The Averagely Perfect American IPA Project - Poll #10- Yeast

Discussion in 'Homebrewing' started by VikeMan, Jan 24, 2013.


Select a Yeast Strain

Poll closed Jan 26, 2013.
  1. Wyeast 1056 (American Ale)

  2. Wyeast 1272 (American Ale II)

  3. Wyeast 1450 (Denny's Favorite)

  4. Wyeast 1332 (Northwest Ale)

  5. WLP090 (San Diego Super)

  6. Wyeast 1028 (London Ale)

  7. WLP007 (Dry English)

  8. Wyeast 1275 (Thames Valley)

    0 vote(s)
  9. Wyeast 1335 (British Ale II)

    0 vote(s)
  10. Wyeast 1010 (American Wheat)

    0 vote(s)
  1. VikeMan

    VikeMan Champion (820) Pennsylvania Jul 12, 2009

    Time to select a yeast strain. (Suggested mash temp will follow in the next poll.) I have not specified equivalent yeast strains in the poll list, but consider them implied where applicable. For example, read Wyeast 1056 as "Wyeast 1056/WLP001/US-05." I recommend voting in the context of the recipe so far. Straight plurality wins this particular poll. Yeast strain characteristics are too subjective to draw any conclusions from lumping votes for similar strains together or searching for some other tendency. If you feel a vote being split, jump on a bandwagon. Tell all your friends. Write-ins allowed.

    This poll will be open for 48 hours.

    If you don't know what this thread is about, please see this thread...

    If you have issues with or suggestions for methodologies used in this project, please Beer Mail me.
    Let's keep the threads themselves on topic to the question at hand (not about how you would have asked the question differently). I will not address methodology questions in the forum any more. I'm not going to risk having a thread deleted due to a flame war. If this irks you, please consider not playing.

    The Averagely Perfect American IPA Recipe so far...
    5 Gallons
    Target ABV: 6.5%
    Target OG: 1.062
    Target FG: 1.012
    Apparent Attenuation: 81%
    Two-Row Brewer's Malt
    Crystal 40 (5%)
    Carapils (3%)
  2. MacNCheese

    MacNCheese Initiate (0) California Dec 10, 2011

    How did you figure out apparent attenuation prior to selecting the yeast?
  3. Hmmm, I really wish this had come after the hop selection.

    Like... I really like 1028's flocing and think it goes well with chinook/ simcoe/ centennial but would be really funky with Amarillo/ citra.

    Oh well. We all already know 1056 is going to win :)
  4. AlCaponeJunior

    AlCaponeJunior Champion (810) Texas May 21, 2010

    I'm torn between 1056 and Denny's favorite, but since this is the APA IPA project, I went with 1056.
  5. VikeMan

    VikeMan Champion (820) Pennsylvania Jul 12, 2009

    ((1 - OG) - (1 - FG)) / (1 - OG)
  6. MacNCheese

    MacNCheese Initiate (0) California Dec 10, 2011

    Except you need to know the attenuation of the yeast to determine what the FG will be. I know how it's calculated, but it doesn't make sense to calculate it before you know the characteristics of the yeast will be. No problem if it's WLP001, but if someone wants London yeast or won't be 80%.
  7. Right along with the boring Brewers 2-Row I am sure the boring 1056/equivalent will win here too. I voted for WLP090 since I have it on hand and would also like to see WLP007.
    kjyost and barfdiggs like this.
  8. VikeMan

    VikeMan Champion (820) Pennsylvania Jul 12, 2009

    Published strain attenuation number ranges are, IMO, sometimes worthless, or at best, do not tell the whole story. However, I would suggest that people should not vote for a strain that they believe cannot achieve 81% attenuation (even with favorable mash temp and other factors) with this specific grain bill.
    yinzer, mattbk and barfdiggs like this.
  9. barfdiggs

    barfdiggs Savant (420) California Mar 22, 2011

    Been digging the San Diego Super Yeast.
  10. mattbk

    mattbk Savant (425) New York Dec 12, 2011

    You don't need to vote for 1056 if you don't want to.

  11. mnstorm99

    mnstorm99 Advocate (535) Minnesota May 11, 2007

    I tend to gravitate to English strains, and almost always have WLP007 around so that is my choice on this one. But the chico strain should probably be the proper selection for this experiment.
    GreenKrusty101 likes this.
  12. VikeMan

    VikeMan Champion (820) Pennsylvania Jul 12, 2009

    Not to influence any specific votes, but... my basic premise was that people would vote for ingredients/targets/etc. based on their own idea of perfection (albeit constrained by decisions already made), and to see if something great might come out at the end. It wasn't really for people to vote according to what they think is a least common denominator, though of course they are free to do that.
  13. It clears really nicely and allows bitterness to shine which really helps me since my IPAs tend to get great fruit flavors but the bitterness used to seem lacking prior to using 090.
    GreenKrusty101 likes this.
  14. mnstorm99

    mnstorm99 Advocate (535) Minnesota May 11, 2007

    I have been voting based on my own preferred/perfected IPA, and for the most part the beer being created is already pretty damn close. In the case of yeast WLP002 is probably what I use most, with WLP007 and US-05 tied for a close second.
  15. skivtjerry

    skivtjerry Advocate (585) Vermont Mar 10, 2006

    Well, mash temperature would take care of that, except it has to be voted on. We may end up with the Averagely Impossible American IPA.
    NiceFly likes this.
  16. MacNCheese

