BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
The "what it really is" column is the result of my lining up the numbers and descriptions.
To me, this seems like a misleading column name.
The "what it really is" column is the result of my lining up the numbers and descriptions.
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.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.
No it won't, at least not necessarily. Why do people assume that yeast strains mutate almost on a daily basis?
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.
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!EDIT: The comment I had here previously was deleted because now I need to think about whether M47 really is T-58, vs. Lallemand Abbaye. Hmm..........
Well, that'll do it. I'm a believer! And happy, because this is Good News as far as I'm concerned!The reference is here: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/danstar-abbaye.629611/#post-8019167
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.My inference was intended to be understood such that the Chimay Trappist Monastery's brewery is potentially using a yeast today which noticeably differs genetically from the yeast they were using back in the 1980's when they made their big splash in the USA, let alone the yeast that they used in the decades (to centuries) preceding the 1980's.
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.
You have a source for that or are you just stating what you personally believe to be true?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.
Sure. Stan Hieronymus in BLAM, for example.You have a source for that or are you just stating what you personally believe to be true?
Granted that I'm exploring the outer reaches of my expertise here, if by "domesticated" you mean S. Cerevisae, Wikipedia begs to differ: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.
S. cerevisiae (yeast) can stably exist as either a diploid or a haploid. Both haploid and diploid yeast cells reproduce by mitosis, with daughter cells budding off of mother cells. Haploid cells are capable of mating with other haploid cells of the opposite mating type (an a cell can only mate with an α cell, and vice versa) to produce a stable diploid cell. Diploid cells, usually upon facing stressful conditions such as nutrient depletion, can undergo meiosis to produce four haploid spores: two a spores and two α spores.
Would you mind linking to this information? That's fascinating and I'd love to learn more.
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?
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.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
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.
@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.
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.
Well they could just order a pack on Ebay like everyone else!...although there are dark rumours on how Munton came by it....
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.
That's assuming that: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.
Well, feel free to provide one! I welcome being corrected by reliable references.OK, so no scientific source as I thought.
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.
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...
What set me off was the fact that I have learned that Brewcraft definitely does not have their own yeast labs, and speaking with someone at Fermentis who let drop (beer is a wonderful thing!) that there is a facility in the UK that repacks Fermentis and Lallemand yeasts (and presumably others) for MJ and other brands.
...
So at this point I would like your feedback! Do you agree or disagree with the above identifications of repacked / rebranded dry yeasts, and why?
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!
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.
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.Sources for what? Papers that disprove an unproven assertion? Do you not realize how absurd that is?
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.Trying to discredit that for lack of scientific sources without providing better data is not constructive in that context.
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 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.Fermentis T-58 seems to have NO equivalent from what I can tell, based on lowest attenuation
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, eitherFermentis WB-06 = M47 Abbey = WLP570 = 1388 (I know! I never saw this coming, but it might fit!?)
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...Fermentis BE-134 = M41 Belgian = WLP590
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.Fermentis BE-256 (used to be their "Abbaye") = maybe M31 Tripel?
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...Lallemand Abbaye = WLP500 = 1214 = "Chimay" = maybe M31 Tripel? (maybe you guys can help me figure where M31 fits best)
Agreed!Lallemand Belle Saison = M29 French Saison
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?
Cml recently launched new yeasts, one sold as "northern ale" I wonder what this one is. A koelsch strain maybe?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/
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.
Oh, and EDME is capitalised, it stands for the English Diastatic Malt Extract Company.
https://www.edme.com/about/history/
Enter your email address to join: