We’ve all seen this in a particular book but is the California Ale yeast really a good choice for a scottish 60/ or 70/?
I’ve got some beer coming off this yeast this week and I want to make at least 10 gals of something easy drinking and lighter in ABV. I’ve never done the Scottish ales so before I commit the MO, I wanted to ask if this works for you.
Thanks
I think the point of said book is that there are many ways to get some flavors, yeast is just one. It may not be as authentic a method, but it might be more predictable/easy than getting the right yeast character. And that book is about winning competitions, not brewing authentically.
I’ve brewed that recipe twice with US-05. Last year it won a ribbon at the Delaware State Fair.
I’ve only brewed one scottish 60/-. I used the edinbourough yeast and I was amazed at the subtle peaty/earthy/smokey character that yeast added. The rest of the recipe was 98% MO 2% roasted barley so there was some of that smoke from the RB but I think most of it came from the yeast.
So I would be hesitant to use a neutral yeast. I’m sure it would still be good though.
I brewed a split batch of 70/-, fermented half with Wyeast 1056 and half with Safale US-05. When they finished, they tasted so similar I blended them back together. I entered the resulting beer in a (small) competition, and it won best of show.
I brewed the Scottish 70-/ from BCS with WL 001. It came out great!! Scored a 38 and 39 at a local club comp. Nice, easy drinking (yet interesting) session beer.
I guess it depends on what you goals are.
If you are looking for a beer that you want to drink and aren’t worried about styles, then 1056 will be fine. If you are looking to make a “Scottish Ale” then you need to use Scottish yeast, or at least something that will replicate the flavors associated with Scottish ale yeast.
Personally, I don’t care much about BJCP styles, but I don’t like 1056 that much for beers that are malt-focused. It is amazing for hoppy beers, but most English or Scottish yeast tend to emphasize malt flavors.
Thanks all.
I think I will do a double batch (10 gals) and split them between WLP001 and WLP007. I know that 007 is a very attenuative yeast but I need to make a “starter” for some English IPA that I have planned so this should work OK. I will mash quite warm (158) and use a good amount of crystal to try to get more body in the beer. Technically, you could probably say that neither are a perfectly true Scottish Ale but that the one done with 007 would be a mild. Oh well, not that I really care. I just want to make a good amount of sessionable beer to have on hand. I’m definitely not a BJCP style stickler but I also don’t want to make something that will be knowingly less than good. Sounds like 001 makes a very passable beer for most people.
wlp001 will produce a fine beer. but I’m sure it’ll be too clean for a true scottish ale. so really, it’s up to you. To get the correct ethyl hexanoate (red apple) flavors, you should use either the Edinburgh or Scottish Ale yeasts. Most english strains will also produce this flavor within the human threshold but they are usually much milder. Sometimes you can get away with Irish ale in place of scottish
Sort of on point:
A couple years ago I brewed a scotch ale using the European ale strain and a small amount of rauch malt. It had that hint of smoky flavor with a good malt forward character and while delicious, it didn’t have quite the same character as a Scottish ale strain.
I think you would be happy to drink the beer you will make from that book but, as said above, if authenticity is your goal you probably want to go a different direction.
My opinion is if you mash at 158 or so, and kettle carmelize 1 gallon of 1st runnings down to .5 gallons, Chico makes a great 60, 70, or 80/-. You want a very attenuative yeast to balance out a somewhat UNFERMENTABLE wort.
My understanding is that historical/traditional scottish ales didn’t have a peat/smoked flavor, and that it was only recently added to the style guidelines because so many people were ADDING peat malt to their beers. The scottish ales I’ve had are malty, flavorful, and well attenuated without any peat flavor. IMHO that belongs in the smoked beer category.
According to the author of that well-known book, an old book on home brewing incorrectly referred to using smoked or peated malt in Scottish styles. He claims that is where the smoked malt in Scottish styles originated.
WLP001 and it’s counterparts from other labs all make for an excellent Scottish 60/ or 70/… and I’ve found that the strain actually does a very fine job with malty styles. If you’re shooting for the flavor profile that is commonly expected of the style these days, the real trick of course is to simply be more evenhanded with the hops. If you avoid the typical homebrewer heavy handedness with the hops (and dial in the right mash temps), the malt will come shining through perfectly fine.
Use a Scottish yeast if you have it, but using another strain instead will not knock your results out of “style” (if indeed you’re concerned about such things).
Also…if you’re after ‘authenticity’ (whatever that is)… just say ‘no’ to the peated or other smoked malts; as has been pointed out, their use in Scottish/Scotch ales is apparently the comparatively recent invention of us crazy Americans. :o
Just to be clear, the hint of peat/earth/smoke I refered to was entirely from the yeast. I did not add any smoked malt. That was actually my point. people started adding the smoked malt in an attempt to duplicate some peaty/earthy character that was coming from the local water and yeast.
I plan on brewing Scottish styles as soon as I get a thermostat. I haven’t brewed one yet (keep putting off the thermostat) but have read Greg Noonan’s Scotch Ale book and have listened to many podcats. All the references to smoke flavors were attributed to yeast.
I’m drinking the first one I ever made, first pint. This is a great beer, and I used s-05, mashed @ 158, single decoction to mash out, kettle camelized 1 gallon of1st runnings down to .5 gallons, fermented at 64*. This might be a quarterly brew.
A: slight caramel, toasted malt, low toffee, no hops
A: brilliant deep amber, moussy off white head, lots of lacing
F: rich high caramel malt upfront with a hint of toast/melanoidin. Soft/mild bitterness. Bit of toffee from the kettle carmelization, which I could see as the “peaty” note.
M:almost nitro-Guinness like. Silky.
yes please.
So I did the 001/007 split that I mentioned above. Kegged the 007 version tonight. Not sure what to say.
The recipe was:
10 lbs Maris Otter
1 lb Caramunich (cause I didn’t have any C40)
1/2 lb C120
3 oz Pale Chocolate
40 g of EKG and 10 g of Fuggles (both were the last of what I had and I’d only use 40g if fresher)
1 vial of WLP007 without a starter or re-pitch of WLP001
Mashed at 156 for 60 mins.
OG 1.037
FG 1.010
Fermented at 68F
The beer is interesting. It has an almost “maple syrup” aftertaste. I think that may be from the C120 but I’ve never used that much caramunich before either. It could be some diacetyl but I am not very perceptive when it comes to diacetyl plus I’ve done an awful lot of beer at this temp with this yeast and haven’t had this sort of taste. I think the high amount of crystal that I put in is dominating the flavour.
Plus, the beer is clearly over attenuated. It’s pretty thin at 1.010. I have a pitch of WLP002 working on another beer and I think a re-brew with less crystal and a less attenuative yeast is in order.
I would also suggest that maybe I underpitched by using just a vial without a starter. I know at this OG I shouldn’t absolutely need to but the vial was at the far end of the “best before” window as well so I think I’m getting a bit of ester production from the under pitch. A batch of English IPA is next on the agenda using this yeast and I’ll be able to pitch it much higher (and then split it for a double batch of the same assuming everything goes as planned).
Gonna keg the WLP001 version tomorrow and see how it compares.