Has anyone ever noticed a difference in flavor or performance out of the London ESB and WLP002 English Ale yeasts? From what I've read they're both supposed to be the Fuller's strain. Just curious if there's much of a difference.
Differences Between Wyeast London ESb and Wlp002?
- Thread starter Rambleon
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
alane1
Well-Known Member
no difference, only that wyeast is a pita to use compared to WL.
beergolf
Well-Known Member
What makes you say wyeast is a pain?
Curious as well since I basically only use wyeast with no issues or pains at all....
Sent from the Commune
spark_plug
Well-Known Member
Well I make a starter for both brands typically, of course WL for sure as there is no nutrient pack. The way I look at it, if I'm putting that much time into making my beer, I'm putting some extra time into my yeast to give it the best possible chance.
butterpants
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 128
Fullers strain can be a pain if you let your house temp drop below 65F cuz the yeasties flock like crazy. I woke up to a chunky mess one winter morning.
If they are the same strain, why would Wyeast be a PITA? Do you find smack-packs to be more difficult to work with than vials? Having used lots of yeast made by both companies--with great success--I don't see what the big deal is here. Enlighten us...
alane1
Well-Known Member
I've had a lot of viability issues with wyeast, WL has always been more consistent for me. One thing I don't want to think about is yeast being DOA.
Interesting. Is your LHBS selling out-of-date or older Wyeast? Maybe the WL you're getting is fresher? There shouldn't be much difference in viability if the two brands have similar mfg. dates and they're both stored and handled the same way.
Do you make starters? I can tell you that after 200 batches of beer with 99% of them using wyeast I've never experienced a dud pack. I've even had packs at 6-8 months start up fine and produce great beer!
Sent from the Commune
I started out using the wyeast version and over time have gone to WL. I find with 002 that I get a more consistant attenuation rate. I can predictably get between 72-75% attenuation based on mash temp where the 1968 would be all over the map. Anywhere from 67%-72%. Same recipe, same mash schedule. I think it has something to do with how the companies propogate and treat the yeast. Also, the media that they use to store and package the yeast is different. I am no yeast expert but have noticed a difference in performance between the two.
alane1
Well-Known Member
Always make a starter, I've had at least 5 dead packs that weren't out of date and stored properly at my LHBS. My LHBS actually stopped carrying Wyeast because of so many customer complaints.
alane1
Well-Known Member
The two guys that complained about wyeast happen to be from the east coast. Maybe WL is packaged better?...your post came off as rather dismissive and kind of arrogant.
Dismissive AND arrogant? Usually I'm just one or the other. Now if I can work in some sarcasm, I'll hit the trifecta. :cross:
RDWHAHB.
beergolf
Well-Known Member
I have done over 100 batches using Wyeast and have never had a problem. You need to look at the way your LHBS stores the yeast instead of blaming Wyeast.
Similar threads
