (vice clear it up!).  And anyone else, please feel free of course.

[denny]

@ynotbrusum

Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters…and our old theories may go by the boards.

Damn, I miss “Click and Clack!”  But yeah, I think I’ve about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn’t  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.

[BrewBama (Dwain)]

Damn, I miss “Click and Clack!”

Me too!  I loved those guys.

[Robertestein05_gmail.com (Robert)]

@denny

@ynotbrusum

Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters…and our old theories may go by the boards.

Damn, I miss “Click and Clack!”  But yeah, I think I’ve about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn’t  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.

Big shoes, Denny, but keep it up!

[mainebrewer]

@BrewBama

Damn, I miss “Click and Clack!”

Me too!  I loved those guys.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here in Maine, Tom and Ray always kept me company on my Saturday AM brew times.

[denny]

@denny

@ynotbrusum

Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters…and our old theories may go by the boards.

Damn, I miss “Click and Clack!”  But yeah, I think I’ve about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn’t  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.

Big shoes, Denny, but keep it up!

Indeed, but I’m getting close to the goofy laugh.

[ynotbrusum]

@mainebrewer

@BrewBama

Damn, I miss “Click and Clack!”

Me too!  I loved those guys.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here in Maine, Tom and Ray always kept me company on my Saturday AM brew times.

Me, too, I listened to them every show while brewing and even before I took up brewing way back when… and, yes, I now listen to Denny and Drew while I brew.  I guess it was a natural kind of substitution that occurrred without any conscious connection on my part (I am not that smart), but yeah, it is nearly parallel.

[hopfenundmalz]

@BrodyR

Correct me if I’m wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:

1. Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2. Is this is the reverse of Mark’s theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3. Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.

1. Maybe.
2. Yes
3. I don’t know.

I see the second link in my post no longer works.

[denny]

@hopfenundmalz

@BrodyR

Correct me if I’m wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:

1. Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2. Is this is the reverse of Mark’s theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3. Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.

1. Maybe.
2. Yes
3. I don’t know.

I see the second link in my post no longer works.

AFAIK, WY1056 came from Sierra Nevada, cultured from a bottle.