Any suggestions for a dry yeast in a wee heavy?
Mangrove Jack’s M42 New World Strong Ale would be my choice.
I think I’d go for S189. It’s a lager yeast, but I generally ferment wee heavy with WY1728 in the mid 50s anyway.
Hey Denny, I try to do a belhaven clone beer some while ago, and they said to ferment with low temp, I did the beer was not good, but not because of the temp of the fermentation, but I never found a answer for the question, why at low temp?
I do it because it keeps the beer cleaner and gives me the result I’m looking for.
I like S-04 mainly because I copied an 1851 Wm Younger 120/- from Ron Pattinson and based on the FG, S-04 was spot on. It ferments fast, flocculates like a stone, and leaves the body and character I believe the original recipe is calling for with the WLP028 Edinburgh Ale.
That recipe is basically a SMaSH so is more pale than the guidelines call for. It also has more bitterness than the guidelines allow. So much for BJCP guidelines …but I do want to try it with a bit of DRC.
I don’t think very many of Ron’s recipes fit into BJCP guidelines. Even though his recipes are based on actual brewery logs and records.
BJCP guidelines are great for homebrew comps, but not so much for the real world
I haven’t made a wee heavy in quite a while, but these days I think I’d try S-04, due to its high attenuation that can overcome the relatively high gravity. I like the idea of S-189 though, that could be really quite good too.
I really like S-189 and I’ll be brewing this late in the year when I used it last year on other “ales” with good results. Although I might ask Santa for some 1728.
I’d probably split the batch between 1728 and M-42. I did a wee heavy a few months back & split between 1728 and M-15, the M-15 was a train wreck but the 1728 turned out pretty well, O.G. 1.097 to F.G. 1.026 in about 12 days for 72% AA. I recently used S-04 for the 1st time in years on an ESB, it certainly does ferment fast, drop hard and produce a lot of esteryness, but at 72% AA was lower attenuating than the half with US-05 which hit 78% AA. I haven’t tried S-189 yet but it’s on my list.
Because it’s cold in Scotland and brewers there historically fermented at ambient temperatures, which meant typically pitching at 60F, sometimes lower.
Wee Heavy is one of those non-styles like ESB that really refers to a single beer, Fowler’s 12 Guinea - Ron Pattinson has a good history here, in the 19th century it was 12%, with an OG of 1.159 and an FG of 1.068!! Apparent attenuation was never more than 75%, around 70% was more typical.
Personally, I don’t care what they did beyond curiosity. I care about what makes the beer I want to drink.
Right on.
That’s absolutely fine - just don’t use the phrase “wee heavy” when talking about it.
Communication breaks down if we use the same phrase to describe different things.
If people can call that hazy stuff IPA, then I can call it wee heavy
I’m with Denny. I start with a basic wee heavy recipe (or in some cases a “way heavy”), but I feel free to make changes to my taste.
Isn’t that WHY we brew our own?
Indeed. And I understand the point…its the same thing I say about hazy OPS or Session IPA. But opinion seems to have outvoted all of us.
IPA is a perfect example of how using a phrase for everything leads to it meaning nothing at all.
It’s not helpful for communication if some people think an IPA should look something like Greene King and others think it’s Green Flash (let alone Treehouse Green).
I didn’t know that. I thought Wee Heavy was a 120/- . Interesting. Thanks for the information.