BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
To me, this seems like a misleading column name.
Dry yeasts identified - your opinions please!
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
To me, this seems like a misleading column name.
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
You have to be a bit careful saying a dried strain "is" a liquid strain - there's always mutations along the way, particularly given the huge stress of drying, and the dried yeast companies like to "firewall" against lawsuits by using yeast from beer - after all, that's the origin of White Labs and Wyeast's business, so they can hardly sue on that basis!
So for instance, Lallemand New England is definitely a member of the Conan family (ie a British ale yeast in the extended "Whitbread" family), nothing to do with Chico, the rumours link it to beers from specific UK breweries known to have used WLP095 and WLP4000 in the past - but it will have mutated since then. Supposedly Lallemand will have a 1318 derivative soon.
Fermentis seen to have lost the battle over Abbaye - or at least are happy to use code numbers, and it's easier to use Be-256. But the latest sequencing work shows that (Lallemand?) Abbaye, WLP500 Monastery and 1214 Belgian Abbey are S. cerevisiae x kudriavzevii hybrids – pretty much unique in the beer world but quite common in wine.
There's a complicated story about dried yeast in Britain, but EDME were key players in the 1970s, and their yeast supposedly lives on in Muntons (presumably the ordinary one), and its close cousins Windsor and S-33. A lot of generic kit yeast comes from Munton.
The Wilko yeast appears to be a Nottingham derivative made by Munton, although there are dark rumours on how Munton came by it....
So for instance, Lallemand New England is definitely a member of the Conan family (ie a British ale yeast in the extended "Whitbread" family), nothing to do with Chico, the rumours link it to beers from specific UK breweries known to have used WLP095 and WLP4000 in the past - but it will have mutated since then. Supposedly Lallemand will have a 1318 derivative soon.
Fermentis seen to have lost the battle over Abbaye - or at least are happy to use code numbers, and it's easier to use Be-256. But the latest sequencing work shows that (Lallemand?) Abbaye, WLP500 Monastery and 1214 Belgian Abbey are S. cerevisiae x kudriavzevii hybrids – pretty much unique in the beer world but quite common in wine.
There's a complicated story about dried yeast in Britain, but EDME were key players in the 1970s, and their yeast supposedly lives on in Muntons (presumably the ordinary one), and its close cousins Windsor and S-33. A lot of generic kit yeast comes from Munton.
The Wilko yeast appears to be a Nottingham derivative made by Munton, although there are dark rumours on how Munton came by it....
No it won't, at least not necessarily. Why do people assume that yeast strains mutate almost on a daily basis? Domesticated yeasts are extremely stable genetically as they've basically lost the ability to reproduce sexually (poor guys...) and since the advent of pure cultures they basically spend their lives in rather aseptic environments where the possibility of hybridization occurring is infinitesimally small. Sure, there is the possibility of the stray cosmic ray but it takes a lot more than that for significant mutation to occur and then to prevail in the population. Not even drying can cause mutations as you need to be alive to mutate and dried yeast is biologically dead until rehydrated. The character that rehydrated yeast will express will indeed be different but that has nothing to do with genetic mutations but rather with the stress the yeast just underwent during drying.
The reason yeast "manufacturers" don't reference breweries is simply because of trademark issues. For example, Chimay is a registered trademark. Any yeast supplier trying to sell his yeast as "Chimay yeast" has just instantly lost a very expensive lawsuit, even if his yeast were indeed proven to be genetically 100% identical to the yeast that Chimay is currently using. You just can't use somebody's elses trademark without permission in a commercial setting no matter what. This has absolutely nothing to do with alleged mutations, it's simply a legal issue.
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
I can only speak for myself, but I assume that because I'm a geneticist and microbiologist who has read the literature on mutation in yeast. YMMV
Equally, that background means I take a narrower view on the definition of a strain, and I'm looking at mutations as any change in the DNA and not just those changes that have obvious effects on brewing performance.
Mutation happens through all sorts of mechanisms,not least due to errors in DNA replication, and those errors go up markedly in the stressful environment of 5% ethanol.
