APEX San Diego...WTF?

CornyKegs 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Bramling Cross

Bramling Cross

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
6,135
Location
The 51st State
I tried this strain because it's cheap and a lot of pro breweries are being forced to use APEX by their bean counters. Pro reviews are mixed, to say the least. Some love it, some like it but can't seem to re-pitch it, others are not very kind to it. Of APEX's strains, the pros seem to like their hazy the best.

Well, I gotta see what this is all about.

Four days ago, I dry pitched a single sachet of APEX San Diego with no oxygen onto a very fermentable step-mashed, strictly pH controlled, APA wort (as one does in 2024). It lagged for about 20hrs, then started fermenting. Then it didn't do a whole lot. It was fermenting, but slowly, really slowly. It dropped from 1.049 to 1.046 over three days, initially at 68F, then at 70F. WTF?! An initial pitch of dry 34/70 or S-189, handled the same way, would be in the high 1.030's by now at 50F. WTF APEX Labs?

If you're going to market your strain as "San Diego" yeast, there are expectations that come along with that description: specifically, a willingness to ferment with a suicide bomber's zeal for the task and a germaphobe's sense of clean. Bog standard Chico yeasts like US-05 would've been past half gravity by now and even famously slow-to-anger BRY-97 would've been snowballing past 1.025 at this point. WTF, APEX Labs?

I pitched a second sachet a few minutes ago because this sluggish performance isn't going to make a good ale and I'm not going to use this strain again, not when there are superior alternatives for pennies more. Might as well get rid of it.

Glad I only bought two sachets.

WTF Apex labs. Get your stuff together.

This is Apex Labs fermentation curve as logged by a TILT
San Diego..png


This is a single sachet of S-189 at 50F.
S-189.png

Here we see a single sachet of Cali Chico Yeast.
Cali.png


And this is a second generation pitch of US-05 (got bored looking for an initial pitch)
US-05.png


Get your stuff together, APEX Labs.
 
Last edited:
Miraculix said:
You didn't make a starter? Don't blame the yeast if you are not treating it right.
Click to expand...
It's 2024, it's a dry yeast. Of course you don't make a starter. We knew that fifteen years ago.

At any rate, all those curves, aside from the last, were dry yeast pitched with no O2 and no starter. One of those curves is even a lager pitched dry, with no O2.

If you have further questions, refer to the Fermentis web page.

If you want more dry pitch curves, I've got at least ten years worth of them in BeerSmith. I'd be happy to go through them with you in excruciating detail. I have even more in ProMash derived Excel sheets.
 
Last edited:
What was the batch size?
It would be interesting to divide a batch into 2 fermenters and pitch the Apex in one and another brand of the same strain in the other and see what happens…
:tank:
 
madscientist451 said:
What was the batch size?
It would be interesting to divide a batch into 2 fermenters and pitch the Apex in one and another brand of the same strain in the other and see what happens…
:tank:
Click to expand...
A bit shy of 6.5 into the fermenter. The usual Chico strains are okay with that, certainly at less than 1.050, so I thought I was good.

I ended up pitching both of the sachets that I purchased.

As for a split fermentation, I have no desire to give APEX more money. Dried Chico strains are a penny a pound, I have no use for one that needs special accommodations. You just pick one and roll with it. Currently, I have a fridge full of Cali and it performs like it should. If US-05 is cheap when I run out, so be it--can't say US-05 ever made me grasp at my pearls due to its "peachy" flavor. It's a fine yeast that makes great ale. At any rate, if US-05 is really as peachy as it's said to be, why isn't it more popular with the hazy crowd?

As for my global thoughts on the split fermentation thing, I've never understood that. Personally, I prefer to identify a strain that I find interesting, then really drill into it, learning it forwards and backwards over the course of years. What do you really learn from a split fermentation? This one's gooder at the same temperature in the same kind of vessel is a data point, I suppose. It misses a lot of context, I'll argue.
 
Last edited:
Bramling Cross said:
It's 2024, it's a dry yeast. Of course you don't make a starter. We knew that fifteen years ago.

At any rate, all those curves, aside from the last, were dry yeast pitched with no O2 and no starter. One of those curves is even a lager pitched dry, with no O2.

If you have further questions, refer to the Fermentis web page.

