I just picked some of this up and I was going to use it for a Scottish 70 and possibly for a IPA or IIPA. I have never used this strain before and I was wondering if anyone could give me some idea of what to expect. Any comments would be appreciated.
This yeast can throw a very nice low smoke phenolic, Great for Scottish/Strong Scotch Ales. Solid yeast, is otherwise clean, I like it a lot. As Denny said it performs well cool and can easily handle higher alcohols.
The hops in an IPA or IIPA will totally overpower any smoke so don’t worry about that aspect.
I could easily see it being a combination of water (minerally notes being taken as “earthy”), plus yeast strain (low levels of phenols, possibly plus earthy notes).
I’m just surprised that Greg Noonan missed this fact in his book “Scottish Ales.”
Do anyone know the precise conditions which cause the yeast to produce earthy and/or smoky notes?
Wouldn’t it have something to do with the malting process? Back 200 years ago, they would have used peat to fire the furnaces and kiln the grain. All of the malt would have been slightly, but unintentionally, peat smoky, right?
By the early 19th century, improved indirectly heated kilns meant that malt didn’t pick up (much) smoke character, regardless of the fuel used. Also, by that time, brewers were doing everything they could to avoid smoky character in their beer, since it was considered to be a fault. For example, in the early 18th century (~300 years ago), one of the reasons why porter was aged was to give time for the smoke character (from “blown” brown malt) to drop a bit.
That said, anything is possible. Locally-produced malt used for privately-brewed (“house brewed”) beer could have had some peat character, but I can’t imagine that the big Scottish breweries in Alloa, Edinburgh and elsewhere would have welcomed it.
More to the point, Scottish “shilling ales” and “wee heavy” are based on late 20th century examples. By that time, there was no way that Scottish brewers were using peat in their maltings, nor were they using water with a peat character in their brewing. It would be about as likely as one of the big Munich breweries “accidentally” using beechwood smoked rauchmalt in one of their lagers.
I just got back from Scotland and the water didn’t have any sort of peat character that I could taste, although, admittedly, I didn’t get much into the highlands. Caledonian and Belhaven had nothing I would call peaty - the were just clean, with a subdued caramel sweetness, they were dry and malt-forward beers. Jamil’s Scottish recipe actually gets you pretty close. I have no idea where this idea originated - I just wish any reference to any smoke perception would get out of the guidelines. I hate judging this category and then in MBOS you get an “Other smoked beer” from the other side of the table.
How does 1728 do at warmer temps? I see Wyeast states 75F as the upper temperature limit and everyone seems to ferment this one cool.
I don’t have temperature control, but I have a chilly basement. The ambient temps should be a steady 66-67F. The beer will be a 7% IPA. Guessing the fermentation temps would be 70-72. I can pitch colder than ambient.
I don’t mind fruity esters, but would like to avoid fusels. Anyone ever use 1728 in the low 70s?
1728 is a very vigorous fermenter. The first time I used it was at 60, and the inside of my refrigerator looked like a failed 5th grade science experiment within 36 hours.
I use an 8 gallon bucket with a 5-6 gallon batch. A blow off tube necessity is rare even with a big starter and plenty of pure O2, but I’ll keep an eye on it, thanks.
1728 is my house yeast. I use it for Scottish, APA, IPA, Northern English Brown, ESB, etc. Its clean at 50-58, starts getting an English (UK) fruity ester above 58. Im running a Scottish 80/- and an APA on it right now at 62º.
I never get anything that resembles smoke from it. I firmly beleive that is an old wives tale that isn’t allowed to die. Based on about 9 months and 30 or so batches at varying temps and grist bills. If someone is getting a hint of smoke from 1728 I’m convinced its due to trying to find it too hard.
Jim, I was inclined to call it a bigfoot myth. But I have experienced it ONCE. One of my good friends brewed a 60 and it definitely threw a very light smokey phenol and he had no use of smoked grain in the grist. It was a lovely compliment to that beer. He has since tried several times to replicate that yeast-derived smokiness with NO success. I don’t know how to coax that yeast into producing that phenol, but I do know it’s capable.
I’ll welcome anyone’s guidance on what conditions help that yeast to throw that phenol.