Of course mutations do happen, if I gave the impression that I thought mutations are impossible then I haven't adequately explained my point. The point is, you also need a mutation to become prevalent and to replace the origin strain. This was certainly possible in the past hence the large number of known strains in use or stored in some yeast bank today, not to mention the ones that might have died out before their existence was adequately documented. With modern techniques such as single-cell cultures and modern quality assurance processes, which today mean actual genetic testing, the chances of something like this happening are inifitesimally small. Let's say a viable mutation were to happen in the brewery and were able to reproduce to sufficient numbers. If that yeast will get dumped in the trash after X number of batches to be replaced with new stock grown from original stock from a yeast bank, either internal or external, what are the chances of that mutation contaminating the original stock and replacing the original strain? I would say if procedures are followed then the chance is absolutely zero. Barring an error such as a switched vial or plate I would say that yeast banks using modern methods are capable of assuring that yeast stock does not mutate from a given baseline. And today thanks to genetic testing such an error will be caught eventually (optimally before it gets to the customer) and will not under any circumstance become permanent.
filthyastronaut
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 152
Would you mind linking to this information? That's fascinating and I'd love to learn more.
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
I think M47 is T-58 and M41 is Abbaye. MJ's product blurb strongly suggests M47 less phenolic than M41 which fits the data from Lallemand and Fermentis. But if you have a good argument for them being the other way around, I'm open to suggestions!
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
Well, that'll do it. I'm a believer! And happy, because this is Good News as far as I'm concerned!
Thank you!
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
That would not surprise me. It has long been known that WLP and WY yeasts were taken from monastic breweries decades ago and have since diverged considerably. As is normal for a yeast: when exposed to a change in environmenal conditions (from a Belgian monastery to a yeast lab in the US would qualify as a change) it adapts. Certain stress conditions may also cause the yeast to start reproducing sexually rather than asexually which may introduce even more severe mutations. So what's in the vial today and what's being used at the monastic brewery today is likely to be similar but not identical.
filthyastronaut
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 152
Interestingly, you can see this again with Chimay yeast and New Belgium. Their original house Belgian strain is originally from a bottle of Chimay, and has definitely diverged since. They altered their Dubbel and Tripel recipes a few years ago and apparently use a new yeast, but the beers still taste similar to the Chimay profile. They definitely use dry yeasts in some capacity on the pilot system, so it could be Abbaye for all we know.
You have a source for that or are you just stating what you personally believe to be true?
And FYI domesticated yeasts are officially recognized to be asexual since even in the most stressful conditions they don't release acrospores, they just whither and eventually die. And adaptation and evolution/mutation are different things too. There is no natural selection in a lab environment BTW, any selection is done by man.
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="Northern_Brewer, post: 8685603, member: 245927"[...] Lallemand New England is definitely a member of the Conan family (ie a British ale yeast in the extended "Whitbread" family), nothing to do with Chico,[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for! I had it listed as Chico. Do you have any references to Lallemand New England American East Coast being Conan? And could you say some more about the relationship Conan <--> Whitbread?
[QUOTE="Northern_Brewer, post: 8685603, member: 245927"[...] the latest sequencing work shows that (Lallemand?) Abbaye, WLP500 Monastery and 1214 Belgian Abbey are S. cerevisiae x kudriavzevii hybrids – pretty much unique in the beer world but quite common in wine.[/QUOTE]
Stan Hieronymus states in BLAM that Belgian yeasts have a certain amount of wine yeast in their ancestry. I've come across more hints in that direction as well, and as far as I'm concerned this seems more than plausible.
[QUOTE="Northern_Brewer, post: 8685603, member: 245927"There's a complicated story about dried yeast in Britain, but EDME were key players in the 1970s, and their yeast supposedly lives on in Muntons (presumably the ordinary one), and its close cousins Windsor and S-33. A lot of generic kit yeast comes from Munton.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Although I think there's some diversity between S-33 and Windsor. The latter is known for its lack of flocculation, much more so than other Edme versions. Smaller cell size maybe?
The Wilko yeast appears to be a Nottingham derivative made by Munton, although there are dark rumours on how Munton came by it....[/QUOTE]
Dark rumors call for dark beers. Time for a stout...
