Well, then my theory is officially updated to WLP001 with WLP830. I’ll bet I’m at least 50% correct. It’s kind of like the Monty Hall problem – oh, it’s not behind door #2? Sure I’ll change my answer from door #1 to door #3. ;D
[/quote]
I just saw this comment on another board and thought of this conversation. It’s from 8 years ago…so take that for what its worth.
“The rumor is that it is a blend of WLP 810 (San Francisco Lager) and WLP 029 (Kolsch/German Ale). The WLP 810 is a great floccer. White Labs identifies WLP 029 as medium flocculation.”
Certainly could be but it’s not the only lager strain that is forgiving in the upper 60s.
The steam beer lager strain is forgiving at higher temperatures. It has a particular taste that seems unique to that strain. I think if it’s in there and you’ve had a California common/steam beer, you’d pick up that flavor in the beer. I picked up a pack of WLP810 out of the expired yeast bin at my LHBS a month ago and used it in my fresh hop beer. Even with a little over 12oz of fresh hops per gallon, the yeast flavor is still identifiable.
I just saw this comment on another board and thought of this conversation. It’s from 8 years ago…so take that for what its worth.
“The rumor is that it is a blend of WLP 810 (San Francisco Lager) and WLP 029 (Kolsch/German Ale). The WLP 810 is a great floccer. White Labs identifies WLP 029 as medium flocculation.”
Seems possible to me.
[/quote]
But the manufacturer already told you that WLP029 is not in the blend. So we are stuck guessing what other ale strain it could be. I’ll stick with my guess for the ale side to be WLP001. It just seems like the obvious choice.
What I am less sure of is which lager strain they used. Might be WLP810, 830, or maybe 838 (the manufacturer also said it isn’t WLP800), might also be WLP820. Somehow I don’t believe it could be WLP802, WLP833, or anything >WLP838 in the numbering scheme. If it matters. And I could be wrong. We’ve all been wrong before, I know I have. Speaking of which…
WLP029 is truly cerevisiae. It got re-tested, confirming what we thought was true in the past before genomic studies began. So, my confusing comments on page 1 of this thread regarding the species of WLP029 can and should be ignored. New evidence overrules the previous.
Meanwhile, as far as I know, WLP800 is actually cerevisiae and not pastorianus. I’ll keep my eyes peeled for this and any other updates based on newest studies. A new one seems to pop up every year or two now.