If you want more dry pitch curves, I've got at least ten years worth of them in BeerSmith. I'd be happy to go through them with you in excruciating detail. I have even more in ProMash derived Excel sheets.
Click to expand...
Ah dry, didn't see you mentioning that, sorry.
 
I brewed a couple of DME-based recipes with it over the last 9 months. In both batches, the yeast was dry pitched on top of the wort.

A' free form' strong red ale (Muntons Amber DME+ DRC + chocolate malt). OG 65; FG 10. Took 10 days (and 3 hydrometer samples) to get to FG. SG 20 after 6 days. Bottled after two weeks (CBC-1 @ 75F for about a week, then 'sample'/'condition'/enjoy). Beer came out fine.

Brown Ale (CYBI Moose Drool inspired; Briess Pale Ale DME). Three weeks in fermenter at 67F. An early bottle (bottle conditioned with CBC-1 at 65F) had a Belgian-yeast-like 'spice' flavor that aged out after a couple of weeks.

If I were to home brew with Apex San Diego on a regular basis, it would be three weeks in the fermenter and three weeks bottle conditioning. Many dry strains are "2 & 2" (and a couple may be even faster).

Bramling Cross said:
[US-05] "peachy" flavor.
Click to expand...
Back in the late 2010s, I was curious about this. Pesonally, I never found "it". As I was reading the ancedotals, I noticed all but a couple of them said "You will get peach flavors at __F". There were a couple of reports that said "I get peach flavors below 63F". The reports were from very experienced brewers (back in the early to mid 2010s), so the reports would have carried some weight.

Bramling Cross said:
I prefer to identify a strain that I find interesting, then really drill into it, learning it forwards and backwards over the course of years.
Click to expand...

Having brewed a lot with US-05/S-04 until about 2020 and then switching to mostly Lallemand strains, I also find the focused approach useful.

Bramling Cross said:
What do you really learn from a split fermentation?
Click to expand...
In the mid 2020s, my occasional split batch confirms what I read in yeast flavor wheels in product information sheets. Before yeast flavor wheels, split batches were more useful.
 
JohnDBrewer said:
Never heard of APEX. May have to give it a try.
Click to expand...
It is becoming a very crowded market in certain active dry yeast categories (think 'american ale' / 'chico', 'british ale', 'lager').

Escarpment Labs was mentioned in one of the White Labs dry yeast topics. There may be one or two more US-available brands mentioned in those topics (beyond Fermentis, Lallemand, MJ, Cellar Science, Apex, and Escarpment Labs).

eta: I forgot Muntons and White Labs. UK brewers can start here for international labs: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/dry-yeast-production-labs.669909/. There's also Crossmyloof. And, finally https://github.com/scheb/beer-analytics/tree/main/recipe_db/data has a yeasts.csv file that may include a couple of additional names.
 
Last edited:
I came across this ("Better, Faster, Foggier: ..." - link) article after I posted #9.

The article talks about how one of the yeast labs was able to improve the fermentation time of one of their strains (both at pitching time and at production time) by paying attention to mineral content. Be cautious about extending this idea to all strains. The ideas in the article could also be an inspiration for some 1 gal "split batches".
 
Bramling Cross said:
As for my global thoughts on the split fermentation thing, I've never understood that.
Click to expand...
It's literally my favorite part of brewing at the moment. It's the only way to be sure the thing you "find interesting" was actually variable driven. It gets work done.
 
BrewnWKopperKat said:
It is becoming a very crowded market in certain active dry yeast categories (think 'american ale' / 'chico', 'british ale', 'lager').

Escarpment Labs was mentioned in one of the White Labs dry yeast topics. There may be one or two more US-available brands mentioned in those topics (beyond Fermentis, Lallemand, MJ, Cellar Science, Apex, and Escarpment Labs).
Click to expand...
Apex Cultures is a registered trademark of AEB : https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=...TION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch

Filed in December 2020, interestingly less than a month after MoreFlavor (parent of morebeer.com) were awarded the trademark for Cellarscience :
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=...TION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
 
Malticulous said:
I've done a lot of split batches with San Diego and other Chico strains. San Diego is the only one I still use. It finishes my 5-5.5% ABV brews in a week with a tight cake and clear beer. It repitches fine, but unlike US-05 the first gen is just as good as the second.
Click to expand...
When you say "San Diego", do you specifically mean "APEX Cultures San Diego Dry Yeast"? Or do you mean a yeast like "White Labs Yeast WLP090 San Diego Super Ale"?

