The topic of yeast choice for low dissolved oxygen brewing (aka Low O2, LO2, LODO) seems to be a critical one when it comes to sulfur-related compounds in the finished beer. I have spent a good portion of this year with beers that have more sulfury compounds (hydrogen sulfide I think) in them than any other year brewing, and the yeasts ability to “deal” with (metabolize, convert, etc) this sulfur seems to be at the forefront. Below I’m listing some yeast strains that have been used with low O2 brewing and how they’ve worked out. I’m linking the yeast strain name to the post where the member mentioned it.
Edit: It might be reasonable to speculate that if a yeast strain has the potential to put off detectable sulfur in a beer all by itself - with the exception of lager yeast - then it could be considered a poor yeast choice for low oxygen brewing due to the potential for huge sufury residual aromas. Not even the the faintest bit conclusive, pure speculation.
Good Yeast Choices:
ALE: Safale US-05 (30mg/l) - “works fine and is my house ale yeast”
ALE: WY1056 (30mg/l) - no residual; no sulfur during fermentation; no farty aromas
ALE: WY1318 (50mg/l) - minimal to no residual; present but not overwhelming
ALE: Lallemand London ESB (37mg/l) - mild residual (subtly distracting) but cleaned up pretty good over time
Poor Yeast Choices:
ALE: WLP568 (50mg/l) - huge residual; egg farts; nasty in aroma and taste; did not clean up
ALE: WLP351 (16-20mg/l) - “sulfur hell. almost dump-worthy”
ALE: Safale K-97 (30mg/l) - huge residual; egg farts; nasty aroma/taste; clean up is minimal
If it’s helpful to know, I: preboil for 10min, dose and wait 10min, underlet/slow_lower (depends on brewing method), no recirc so two gentle stirs during mash without aeration, cap the mash, no sparge, stainless IC.
Thanks for the list guys. It would be interesting to know if any of the “good LODO” yeasts could be added in a “secondary fermentation” to clean up the sulfur while maintaining the character of a favorite “bad LODO” primary yeast strain, used in a blend, etc.
Just racked an american blonde ale to keg that used 1056 with a 30mg/l dosage and it does not smell even a scant bit of sulfur. It smells completely lack of sulfur and like the beer I hoped it would. The fermentation never gave off a hint of sulfur either; no farty aromas at all; just clean light ale fermentation aromas.
As brewcrew7 mentioned, I would if some 1056/US05/001 yeast could be added to finished “sulfur bomb” beer to help clean it up, or if some amount of priming would be necessary as well. I’ve got a kolsch that could use a serious cleanup job.
I used 1056 in the APA at 50ppm SMB and got zero sulfur during fermentation or in the final beer.For anyone who has gotten sulfur, the trifecta mixture lowers the overall SMB dose and seems to work extremely well.
For certain, the brewing methods are not conducive to yeast strains that cannot “deal” with the excess sulfites and, in turn, render them (mostly) moot, which is why I started this thread… to list those that are known to NOT work with with low oxygen brewing, and those that ARE known to work well with low oxygen brewing.
Which strains have you tried with low o2 methods? How did they fair in regards to excess sulfur?
I’ve used 1272 and 3787 with 50 mg/l SMB with no sulphur issues. I have a batch fermenting now with 1450, so I should have some idea about that one soon.
I wouldn’t think so… You would be better off purging the keg’s headspace. Of course this will oxidate the beer as well, but it may be a better alternative then dumping!
Thanks for your input. I won’t bother trying then. About a month ago, I spent about 5 days purging the headspace (actually bubbling co2 through the liquid diptube and venting the headspace at the same time) knowing that I’m losing most of what I added the extra effort for. Like you say, I’d likely prefer a beer who’s lost most of it’s delicate malt quality than simply pouring the entire thing into the garden.
Sounds like I need to stop purging to seal the lid on my beers that I fully close-transfer. Probably still will on my open-transfers though. But hoping to get a brewbucket soon making it easier to do close-transfers for my 5 gallon batches. I don’t know, haven’t been worrying about it that much. The beers are mostly spunded anyway.
While Kunze states that formation of sulphur dioxide (formed from the sulfate in the wort) depends on yeast strain, he also notes that it can increased by controlling the growth of the yeast (less growth = more sulphur dioxide) and that it uses up oxygen and has a positive effect on flavour stability.
On the other hand, he also states that the production of hydrogen sulphide (produced from sulphur-containing amino acids) is influenced by yeast growth (less growth = more hydrogen sulphide).
So it seems possible that two people using the same yeast strain might end up with different results, though I don’t really understand the relationship between hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide.
I have 4 batches now with 1968 at 35ppm SMB and no problems have been observed. I tried pitching a whole lot in one batch and pitching on the lower side on another and both were clean.
I have noticed that the beers seem drier than they did without this method, and I’m wondering if that is due to less of the caramel/honey oxidation flavors not being in there and changing the perception of how dry it is.
I would like to believe it’s this simple, and perhaps it is. What I can say from my experience on two similar (but different batches) is that the results from 1056 and K-97 is night and day (clean vs gross, respectively), and that’s using the same mg/l dosage and a very similar process (i.e. same process but different batches on different days). It’s this type of behavior that causes me to question whether or not yeast have some sort of pathway for “dealing with” sulfites. Interestingly enough, K97 is a fairly strong sulfur producer on it’s own without any added sulfites, which makes me wonder if it can’t even “deal with” it’s own sulfur production. I don’t know… just kind of thinking out loud I guess.
I still think there’s use in generating a list of strains that are known to be good for low oxygen brewing because when starting down this road there are enough other things to think/worry about that it’s nice to walk into the process with a yeast strain that should perform as expected.
I like the last paragraph so much. No Lodo experience for me yet, but I have not brewed in almost 6 months (changing in 2 days). No attempt at Lodo this weekend after that much time off, but very soon. It will be a great to return to this thread and decide on a yeast that plays well with this process
