Has anyone used this strain of yeast? I got a couple of packs of it as swag at a recent homebrew competition and am thinking of using it for my next batch of ESB. I am curious as to what the esteemed members of this forum think about it.
My normal go to yeast for ESB is WLP-002. Is the Lallemand better or worse or about the same.
I used it in an ordinary bitter with good results.
I have a pack but haven’t used it yet. Some things to note. It doesn’t ferment maltotriose. From the manufacturer website: “… does not utilize the sugar maltotriose (a molecule composed of 3 glucose units). Maltotriose is present in wort in an average 10-15% of all malt worts. The result will be fuller body and residual sweetness in beer. “
I read somewhere it was selected because it tastes closest to Fullers ESB yeast. Not sure if that is true or not but the name certainly implies such.
It’s lovely, bit make sure to use some sugar or syrup to dry out the beer a bit.
Currently brewing through a bunch of English styles - this is really leaving subtle esters supporting the hops and a fantastic body.
I use it often. It’s a beast and ferments very quickly. I just mash low (149-150 F) and hit the gravities I’m targeting. Makes a nice English ale (brown, ESB, etc).
I remember this from the other night’s session.
When I get home, might try another Best Bitter with invert #3, this yeast, enough SO4 to make it longer on the tongue but not smell of wet drywall.
I just used this yeast for the first time. 3 gallons in the fermenter of a 1.052 Porter. Got going in about 3-4 hours, a nice Krausen and bouncing airlock by 15 and apparently just about finished in 30. What is this…Windsor vII?
Why…we always go for that wet-drywall taste and aroma. Can’t beat it!
Just kidding, of course! Laughed my rear off when I saw that description!
YES. The two strains are genetically almost identical. The main difference I have seen is that London attenuates to about 67% average, a little more than Windsor which for me averages much lower about 60%. Both will complete most of the fermentation within about 40 hours, dragging out the last gravity point for a few more days maybe.
I love both. These are nice tools to keep in the toolbox, handy for producing very flavorful malty beers without high alcohol, for those interested in more sessionable strength beers.
I hate this yeast and Windsor which many think is like lallemand ESB. Though I get rotting wood not rotting dry wall from Windsor I get pear esters an tons more pear esters until the beer has aged and dropped clear for a bit then I get some funkiness and bitter peach pit. Just not an enjoyable yeast when wlp 007, 002, wy1469 and others are so good. Heck I LOVE super clean Nottingham and prefer the esters I can get from it when stressed over the ESB results.
I’ve actually quite enjoyed Windsor the few times that I have used it. Like dmtaylor, I have only gotten very low 60’s attenuation (59% once), but the beer never comes across as sweet. A bit full-bodied, maybe. “Smooth” might be the best way I could describe it. Of course, I’ve only ever used it in a Porter so I’m assuming whatever esters it is kicking is getting lost behind the grains. Maybe I wouldn’t care so much for it in a Bitter or a Mild.
As far as London, I was hoping to get somewhere closer to 70%, but from Dave’s earlier post and the current visual inactivity from my fermenter after 2 days post pitch, I’m thinking probably not. I mashed at 150, but maybe I should have been at 148°. Would it even make a difference? I’m beginning to think that for a Porter, there might not be much difference between London and Windsor. I’ll know for sure in a few weeks.
Interesting. I honestly haven’t gotten much of an ester character from the London ESB the few times I’ve used it, but I get a nice ester profile out of Windsor that I enjoy. I have a packet of the London ESB for brewing session ales with minimal fermentation character, but I am a lot more likely to reach for Windsor to be honest.
Agreed. I do find Windsor to be more estery, and London relatively more clean. The yeasts are clearly related, AND… clearly a little different.
Cheers.
So…Kegged yesterday, that 1.052 Porter with London finished at 1.017. 67%! I think Windsor drops out a bit faster and ends up more compact. Sample taste of this London Porter is fine (not picking up any noticeable esters) but I’ll wait til its all dressed up to decide if I can honestly tell any difference between the two. For a Porter, I’m guessing I won’t be able to.
Thanks for the additional data point. :) I hope you’ll enjoy your London porter. I do find this yeast to be pretty clean, hardly much esters.