I’ve seen conflicting information and looking for some clarity here.
Is W-34/70 the same as WLP830? Does it have a Wyeast equivalent (2124)?
34/70 is said to be equivalent to WLP-830, and Wyeast-2124. Look at the description on those web pages and you will find “most widely used lager yeast” or “one of the most widely used lager yeasts”. I read that it was professor Doktor Narziss’s favorite at Weihenstephan, so several generations of German Brewers were taught to use it in Brewing school, so that is where the popularity originated.
What baffles me is the information stated by Fermentis and Wyeast regarding the temperature ranges (i.e. they are different).
That makes sense why it’s touted as the most widely used strain.
My questioning stemmed from the “Part 4” experiment with lager yeast fermentation temperatures from Brulosophy.
I just did a NGP the Part 4 method and it rocked. Game changer for me. 1 single packet, direct pitch, 65F ambient. No off flavors at all and clean/neutral and true lager character to me (I am BJCP) but does not flocc even after a few weeks cold. You need to fine it. There are some like me that actually believe that dry is now superior to that of wet.
Thank you for the input! I plan to try this out with a Dorrmunder Export recipe this coming weekend and am on the fence on liquid versus dry.
How long did it take for you at 65*? And did you do a diacetyl rest beyond that? Rehydrate the yeast?
The strain has a very wide temp range, which probably explains the differences. It’ll allegedly make at least lager-like beers up into the 60s, with the obvious lager range of mid/upper 40s to mid 50s. I used it once @ 60F and it was surprisingly clean considering.
Heck yeah, I think it would work extremely well on a Dort. It fermented much like an ale (threw a little sulfur tho), dropped to FG in a few days, but I kept it 65F for a week. Direct pitch/no rehydrate - I’ve run the numbers… It’s fine. Personally I think a D-rest is not necessary for lagers. There are 2 schools. High temp and low temp. No D rest for either. Either you go low and slow or high and fast. Not sure if you can pull off everything like helles with it, but I am a pils guy…
I can tell you that I can not tell much difference between 34/70 and 2124 - but I do prefer the 2124. I will use the 34/70 in a pinch though and have never been unhappy with the performance. Rather than rehydrate I generally just pitch a little more.
I looked it up and confirmed that yes these seem to be equivalent or really close. Wish I would have known this before impulse-purchasing a pack of WLP830 when I already have a pack of W-34/70 in the refrigerator!! Perhaps I can run a side-by-side experiment though – perfect chance for that I guess!
I have never done a side by side, it would be interesting to see those results. But operating a production brewer I don’t mind subbing for the dry yeast equivalent from time to time if it is an emergency and yeast ship time is too far out.
You should rehydrate or pitch more for a cold fermentation schedule, but warm is another matter. I think it is real easy to get into debates about starters/strains/ferment temps/mash regimes but in the end I think water composition and wort pH play a much larger role in the resulting beer than those items which are debatable. NGP of mine was distilled with some CaCl and 4% acid malt to mash pH of 5.2…
Anyone who is obtaining better performance out of dry yeast than liquid yeast is either handling his/her liquid cultures poorly and/or underaerating his/her wort. I routinely meet brewers who treat a starter like a small batch of beer when the goal of making a starter is to maximize viable yeast biomass and cell health. Allowing a starter to ferment out before pitching the cells is treating a starter like a small batch of beer.
Aerobic propagation in a bioreactor coupled with fluid bed drying changes the performance of a yeast culture, and it is usually not for the better. Dry yeast also has a higher non-reference culture microbial load than its liquid counterpart. Dry yeast is superior to liquid yeast in one area; namely, ease of use. Dry yeast does not require much in the way of aeration due to being propagated aerobically below the Crabtree threshold; therefore, the cells go into fermentation with fully charged ergosterol and unsaturated fatty acid reserves.
Agreed; Saving a few bucks doesn’t hurt too. ;D Not every homebrewer aspires to be a microbiologist.
I’m debating this as well, as I have both on hand. May be worth a shot even if I have to dedicate a second keg to the cause.
I’m going to give it an attempt in the 62* range (been monitoring the ambient temperature swings of my currently empty fermentation room in the basement for the last few days). Interested to see how this turns out.
This confuses me, because I’ve heard from many that yeast does not perform at its best until fermented in a batch of beer for a generation or two (and also found it true in my own experience).
Making a starter and making a batch of beer are different goals. The goal of a starter to take a small amount of yeast and grow it into a larger amount of yeast (i.e., increase the yeast biomass) while protecting its health. Time and time again, I see people commenting on the improved performance of the the shaken, not stirred method. The magic is not in the shaking. The shaking is a poor man’s O2 bottle and diffusion stone. The magic is the result of not stressing the cells and pitching at high krausen.
With that said, the reason why culture improves when repitching is not based solely on number of generations the culture has been propagated. It is based on the number of generations under real-world brewing conditions in one’s brewery. The culture improves because the wheat gets sorted from the chaff cell-wise, and the culture becomes acclimated to the environment. It’s Darwinism applied to brewing.
What about when you are continually repitching yeast into different recipes? Yeast are not under the same stress in a batch of ordinary bitter than it will when I pitch it into an east coast IPA a few generations down the road. Does this include being able to acclimate (or not) to house microflora load over time?