kanzimonson
Well-Known Member
I recently brewed 10gal of the Moose Drool recipe from Can You Brew It. If you search the forums you'll find the recipe. I fermented half with Wyeast 1968 London ESB and the other half with Wyeast 1099 Whitbread.
One other thing I changed was the finishing hops. I simply had a flameout addition of 1oz of Fuggle in each batch. Each got a 15 minute whirlpool before chilling. Otherwise, everything was right on target with grains, OG, and FG. I pitched an appropriate starter of both strains at 62, plus 1min of oxygen. Free rise to 68, finish with a heating pad at 72-75.
It's awesome to taste the difference. They're very similar in most ways. Medium fruity esters in the nose, smooth and medium bodied, easy drinking. Good bready malt notes with rich chocolate coming through. A hint of sweetness in the finish but in a pleasing way. I've always loved the Moose Drool recipe because the extra dash of black patent is a great counter to the sweeter English ale yeast.
As for the differences, the Whitbread has a yeasty characteristic that really comes through in the aroma and flavor. It's especially apparent in the nose. It's like dry wood in a forest, or a bag of dried mushrooms - truly the essence of "yeast." The beer is quite clear by the way, so I'm sure it is yeast-derived and not actually suspended yeast in the beer. This flavor also seems to make the beer drier (or at least give the impression of dryness) despite the two having the same FG. It has a tangy thing. Don't interpret that as sour, I more mean it like a little zing or bite to it. The beer made with this yeast has a longer finish - the flavor really stays with you for a few minutes.
The London ESB is the yeast that Big Sky Brewing actually uses. I find this beer to be smoother than the other, and much richer and fuller. The "yeasty" esters are exchanged for deeper esters of fermented fruit and a little vanilla. There is still a bit of yeastiness, however, but it skews slightly more towards sweet, fermenting bread. If Whitbread is the smell of yeast, London ESB is the smell of fermentation. The body is emphasized a little more, as well as a slightly sweeter finish.
Overall they're both great beers and I enjoy drinking both. I prefer the London ESB version, and about 75% of the people who have tasted both feel the same. I think the yeasty thing in the Whitbread can easily turn some people off. It really kicks it into that "noticeably Engliish" realm, and I think a brown ale like this one is probably its ideal use. I'm sure it does great in porters and stouts too. I would personally be reluctant to use it in any of the beers in the English Pale Ale category because I think without the significant crystal and roast malts in this recipe, the yeast character would be very strong.
The funny thing is - I meant to use 1098 instead because so many people tout the benefits of the dry English ale yeast. I wanted to compare it to London ESB, a strain I use very frequently. I actually didn't realize my mistake until I had already repitched the Whitbread into an American IPA... dangit. So let's hope it can make a good IPA!
One other thing I changed was the finishing hops. I simply had a flameout addition of 1oz of Fuggle in each batch. Each got a 15 minute whirlpool before chilling. Otherwise, everything was right on target with grains, OG, and FG. I pitched an appropriate starter of both strains at 62, plus 1min of oxygen. Free rise to 68, finish with a heating pad at 72-75.
It's awesome to taste the difference. They're very similar in most ways. Medium fruity esters in the nose, smooth and medium bodied, easy drinking. Good bready malt notes with rich chocolate coming through. A hint of sweetness in the finish but in a pleasing way. I've always loved the Moose Drool recipe because the extra dash of black patent is a great counter to the sweeter English ale yeast.
As for the differences, the Whitbread has a yeasty characteristic that really comes through in the aroma and flavor. It's especially apparent in the nose. It's like dry wood in a forest, or a bag of dried mushrooms - truly the essence of "yeast." The beer is quite clear by the way, so I'm sure it is yeast-derived and not actually suspended yeast in the beer. This flavor also seems to make the beer drier (or at least give the impression of dryness) despite the two having the same FG. It has a tangy thing. Don't interpret that as sour, I more mean it like a little zing or bite to it. The beer made with this yeast has a longer finish - the flavor really stays with you for a few minutes.
The London ESB is the yeast that Big Sky Brewing actually uses. I find this beer to be smoother than the other, and much richer and fuller. The "yeasty" esters are exchanged for deeper esters of fermented fruit and a little vanilla. There is still a bit of yeastiness, however, but it skews slightly more towards sweet, fermenting bread. If Whitbread is the smell of yeast, London ESB is the smell of fermentation. The body is emphasized a little more, as well as a slightly sweeter finish.
Overall they're both great beers and I enjoy drinking both. I prefer the London ESB version, and about 75% of the people who have tasted both feel the same. I think the yeasty thing in the Whitbread can easily turn some people off. It really kicks it into that "noticeably Engliish" realm, and I think a brown ale like this one is probably its ideal use. I'm sure it does great in porters and stouts too. I would personally be reluctant to use it in any of the beers in the English Pale Ale category because I think without the significant crystal and roast malts in this recipe, the yeast character would be very strong.
The funny thing is - I meant to use 1098 instead because so many people tout the benefits of the dry English ale yeast. I wanted to compare it to London ESB, a strain I use very frequently. I actually didn't realize my mistake until I had already repitched the Whitbread into an American IPA... dangit. So let's hope it can make a good IPA!