This is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for! I had it listed as Chico. Do you have any references to Lallemand New England American East Coast being Conan? And could you say some more about the relationship Conan <--> Whitbread?
[QUOTE="Northern_Brewer, post: 8685603, member: 245927"[...] the latest sequencing work shows that (Lallemand?) Abbaye, WLP500 Monastery and 1214 Belgian Abbey are S. cerevisiae x kudriavzevii hybrids – pretty much unique in the beer world but quite common in wine.[/QUOTE]
Stan Hieronymus states in BLAM that Belgian yeasts have a certain amount of wine yeast in their ancestry. I've come across more hints in that direction as well, and as far as I'm concerned this seems more than plausible.
[QUOTE="Northern_Brewer, post: 8685603, member: 245927"There's a complicated story about dried yeast in Britain, but EDME were key players in the 1970s, and their yeast supposedly lives on in Muntons (presumably the ordinary one), and its close cousins Windsor and S-33. A lot of generic kit yeast comes from Munton.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Although I think there's some diversity between S-33 and Windsor. The latter is known for its lack of flocculation, much more so than other Edme versions. Smaller cell size maybe?
The Wilko yeast appears to be a Nottingham derivative made by Munton, although there are dark rumours on how Munton came by it....[/QUOTE]
Dark rumors call for dark beers. Time for a stout...
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
@Vale71 - but we're not just talking about cases where you go back to a frozen master copy of a yeast, in the case of harvesting you are talking about taking that mutated yeast in a beer, often streaming down to a single cfu, and then using that as the basis of what a different company uses tobank. As a a result it will be different - maybe significantly so, maybe not, but it will be different.
I'm on my tablet at the moment but there's been the odd discussion of the latest sequencing from the Rokas lab (they've not yet published the paper) interests here and at beer.suregork.com All a bit preliminary for now, we need to wait for the main paper.
The Conan stuff is all pers comm I'm afraid, but there's public evidence in the form of e.g. Cloudwater now using Lallemand for their top-ratedDIPAs when they used to use 095 and 4000.
Conan being part of Whitbread family is well known from the genome sequencing data being collated on Suregork's site above.
I'm on my tablet at the moment but there's been the odd discussion of the latest sequencing from the Rokas lab (they've not yet published the paper) interests here and at beer.suregork.com All a bit preliminary for now, we need to wait for the main paper.
The Conan stuff is all pers comm I'm afraid, but there's public evidence in the form of e.g. Cloudwater now using Lallemand for their top-ratedDIPAs when they used to use 095 and 4000.
Conan being part of Whitbread family is well known from the genome sequencing data being collated on Suregork's site above.
Don't take it too literally, as implying all Belgian yeast are say 10% "wine". There's no such thing as a typical Belgian yeast, there are big-name Belgian beers made with lager yeast and British yeast and all sorts. The main saison family are pure cerevisiae and quite closely related to typical wine yeasts, but kud hybrids are a different story.
Sure. Stan Hieronymus in BLAM, for example.
Granted that I'm exploring the outer reaches of my expertise here, if by "domesticated" you mean S. Cerevisae, Wikipedia begs to differ:
But I'm not necessarily right.
OK, so no scientific source as I thought.
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source either. Whoever wrote that entry was using information from a microbiology textbook probably dating back to the '40s that is unfortunately still circulating. The scientific consesus now is that that capability is forever gone as nobody has actually managed to get S.cerevisiae to do the deed.
Again you base your statement on the premise that all yeast will mutate during fermentation so that any cfu will be different from the original stock yeast. This is hardly the case and anyway there are ways to make sure this is not the case so assuming this did not happen is a best bet than assuming this has surely happened.
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
Citation needed.
Compare with e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/111/22/E2310 and more recent studies, not currently open-source, that have shown higher mutation rates in beer.
I'll say again - every time yeast replicate their DNA they risk errors in that process. Since they replicate during fermentation there will always be mutations during fermentation.
bierhaus15
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,950
- Reaction score
- 448
There are undoubtedly phenotypic differences, but in our age of refrigeration and largely standardized fermentation practices, I doubt many genetic changes are happening to yeast in commercial breweries today. That said, and as other research has shown, the great stresses put on ale yeast of 100+ years ago is another story and it is no surprise there are so many genetically different variations of what could have been the same strain. Especially for UK yeasts and the huge variation in fermentation process, harvest, storage, ect.
