I am going to brew an ESB soon since being stuck at home is a good reason to brew. Has anyone tried the Lallemand London ESB yeast? I usually use WLP-002 in this beer because I like the flavor profile, but I have had a package of the London ESB sitting around for a while and was wondering if I should try it?
Since I have never used it, any insight would be useful.
I have used it on an ESB. I think it tastes similar to WLP002.
The main gotcha is the yeast doesn’t ferment maltose. So, the final gravity is high. I used 5% table sugar by weight to dry it out. My beer wasn’t sweet at all. But, my FG was 1020 which shocked me. Apparently, humans can’t taste the maltose so the high gravity wasn’t a problem. The finish was definitely not crisp. But not sweet either.
The other thing to know is the yeast doesn’t flocculate well. Mine was super cloudy. But, I used gelatin and it ended up crystal clear.
Long story short, I loved that beer and recently bought a second pack of the yeast.
It doesn’t Ferment maltotriose. Maltose makes up the majority of the wort we produce.
Whoops. Thanks!
Yup. Same as Munton’s regular yeast that also does not ferment maltotriose…
The bitter I used it on went from 1.040 to 1.012.
I just tried it in my ESB, was hoping for something a bit more expressive than the other yeasts I’ve tried in the ESB. I just bottled it Friday so I haven’t tasted it carbonated yet, but from the samples I tasted I’m pretty disappointed, seems to be totally lacking in yeast derived flavors. As Tommy said it doesn’t floc worth a damn, but gelatin did help. I hope it’ll be tastier once carbonated, but I have a feeling my search for the ideal dry yeast for my ESB will go on. If I could count on liquid yeast getting here even semi alive there are lots of good options, but ordering liquid here is a long odds gamble that just isn’t worth taking.
General consensus seems to be that it’s a less interesting version of Windsor - which would make it a bit pointless for British style beers where you’re looking for a significant flavour contribution from yeast. But then plenty of people seem happy with WLP002 and that’s pretty boring by British standards.
I’ve not used it but if it’s like Windsor then it will drop well but not flocc, so it will puff up at the slightest disturbance - adding a bit of a good-floccing yeast like Nottingham at high krausen will help stick it down.
I let my impatience win and popped a couple of this beer last night, turns out the carb level was good and the taste splendid, but not significantly different than the same recipe brewed with other yeasts. Sadly, in a couple weeks it will just be another okay beer, guess I’d better drink 'em fast. FWIW, the sediment was more solid than most of my brews, apparently the gelatin helped more than I had thought.
What happens over a couple of weeks to make the beer go from splendid to just okay?
You have a tough job ahead of you. LOL.
What expressive British yeast do you recommend?
I have some Chevallier malt, and invert #3. Guidance is appreciated.
Mmm, this is disappointing because I like my British styles and considered this yeast. I was on Ritebrew the other day and saw it but it was out of stock. I have tried a bunch of liquid UK yeasts… 1968, 1098, 1099, 1028, 1318, 1469, 1728. The words London ESB says 1968 to me because that’s what Wyeast calls it and it’s a delicious strain with lots of bready and minerally properties. Next time I have a craving for an ESB I will probably order 1968 and forget the Lallemand version especially if it’s boring.
That’s the $64,000 question in my home brewery. I wish I had the answer, but almost all my beers lose 50% or more of their greatness within a couple weeks of the time they are first ready to drink. I don’t do the full low DO brewing thing but do try hard to keep HSA and O2 pickup after pitching to a minimum. Obviously my process has some serious flaws, haven’t figured out yet what they are. Surprisingly the one beer I brew regularly that shows the least effects of staling is my Chile Lager which is a standard American lager with chile’s, OG ~1,047 and FG 1.004.
Back to the OP, the ESB I just did with the Lallemand London ESB only managed 64% AA, almost 10 percentage points lower than any of the other yeast types I’ve used with the same recipe.
Yup, it’s a tough life, but somebody’s gotta live it.
I have used this a couple times now but not really sure how I feel about comparing it to 1968/002. A couple things I will note that may help is that Lallemand pitching rates are a bit higher than other dry yeasts (50-100 g/hl) vs SafAle at 50-80 g/hl so using a bit more than you normally would could really help since it’s no secret that several of Lallemand dry yeasts are slow starters. Also this yeast does not like to get cool, keep it above 65* and to push the yeast character it does have, closer to 70*. I have also noted as others that it does not flocculate well. Other than that and the need to adjust recipe and/or mash temp I would use it again but on selective styles. Maybe heavier Browns, Porter, Stout, Bitter and not styles that many like to use 1968/002 because of their performance and properties.
Save it for a sweet stout or maybe a cider.
I took snapshots of Lallemand’s flavor profile wheels for London ESB and Windsor, but I can’t figure out how to attach them.
You can’t directly post them on the forum. You have to upload them by using something like Tapatalk. Found this out a while back.
Thanks Goose! From looking at their flavor wheels it is clear that London ESB is well more neutral than Windsor. Personally I don’t find Windsor to contribute much “ESB like” character, so I have my doubts as to the benefit of giving London ESB a try.
I’m interested in going out on a limb and giving WLP041 a try in an ESB clone attempt some day.