If this Apex San Diego is a rebranded version of another APEX yeast, I wonder which one? FERMOALE AY4? Is that also the same yeast as CellarScience Cali Ale?

Angel yeast is another one I have started to see popup. My understanding it is made in China, likely so Chinese breweries did not have to rely on an external source of yeast, but they are starting to distribute outside of China. I get the impression that Fermentis, Lallemand, AEB, and Angel are the primary manufacturers of dry brewing yeast.
 
I meant Apex. Cali seems to be US-05 to me. San Diego is a little different. It has higher attenuation and better flocculation. I've not used AY4. I have used AY3 it seems like Windsor.
 
CascadesBrewer said:
When you say "San Diego", do you specifically mean "APEX Cultures San Diego Dry Yeast"? Or do you mean a yeast like "White Labs Yeast WLP090 San Diego Super Ale"?

If this Apex San Diego is a rebranded version of another APEX yeast, I wonder which one? FERMOALE AY4? Is that also the same yeast as CellarScience Cali Ale?

Angel yeast is another one I have started to see popup. My understanding it is made in China, likely so Chinese breweries did not have to rely on an external source of yeast, but they are starting to distribute outside of China. I get the impression that Fermentis, Lallemand, AEB, and Angel are the primary manufacturers of dry brewing yeast.
Click to expand...
I once brewed with the angel yeast clean all yeast and it have me horrible headaches. Fusel madness. Room temperature is not a good idea for that one.
 
With the ale crashed, here's the final curve for my pitch of APEX San Diego. I'm not sure that pitching the second sachet made much of a difference, but you can see the slope get a little steeper following the second pitch. It's just as likely that the initial pitch was nearing high krausen when I got pissed and pitched the second sachet.

It's not an inspiring curve. I'll be racking it into the dry hops kegs in a day or two. Fingers crossed I don't get "Hot Band-Aid Water." That cracked me up, Indian_villager!

...and scared the hell out of me. It's been a long ol' while since I've had a dumper. Pride goeth before the fall, I guess.

For the last time, WTF APEX?!

Crash.png
 
Bobby_M said:
It's literally my favorite part of brewing at the moment. It's the only way to be sure the thing you "find interesting" was actually variable driven. It gets work done.
Click to expand...

I very politely disagree, assuming I understand your methods. As someone that has always been a bit confused by the popular notion that one should seize the opportunity to do a split batch, I'll gladly concede that I don't properly understand split batch methods.

Perhaps I'm wrong in my understanding of the split batch methodology, but, as I understand it, you pitch both strains at the same rate, temp, and fermentation temperature regime, then draw conclusions between the two?

I'm not fond of that because it seems to suggest that yeast strains are static little sausage machines--it doesn't matter what you put into them, it all comes out sausage in the end.

That's not at all how I understand yeast. To my mind, yeast strains are anything but static. They wildly and willingly respond to a brewer's inputs. For example, I've been brewing with the Fullers strain for decades. I know that yeast forwards and backwards. I can make at least four distinct beers from the same wort by goofing around with its pitch rate, pitch temp, and overall fermentation temperature regime. How do you represent that in a split batch? And then how do you compare that to similar (but wildly divergent strains, if you're familiar with them) such as Ringwood, or Thames, or Whitbread, or the Yorkshire strain? And then you've got the problem of open or closed fermentation. That's a big deal with these strains.

What is there to learn from split batching these wildly divergent strains? That they're different?

Again, I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, much less am I trying to tell you what you should be doing in your brewery. Instead, I'm trying to suggest that there's a different avenue in which you can get "work done." Hell, you could even call it intra-strain split batches. ;)
 
Last edited:
Bramling Cross said:
What is there to learn from split batching these wildly divergent strains? That they're different?
Click to expand...
There are no rules that you have to pitch at the same rate and use the exact same fermentation schedule. It would be perfectly fine to do a side by side trial with two yeasts at what you think are their optimal conditions, or the same yeast at different conditions. I only have one fermentation chamber, so I often ferment at the same temperature but I done temp controlled vs room temp, or the same yeast cool vs warmer.

Another "flaw" of split ferments is that in reality, you might need to tweak a recipe to better fit a yeast. If one side comes out too sweet, too thick, too bitter, too etc., then maybe that yeast would shine in a different version of the recipe.

