London Dry Yeast

No...but I'm getting ready to brew a Stout with some...no pdf yet on Danstar's/Lallemand website but sounds like the attenuation should be 65-75% ...I'm hoping closer to 65% for my stout

 

Hope you'll both post your experiences

 

I have just used this yeast in a pale ale. This yeast started within 12 hours and finished in three days. I am a week away from kegging this. From the advertising I saw with a quote from someone at Fullers I am guessing it's their strain. I could be wrong. Take care.

 

There's a big thread on HBT about the yeast

It's quick to ferment out, doesn't floc well, isn't the fullers yeast, doesn't ferment maltotriose, can make a decent beer

I'm going to use it in a Burton when I can brew again, half I'll drink fresh and half I'll let secondary with brett, should leave a lot for the brett to chew through I'm hoping.


http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=588922

 

But the link you provided had a mention of:

"For that classic ESB flavor you need look no further than London ESB yeast from Lallemand - all the characteristics of a classic ESB strain in a convenient dry form"

John Keeling
Head Brewer
Fullers Brewery, London

Why would John Keeling comment upon a non-Fullers strain?

Cheers!

 

Because he was paid? Look at the wording too, it's not stating that it is the fullers yeast at all.


It's a revival of one of Danstars older dried yeasts that they discontinued.

I think there is a post on either that thread or one on JBK where he replied to an emailed question about the yeast and he said that he thought a beer made with it was a good esb style beer. But it wasn't the Fullers strain

Anyway, it's good to have more dried yeast available imo

 

But by the same token, Jack, if the yeast doesn't flocculate well, then it bears little resemblance to what homebrewers know as the Fullers strain. And then the question is, who cares if it has a Fullers pedigree? "By their fruits you shall know them." I would be very interested in a dry yeast that fermented the same as Wyeast 1968. But I have less interest in a dry yeast that flocculates poorly, however genuine its connection to Fullers may be. And I suspect most people care more about how the yeast performs than about its genealogy.

 

You are correct that he does not explicitly state the strain is the Fullers strain but it sure does imply it.

I suppose it is possible that he was paid to endorse a differing yeast strain but that sure does sound weird to me.

Agreed.

Cheers!

 

But that is the 'question' at the moment. I am sure that some folks will purchase this new yeast thinking it is the Fullers strain. Maybe it will produce a beer similar to how the Fullers strain performs and then again maybe it won't.

I am looking forward to reading what @premierpro has to report.

Cheers!

 

Jack, I followed both that thread and the JBK thread on it from the start and like you I assumed it was the fullers strain due to that quote, but it came to pass that it wasn't. It looks like it is a good alternative to windsor

Hopefully @premierpro gets a good beer from it


just searched jbk and it was me who started the thread lol

also got this

 

I took note of:

“We would not release Fullers yeast to the dried yeast market so I worked with them visiting their plants in Montreal and Vienna to come up with this yeast. I was very happy to endorse it as the beer was very good

Cheers John Keeling”

But yet the Fullers yeast is available to homebrewers as Wyeast 1968 (WLP002). I don’t get it. Does Fullers ‘approve’ of their yeast being available in liquid form but not in dry form? Does this make sense to you?

Cheers!

 

Maybe he thinks the liquid form properly represents the quality of the yeast, whereas he doesn't believe anyone has made a dry version that he wants associated with his brewery.

 

It's not endorsed by fullers or JK though. You can't exactly keep control of a yeast that is available to anyone who can buy one of your bottle conditioned beers or who can swab a pint of your cask conditioned beers.

You can though it seems get an all expenses paid trip to canada and austria, drink a few beers and get paid some money to say that a particular dried yeast makes a nice bitter. It's not as if there is much money in actually brewing beer so I understand why JK did it, although due to the recent gentrification of the market there is a lot of people who think you can

 

I was thinking along a similar line, that perhaps the Fuller's strain has never been made into a decent dry yeast. I don't know the reasons why some yeast strains might make for good dry yeasts and others don't but the limited availability of the diversity of dry yeast is suggestive.

I am imagining a scenario where the Fullers strain was dried. Keeling was given a sample of beer made from it, and asked to make a statement: "This yeast produces beer very different from Fullers ESB yeast and it is not to my liking. If you like armpit, you might enjoy this yeast, but please do expect to be able to produce anything like ESB." In my imagination, he sounds a lot like John Cleese and does funny walks.

 

I was at a recent homebrew club meeting where several of the members had all brewed the same stout recipe (a supposed clone of Samuel Smiths Oatmeal Stout). Well, they nominally used the same grain bill, but a wide variety of yeasts were used by the brewers. I'm not even sure any particular yeast was used in more than one beer.

One person brought growlers of a split batch -- one fermented with SO-4 and one with this dry ESB yeast. These two beers were very different. The SO-4 sample was very clean (among the cleanest of all the various stouts), while the ESB batch had all sorts of rather odd flavors going on. I can't recall exactly what these flavors were (it was a rather informal tasting of the different beers), but they were not what one would typically want in a stout. Sure, there may have been some problem with the ESB batch, but the difference between the SO-4 and ESB batch was striking.

Overall, I was rather amazed at how different all of the stouts were. Just shows how tough it is for a typical homebrewer to clone a beer. BTW, the Sam Smiths Stout was there for comparison as well as the Anderson Valley Oatmeal Stout. None of the homebrewed beers was close to the SS, especially with regards to the rather unique aroma of the SS beer. Overall, the AV stout was very close to being my favorite off all the beers.

Cheers!

 

There is just so many variables! Folks like to concentrate on the ingredients but the myriad of brewing process decisions can have very notable impacts on the resulting flavor profiles. For example, even using the same yeast strain if one brewer chooses to ferment on the low side of the recommended fermentation range and the other chooses to ferment on the high side of the recommended fermentation range the two beers could be notably different.

And don't get me started about how they manage their brewing water!

Cheers!

 

Honestly, the only reason I picked the London ESB dry yeast was that I was out of 1968, Windsor, and S-04 and need to make my Chile Porter/Stout...I don't know what to expect, but the attenuation band seems appropriate and I don't want to use US-05 for this beer.

 

Good luck. It may be that the differences I reported were not due to the yeast. It will interesting to hear how your beer turns out.

 

I did a split batch with five gallons pitched with the ESB and five with SO4. I will report back after I keg.