A good quote:
"We demonstrated that while there were some differences between the phenotypic characteristics of an ale yeast strain over the course of one hundred serial repitchings, there were no genetic variations or changes to fermentation characteristics. Similarly, fermentation analysis, flocculation assessment and genetic analysis showed there were no significant differences between a fresh lager yeast and the same culture after a two year period. Despite the many reports of genetic instability in brewing yeast slurries, our results indicate that some yeast strains are particularly resistant to such changes. These results support previous observations which suggest that the capacity to serially repitch a yeast culture is intrinsically related to the genetic stability of the yeast strain employed." - The Effect of Long Term Serial Repitching on The Genetic and Phenotypic Stability of Yeast
A good quote:
"We demonstrated that while there were some differences between the phenotypic characteristics of an ale yeast strain over the course of one hundred serial repitchings, there were no genetic variations or changes to fermentation characteristics. Similarly, fermentation analysis, flocculation assessment and genetic analysis showed there were no significant differences between a fresh lager yeast and the same culture after a two year period. Despite the many reports of genetic instability in brewing yeast slurries, our results indicate that some yeast strains are particularly resistant to such changes. These results support previous observations which suggest that the capacity to serially repitch a yeast culture is intrinsically related to the genetic stability of the yeast strain employed." - The Effect of Long Term Serial Repitching on The Genetic and Phenotypic Stability of Yeast
Not to mention the fact that yeast suppliers don't really go around swabbing beer bottles to create their stock. This would rarely work anyway because of filtration and/or pasteurization. They obviously get their stock from other suppliers/yeast banks or complacent breweries.
EnglishAndy
Well-Known Member
Well they could just order a pack on Ebay like everyone else!
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
It's
it's not obvious at all. There's cases where this has happened - Lallemand own Seibel, where the original BRY97 was deposited, but most of the homebrew liquid strains have their origins in US homebrewers harvesting yeast from whatever bottles they could, and then passing them around the community, mutating away, until they ended up at a commercial company. Which is why the attributions can be a bit dodgy, and why WL and Wyeast versions of the same yeast can show significant genetic variation - WLP001 and 1056 are a classic example.
Pasteurisation is far from universal - many British breweries like to have one bottle-conditioned beer for Camra-political reasons, and of course you can find most British ale yeasts in cask dregs from a pub.
Andy - it's all internet hearsay, I don't have a reliable source but supposedly the story goes that for some reason (building work?) Lallemand outsourced some production to Munton for a while and Munton kept some Notty master culture after the deal had expired. Not sure how true that is though.
it's not obvious at all. There's cases where this has happened - Lallemand own Seibel, where the original BRY97 was deposited, but most of the homebrew liquid strains have their origins in US homebrewers harvesting yeast from whatever bottles they could, and then passing them around the community, mutating away, until they ended up at a commercial company. Which is why the attributions can be a bit dodgy, and why WL and Wyeast versions of the same yeast can show significant genetic variation - WLP001 and 1056 are a classic example.
Pasteurisation is far from universal - many British breweries like to have one bottle-conditioned beer for Camra-political reasons, and of course you can find most British ale yeasts in cask dregs from a pub.
Andy - it's all internet hearsay, I don't have a reliable source but supposedly the story goes that for some reason (building work?) Lallemand outsourced some production to Munton for a while and Munton kept some Notty master culture after the deal had expired. Not sure how true that is though.
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
That's assuming that:
1. All mutations will take place in the yeast lab;
2. All those mutations will be considered undesirable and will therefore be culled before they can get out of the petri dish.
In practice that is not always true. Nor does it mean that these "domesticated" yeasts have lost their ability to mutate.
Anyway, we're drifting off topic here. You guys were supposed to rip apart my "name that yeast" spreadsheet and tell me where I've blundered.
Last edited:
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
Well, feel free to provide one! I welcome being corrected by reliable references.