But, I really enjoy split fermentation and it has been one of my best tools to actually learn about brewing. It is near impossible to brew a batch with yeast #1, then come back a few months later and brew the "same" batch with yeast #2 and try to make a real comparison. Besides the time difference (or memory if beer #1 has kicked), there are just so many variables from batch to batch. Split fermentation are a great way to learn about a yeast with less variables. Plus, at least for me, they make brewing more fun! I get two potentially different beers out of one brew day. They guys at my homebrew club also really enjoy tasting these types of trial batches.
 
I figured it was fair to repitch this strain as many dry yeast are much better on the second pitch.

As usual, step mashed for maximum fermentability, pH controlled from the mash tun to the fermenter, Wyeast yeast nutrient, and 1min of oxygen onto a 1/4 cake of crashed APEX San Diego that was 48hrs old.

This pitch had everything going for it and it's still really slow, even on a second pitch.
Repitch.png

In fairness, the first pitch of APEX San Diego did make a very pleasant keg of APA that I'm very excited about. Certainly no "hot bandaid juice" as mentioned above by another poster--still chuckling about that one! With that said, though, I'm struggling to find anything in this beer that sets it apart from the other dried Chico offerings. It seems to be Chico, but slower. So why name it San Diego?

I'm glad to see others are getting decent performance out of this yeast, but, for me? I don't see the point when there are a number of Chico strains available with a long track record of superior performance.

I'm done with this strain, I won't be pitching a third generation.
 

Attachments

  • US-05.png
    US-05.png
    40 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Malticulous said:
I need to do some more split batches. I think San Diego and dry 001 are the same.
Click to expand...
Nah, the timeline doesn't make sense. Dry 001 only recently hit the market a few months ago. I had that San Diego sitting in my fridge for nearly a year.

Besides that, APEX is its own lab, not a re-packager, like Mangrove Jacks or Cellar Science--a big part of my disappointment with APEX.

I was hoping for a new supplier that would drive prices down.

That out of the way, I'm happy to hear you're having success with this strain!
 
Last edited:
CascadesBrewer said:
Another "flaw" of split ferments is that in reality, you might need to tweak a recipe to better fit a yeast. If one side comes out too sweet, too thick, too bitter, too etc., then maybe that yeast would shine in a different version of the recipe.
Click to expand...
That's the primary reason why I find the whole split fermentation thing kinda silly. When I build a recipe I'm viewing it through the lens of that yeast because I either know that yeast, or I'm trying to understand that yeast. To my mind, you can't view grist formulation and hop bill construction independent from the yeast strain. They're conjoined and inseparable and cannot be split--that's the whole point of making beer, right? Recipes don't make beer, yeast make beer! You build recipes to suit the yeast, not the other way around.
 
Bramling Cross said:
That's the primary reason why I find the whole split fermentation thing kinda silly. When I build a recipe I'm viewing it through the lens of that yeast because I either know that yeast, or I'm trying to understand that yeast. To my mind, you can't view grist formulation and hop bill construction independent from the yeast strain. They're conjoined and inseparable and cannot be split--that's the whole point of making beer, right? Recipes don't make beer, yeast make beer! You build recipes to suit the yeast, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but this thread sure seems like a perfect example where a split batch would have been a great option. Want to try out a new yeast but you are not quite sure how it will work out? Just split a batch between a yeast you understand and the new one. Maybe the recipe will not be perfectly tuned to the new yeast, that will never be the case for the first time with a yeast. If you see drastic differences between the two beers, then you can be fairly confident that the difference is a factor of the yeast (vs the 100 other potential factors that can vary from brew day to brew day). You would not have to speculate how other yeast might have performed.

Different stokes...but for me split batches has been a great way to learn about yeasts and techniques. I also find it fun and motivating. I often don't want to brew "just another batch" of a Pale Ale, but a Pale Ale split with US-05 vs Apex San Diego (or WL Dry 001, or WL Liquid 001, or Escarpment House Ale, etc.) might be the motivation I need.
 
CascadesBrewer said:
Maybe, but this thread sure seems like a perfect example where a split batch would have been a great option. Want to try out a new yeast but you are not quite sure how it will work out?
Click to expand...
What would I have learned from that? I already know how to make excellent beer with the legacy dried Chico family strains and I have hundreds of batches worth of data on them. I already have a rich, comprehensive data set. A trendy buzzword quasi-methodology isn't going to enhance my well populated data set. Split batches don't provide magical data sets. Instead, they produce mere data points and you don't make decisions based upon data points.