    MacNCheese Initiate (0) California Dec 10, 2011

    Mash temp would factor in, but not wholely solve the problem.
  17. PortLargo

    PortLargo Advocate (515) Florida Oct 19, 2012

    Please show me as a write-in for WLP002.
  18. How so? Everything I've absorbed 2nd hand says it's just faster...tell me different...I'm a sucker for a yeast I haven't tried yet : )
  19. Drops out clearer and quicker as well. I think it allows for a little cleaner hop presence, and seemingly a little more bitterness in my experience.
    Patrick likes this.
  20. I would say the exact opposite. I brewed a few batches recently with it since my local store was out of my other go to yeasts (US-05, WLP001 and WLP007.) I noticed a bigger malt presence and more subdued hops. It was still very clean and did floc out faster. I would not say it fermented any faster than 001 though. Granted, all 3 beers I did with it were 7%+ beers. It's definitely suitable for the style but I like other yeasts better.
  21. inchrisin

    inchrisin Savant (470) Indiana Sep 25, 2008

    Can I get US 04 or 05, or do I get to pick the liquid equivalent?
  22. HerbMeowing

    HerbMeowing Savant (420) Virginia Nov 10, 2010

    Write-in: Wyeast 1968 / WLP002
    greybeardloon and mnstorm99 like this.
  23. VikeMan

    VikeMan Champion (820) Pennsylvania Jul 12, 2009

    As stated in the poll post, if you want US-05, vote for Wyeast 1056. I don't know what S-04's liquid equivalent is (if there is one). But if it's not listed, you can write it in, also as stated.
  24. I don't think that is the equivalent...even though I've seen that stated other places...if that is the case...that's 1 dry yeast ( S-04) that you'd be better off using the liquid...IMHO
  25. HerbMeowing

    HerbMeowing Savant (420) Virginia Nov 10, 2010

    The cross-walk was posted as a public service.
    WLP002 FTW!

    Take any concerns about the mapping up with the good folks at...
  26. VikeMan

    VikeMan Champion (820) Pennsylvania Jul 12, 2009

    HerbMeowing likes this.
  27. I dont think it ferments faster at all in my experience either, I will be using it again soon to try again. I am surprised you got a lot of maltiness, I am assuming these were hoppy beers you are referring to. I guess one day I will have to do a side by side on the same beer.
  28. Good spot... sorry Herbmeowing...directing that at Incrisin...we all know 002 and 1968 are equivalents

    I was suggesting S-04 has no known liquid equivalent...oops
    HerbMeowing likes this.
  29. HerbMeowing

    HerbMeowing Savant (420) Virginia Nov 10, 2010

    Looks like the next round is on you!

    I'll have a snifter of Utopia.
  30. They were all hoppy beers (one of which I've brewed many times in the past with 001/US-05) and I did notice the malt was slightly more prominent but hops were still upfront. It's not huge or anything, but enough to notice a difference. I'm actually drinking one right now and it's a fine beer, just not exactly what I'd expected.
  31. inchrisin

    inchrisin Savant (470) Indiana Sep 25, 2008

    Sorry guys, I'm at work and get distracted sometimes. Sorry Vikeman, I didn't actaully get to your text before responding. There's got to be a name to call me for that.:oops:
  32. Even though I never buy "rare" beers...I have been watching a decanter/bottle collect dust at a local liquor store...if it goes on might get a snifter if I can keep the bottle : )
  33. yinzer

    yinzer Savant (395) Pennsylvania Nov 24, 2006

    skivtjerry and pweis909 like this.
  34. HerbMeowing

    HerbMeowing Savant (420) Virginia Nov 10, 2010

    Shorter Gene Krantz: RDWHAHB
  35. pweis909

    pweis909 Advocate (715) Wisconsin Aug 13, 2005

    I thought S-04 was same as 1098 or 1099.
  36. Patrick

    Patrick Initiate (0) Massachusetts Aug 13, 2007

    I've had these results as well. It's what I've been using for most yeast neutral styles.
  37. mnstorm99

    mnstorm99 Advocate (535) Minnesota May 11, 2007

    I have read that as well, but I am not sure if I have seen it confirmed. Maybe they are struggling with which whitbread strain it is.
  38. kneary13

    kneary13 Savant (320) Massachusetts Jan 30, 2010

    calc'ed based on the desired FG... once yeast is selected, he'll determine mash temp
  39. I've gotten very high attenuation in the past with it. It would not surprise me if it were closer to 007.

    I don't see how we can have a poll on mash temp due to system variation. What you get by mashing at 152 will not necessarily be the same as what I get at 152.
  40. mnstorm99

    mnstorm99 Advocate (535) Minnesota May 11, 2007

    Yep, I agree.
    I have also had issues in the past with S-04 clearing very well coupled with the higher attenuation of 007/1098. 1099 was a pretty good flocculating yeast with a lower attenuation, so I am pretty sure this is not the same strain.