I doubt anybody has ever written a peer reviewed paper proving that WL and WY yeasts were not taken from monastic breweries and then mutated as that would obviously be quite impossible to prove. As always, the onus is on the side making the statement to prove its validity and not the other way around 'cause that is how science works. Saying "It's well known" or citing a book that provides no reliable or identifiable sources a proof does not constitute...Well, feel free to provide one! I welcome being corrected by reliable references.
On my own spreadsheet, my sources are scientific papers, and... experiences of the interwebs and my own personal experiences. We can all contribute.
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
The Lallemand tech was obviously and justifiably limited in what he could say, but my take away from it (clearly not stated by Lallemand) is that if others that are POF+ (which I believe restricts "others" to the realm of liquid yeasts) can be inferred to be "Chimay" yeasts, then so can Lallemand Abbaye.
To me (meaning, in my opinion) the Fermentis version which formerly also went by the name Abbaye is disqualified by virtue of (if accurate) being POF-.
To me (meaning, in my opinion) the Fermentis version which formerly also went by the name Abbaye is disqualified by virtue of (if accurate) being POF-.
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
In other words, you don't have any scientific sources either?I doubt anybody has ever written a peer reviewed paper proving that WL and WY yeasts were not taken from monastic breweries and then mutated as that would obviously be quite impossible to prove. As always, the onus is on the side making the statement to prove its validity and not the other way around 'cause that is how science works. Saying "It's well known" or citing a book that provides no reliable or identifiable sources a proof does not constitute...
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
At this point (comment 68 or 69), this topic has had some interesting liquid yeast discussions.
As for feedback, I currently don't see me using your spreadsheet. It may be an interesting point in time consolidation of attributes of brands of dry yeast. Generally, I will get current information from the vendors web site for the specific strains I use.
As for the identification of repacked / rebranded dry yeasts: I would like to see evidence for this claim that goes beyond "I heard someone say".
If I were to accept that the claim is true, the next question would be: why does this matter to me when I use yeast from a company that repackages yeast? If the yeast delivers the result I'm looking for, why does it matter who put it in a package?
The Belgian strain stuff was driving me up the wall with confusion... so I went ahead and spent several hours trying to sort it all out, did a few more Google searches, etc. Here's what I've come up with -- and please, recognize that these are only best-stabs based on my evaluation of every detail to try to make the puzzle pieces fit together even though maybe they don't necessarily -- i.e., these "equivalents" are likely not totally equivalent, but should come very close, for most intents & purposes. Key thing: I had to dissociate and reassociate M31 Tripel Ale and WB-06 to make everything work in concert.
Fermentis T-58 seems to have NO equivalent from what I can tell, based on lowest attenuation
Fermentis WB-06 = M47 Abbey = WLP570 = 1388 (I know! I never saw this coming, but it might fit!?)
Fermentis BE-134 = M41 Belgian = WLP590
Fermentis BE-256 (used to be their "Abbaye") = maybe M31 Tripel?
Lallemand Abbaye = WLP500 = 1214 = "Chimay" = maybe M31 Tripel? (maybe you guys can help me figure where M31 fits best)
Lallemand Belle Saison = M29 French Saison
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it, for now anyway. Feel free to prove me wrong on any or all of the above via side-by-side experimentation results. Thanks.
And I updated my link:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nwVema5Y8kuGbTR_vlz6gzU-KCngFYWjrAJO44xjwfA/edit?usp=sharing
Just came across this: https://www.saltcitybrewsupply.com/media/YeastComparison3.pdf
Some of the dry yeast comparisons seem pretty far off, like WB-06 being comparable to WLP300/WY3068. When I see something like that, I don't know how reliable the rest of it is.
Some of the dry yeast comparisons seem pretty far off, like WB-06 being comparable to WLP300/WY3068. When I see something like that, I don't know how reliable the rest of it is.
Not too terrible for the most part. Slightly outdated. But will get the beer into the right ballpark.
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
That is not the point I'm trying to make. I started this thread in order to further the work on identifying the dry yeasts that are being sold under different brand names. I did so (as I clearly stated) by lining up the product data as published by the suppliers, and offered it here for discussion in order to improve on my assessments. Trying to discredit that for lack of scientific sources without providing better data is not constructive in that context.