The purpose of this exercise was to trial APEX's take on a Ballentine/Chico cousin, the San Diego strain. The San Diego variant is noted for being Chico-like, but much faster and bit more flocculent. The result was a Chico-like beer with poorer performance on one of the two attributes (speed) that distinguish the San Diego variant from the core Chico strains on initial and second generation pitches. I learned precisely what I set out to learn: whether APEX's San Diego strain was a better alternative to the legacy dried Chico strains. The point of this thread was two fold: 1) to alert other brewers that, in my experience, APEX is a painfully slow attenuator when compared to other dried Chico family strains; and 2) to start building a better knowledge base in the homebrew community because, as noted in my initial post, the bulk of the useful information I found via search engines was provided by pro brewers.

I apologize if I seem a bit grouchy and cantankerous. Frankly, I am. I've been brewing for decades and I've witnessed so many knee-jerk reaction trends/magic elixirs come and go and get forgotten. Split fermentations are, in my estimation, another one of those trendy, magic elixirs. It diminishes the importance of actually learning a strain. It's hard to learn a strain and it's an enormous investment in your time! As a homebrewer, it takes at least a year--often more. That's a major commitment and a very rewarding process. This new trend toward split batching and claiming meaningful results from it's subsequent data points doesn't sit well with me because it's killing off a lot of the the more eccentric, difficult strains and dumbing down our ability to seriously talk about how to get the best from the available strains. Every attempt at a serious discussion about yeast always devolves into, "just do a split batch!"

And that annoys me.
 
Bramling Cross said:
The purpose of this exercise was to trial APEX's take on a Ballentine/Chico cousin, the San Diego strain. The San Diego variant is noted for being Chico-like, but much faster and bit more flocculent. The result was a Chico-like beer with poorer performance on one of the two attributes (speed) that distinguish the San Diego variant from the core Chico strains on initial and second generation pitches. I learned precisely what I set out to learn: whether APEX's San Diego strain was a better alternative to the legacy dried Chico strains.
Click to expand...
From your reading of pro brewer experiences, were they also seeing a noticeable difference in performance (between batches or between pro brewers)?

If different home brewers are reporting different results (fast start vs slow start), what information may be missing from the reports? OG/FG? pitch rate? product 'use by' date? product lot number?
 
sandiego.jpg


This was 23 hours in. Another dry pitch. Strong air lock activity. This batch is split with AY3 and Apex London. I don't know what yeast is better for this recipe because I've never brewed it before. AY3 did very well in an oatmeal stout split batch I did.

The big mouth bubbler does make the krausen look bigger. I got it for 120.00 with a keg, regulator and 5# tank. It was from the previous chef where my wife is now chef. Like a lot of my equipment, I never would have bought it, but it was too a good of deal.

Apex San Diego has never let me down.
 
Last edited:
Bramling Cross said:
I tried this strain because it's cheap and a lot of pro breweries are being forced to use APEX by their bean counters. Pro reviews are mixed, to say the least. Some love it, some like it but can't seem to re-pitch it, others are not very kind to it. Of APEX's strains, the pros seem to like their hazy the best.

Well, I gotta see what this is all about.

Four days ago, I dry pitched a single sachet of APEX San Diego with no oxygen onto a very fermentable step-mashed, strictly pH controlled, APA wort (as one does in 2024). It lagged for about 20hrs, then started fermenting. Then it didn't do a whole lot. It was fermenting, but slowly, really slowly. It dropped from 1.049 to 1.046 over three days, initially at 68F, then at 70F. WTF?! An initial pitch of dry 34/70 or S-189, handled the same way, would be in the high 1.030's by now at 50F. WTF APEX Labs?

If you're going to market your strain as "San Diego" yeast, there are expectations that come along with that description: specifically, a willingness to ferment with a suicide bomber's zeal for the task and a germaphobe's sense of clean. Bog standard Chico yeasts like US-05 would've been past half gravity by now and even famously slow-to-anger BRY-97 would've been snowballing past 1.025 at this point. WTF, APEX Labs?

I pitched a second sachet a few minutes ago because this sluggish performance isn't going to make a good ale and I'm not going to use this strain again, not when there are superior alternatives for pennies more. Might as well get rid of it.

Glad I only bought two sachets.

WTF Apex labs. Get your stuff together.

This is Apex Labs fermentation curve as logged by a TILT
View attachment 845334

This is a single sachet of S-189 at 50F.
View attachment 845335
Here we see a single sachet of Cali Chico Yeast.View attachment 845336

And this is a second generation pitch of US-05 (got bored looking for an initial pitch)
View attachment 845337

Get your stuff together, APEX Labs.
Click to expand...
US-05 and variants are typically slower from my experience. Now in regards to repitching a local brewery has been successfully repitching the Munich lager strain
 
BrewnWKopperKat said:
From your reading of pro brewer experiences, were they also seeing a noticeable difference in performance (between batches or between pro brewers)?

If different home brewers are reporting different results (fast start vs slow start), what information may be missing from the reports? OG/FG? pitch rate? product 'use by' date? product lot number?
Click to expand...
As homebrewers, we tend to assume that we must supply the requisite fermentation data, as much to prove that we're not Muppets as anything else.

It's a far less data-rich environment when speaking with or reading the reports of pro brewers. The wild catting days of small-scale brewing are dead and buried, so they just sorta assume you know how to brew, right?

If you're looking for a rich data set, pro brewers aren't very helpful. The stuff either works or they get mad at accounting.

I'm not kidding.
 
rtstrider said:
US-05 and variants are typically slower from my experience. Now in regards to repitching a local brewery has been successfully repitching the Munich lager strain
Click to expand...
I agree. You don't pitch dry Chico if you're trying to keg the following weekend.

This strain, however, was slower than dry pitches of S-189 or 34/70. BRY-97 seems like a rocket on the first pitch, in comparison. Sure BRY-97 lags forever, but once it gets down to the business, it gets down to the business. APEX San Diego lags forever, then slowly floats to completion.

A car company wouldn't name their four-banger commuter car The Lightspeed BlueShift, nor should APEX call this strain San Diego. It's just not fast enough to deserve the San Diego moniker.

In fairness, it (eventually) made two very Chico-like ales--but did so in its own damned time
 
Bramling Cross said:
The purpose of this exercise was to trial APEX's take on a Ballentine/Chico cousin, the San Diego strain. The San Diego variant is noted for being Chico-like, but much faster and bit more flocculent. [emphasis added to focus discussion]: The result was a Chico-like beer with poorer performance on one of the two attributes (speed) that distinguish the San Diego variant from the core Chico strains on initial and second generation pitches.I learned precisely what I set out to learn: whether APEX's
San Diego strain was a better alternative to the legacy dried Chico strains.
Click to expand...

BrewnWKopperKat said:
If different home brewers are reporting different results (fast start vs slow start), what information may be missing from the reports? OG/FG? pitch rate? [emphasis added to focus discussion]: product 'use by' date? product lot number?
Click to expand...

Bramling Cross said:
As homebrewers, we tend to assume that we must supply the requisite fermentation data, as much to prove that we're not Muppets as anything else.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal story: A number of years ago, I got some wildly inconsistent results from a "white label" brand of yeast. I attributed it to production / QA issues. No way to prove / disprove it.

Since then, my approach has been to limit yeast selection to "vertically integrated" brands and generally focus on one brand at a time. Recently I gave APEX and White Labs a try.

Anecdotal story: My recent experiences with APEX San Diego where ok (I pitch it dry). I didn't see anything special about it. It was slow (like US-05), and I didn't get diacetyl from it (unlike WLPD001).

In closing, I appreciate your yeast comparison comments (like those in #38).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Toxxyc
Lager vs Kveik: The Test
4 5 6
Replies
209
Views
23K
JohnSand
JohnSand
Northern_Brewer
WLP030 Thames Valley & WLP515 Antwerp are super-Chicos?
2
Replies
54
Views
10K
Northern_Brewer
Northern_Brewer
A
Job Posting, San Diego, CA; Operations Manager, Biogum Fermentation Plant
Replies
0
Views
340
agrazela
A
ed5388
Add new yeast? Bad results in the past
Replies
21
Views
2K
SDCraftBeer
S
TasunkaWitko
You Got a Brooklyn Brew Shop Kit...Now What?
Replies
15
Views
8K
Lefou
Lefou
CornyKegs 300

Latest posts

Back
Top