So I suggest we drop this particular line of discussion and focus on the job at hand which, as I see it, is identifying dried yeast strains. I'm still unsure about what's in the packets of M21, M54 and M84, and it looks like the Belgian strains could do with a back-to-back test brew for comparison but that's going to have to wait until I have time because I've got a lot of work going on right now.
So. Suggestions about the identities above yeasts are welcome!
Sorry, I currently lack the capabilities to perform genome sequencing so I cannot provide better data and I will refrain from contributing more uneducated guesses to the rather rich collections already available on the Internet. I still reserve the right to express my opinion on other contributions though, I'm sorry if that's not constructive enough for you.
thehaze
Well-Known Member
WB-06 is not Weihenstephan. WB-06 ( http://beer.suregork.com/ ) is closer to the Duvel yeast family, which makes it more belgiany than anything. The dry version of Weihenstephan Hefe is Danstar Munich Classic ( there are threads on german forums that confirm it ) and Weihenstephan Lager is W-34/70. I've read that T-58 might be used by De Struise - maybe, but I doubt it. T-58 produces amazingly fruity blow'off aromas during fermentation, but it doesn't carry to the finished product. It's a weird yeast, but it has always worked for me and I will use it again.
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
After I get over my urge to make an ESB with WLP041, I may try to make one with Lallemand New England Ale Yeast. The flavor wheel seems to hit all of the right buttons.
OP
OP
frankvw
Well-Known Member
Duly noted, sir, and thank you! This is the sort of feedback I was hoping for here.
Now then, to business.
Limiting the following to dried strains:Fermentis specifies T-58 as having an AA of 70%. Brewcraft specifies M47 at 73-77%. That's the closest I can get to T-58.
I'm not sure I agree with you there. M-47 supposedly has an AA of 73-77% and WB-06 is specified at 86%. I'd have assumed this could have been BE-256 except M-47's attenuation and alcohol tolerance are nowhere neat that of BE-256 so that's not a good match, either. The blurb for M-47 doesn't specifically mention distinct phenols, but then T-58 is in practice not very phenolic, either
I see where you're going and I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that BE-134 has a specified alcohol tolerance of 9% and M-41 is specified at 12%. That's why I believe BE-134 is M-31 (specified at 10% which is close enough to 9% to be possible) which means that, by elimination, M-41 almost has to be Lallemand Abbaye...
I believe M-31 is POF+. I've tasted beers brewed with it that had clearly discernible Belgian spicy phenols which BE-256 completely lacks. M-31 is also not such a banana bomb as BE-256 is.
Based on the alcohol tolerance, attenuation, high fruit and low (but present i.e. POF+) phenolics specified in the MJ blurb I believe BE-134 would be the closest match...
Agreed!
Thank you for this! It's food for thought at the very least and illustrates the challenge of matching yeasts by comparing the specs. i can see myself doing about 8 simultaneous split batch fermentations sometime later this year simply to compare the Belgian strains...
Northern_Brewer
British - apparently some US company stole my name
It's useful for people who can't readily get certain brands of yeast, or to save money by using cheaper ones - Wilko yeast is a third of the price of Notty, and there's a Wilko on almost every British high street, so it's a great option for emergencies.
Talking of Notty, supposedly it, Windsor and Lallemand ESB all came from the same multistrain, which explains why Windsor and ESB are so closely related.
I know the internet is convinced S-04 is a Whitbread strain but sequencing has shown it's most closely related to 006 Bedford and 013.
M54 won't be Lallemand Koln, the latter is too new. I wonder if it's not S-189, the temperature tolerance and flocculation would fit.
Bulldog clearly follow Mangrove Jack closely, presumably they're packed at the same factory - things like pack size are a good clue. Crossmyloof used to follow MJ but supposedly they're now using more yeast from a German supplier.
Oh, and EDME is capitalised, it stands for the English Diastatic Malt Extract Company.
https://www.edme.com/about/history/
Cml recently launched new yeasts, one sold as "northern ale" I wonder what this one is. A koelsch strain maybe?
I agree that M54 can't be Koln. I postulate M54 = Superior Dry Lager = Mauribrew 497
Thanks for that info about EDME. I'll keep it acronymized from now on!
