This xBmt was completed by a member of The Brü Club as a part of The Brü Club xBmt Series in collaboration with Brülosophy. While members who choose to participate in this series generally take inspiration from Brülosophy, the bulk of design, writing, and editing is handled by members unless otherwise specified. Articles featured on Brulosophy.com are selected by The Brü Club leadership prior to being submitted for publication. Visit The Brü Club website for more information on this series.

Author: Matt Skillstad

Buying ingredients in bulk has several benefits, but I primarily appreciate having the flexibility to brew just about whatever I want when I have the time to do so. I usually have enough hops and grain on hand to be able to brew most styles I enjoy drinking, but yeast is the only ingredient that requires me to plan what I brew.

The relatively long shelf life of dry yeast makes it possible to stock several packs of dry yeast in various varieties, but the beers I ferment with liquid yeast often just seem “better” to me. While I prefer the ease of dry yeast, I’d be willing to invest the time and effort in planning ahead with liquid yeast if it leads to noticeably better beer. Because of this, I decided to put it to the test with some split batches before making a final decision.

I haven’t had something hoppy on tap for a while and though a nice NEIPA would hit the spot. Two yeasts commonly associated with this style are the liquid Wyeast 1318 London Ale III, said to be sourced from Boddington’s Brewery, and the dry Fermentis Safale S-04 English Ale, which is known to have originated from Whitbread Brewery. Despite the different sources, I chose to compare these strains due to how often both are recommended and to see just how different each one is.

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between a NEIPA fermented with Wyeast 1318 London Ale III yeast and the same beer fermented with Safale S-04 English Ale yeast.

| METHODS |

I formulated a fairly simple NEIPA recipe that featured some newer varieties of German hops and a significant portion of flaked oats.

Hüll & Oats

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 6 gal 40 min 33.3 IBUs 4.5 SRM 1.072 1.020 7.0 % Actuals 1.072 1.012 8.0 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pale Malt (2 Row), Rahr 10 lbs 66.67 Oats, Flaked 2.5 lbs 16.67 Vienna Malt (Briess) 2.5 lbs 16.67 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Columbus/Tomahawk/Zeus (CTZ) 14 g 40 min Boil Pellet 12.3 Hallertau Blanc 54 g 5 min Aroma Pellet 9.7 Huell Melon 54 g 5 min Aroma Pellet 7.5 Mandarina Bavaria 37 g 5 min Aroma Pellet 10.7 Hallertau Blanc 57 g 10 days Dry Hop Pellet 9.7 Huell Melon 57 g 10 days Dry Hop Pellet 7.5 Mandarina Bavaria 57 g 10 days Dry Hop Pellet 10.7 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Wyeast 1318 London Ale III OR Safale S-04 English Ale 73% 64°F - 74°F Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

The day before brewing, I measured out the grain & the water salts & milled the grain directly into the brew bag.

The next day, just before the kiddos’ nap time was over, I slipped out to the garage to fill the kettle with store bought RO water & plugged in my new electric immersion heater to begin slowly heating the strike water. After a couple hours of family time, the water was to strike temperature.

I added the grains to the water, gave it good stir to make sure it was well incorporated, then checked the mash temperature… 135°F/57°C. Poop! I quickly hoisted the bag out of the kettle and fired up the burner until the liquid had reached the proper strike temperature again, at which point I lowered the bag into the kettle again, gave the mash a good stir again, and checked to see that it was finally at my target 154˚F/67˚C mash temperature. Following a slightly extended 90 minute mash rest, I hoisted the grains out of the kettle and allowed them to drain as I began heating the sweet wort.

The wort was boiled for a slightly abbreviated 45 minutes with hops added at the times listed in the recipe. Once complete, I used cool RO water to top the kettle up to my desired post-boil volume of 12 gallons/45 liters, bringing the temperature to 180°F/82°C, then added the substantial hop stand charge. After about 5 minutes, I began chilling the wort to my desired pitching temperature of 63°F/19°C.

A hydrometer measurement revealed the wort hit a slightly higher OG than originally planned.

The wort was then split between two similar stainless steel bucket fermentors.

I placed the filled fermentors next to each other in my fermentation chamber controlled to 64°F/18°C before smacking the Wyeast 1318 and rehydrating the Safale S-04. After 30 minutes, the yeasts were pitched into their respective worts.

When I checked on the beers before I left for work 8 hours later, neither was showing signs of active fermentation. I checked again when I got home that evening and noticed both bubbling with similar vigor. After 3 days of fermentation, the bubbling in both airlocks had started to slow, so I added identical dry hop charges to each batch. At this point, I notice a distinct difference in the kräusen atop each beer.

The beers continued to ferment for 2 more days before I raised the temperature to 68°F/20°C to encourage complete attenuation and reduction of fermentation byproducts. After another 8 days, I took hydrometer measurements showing both beers had reached the same FG, though already looked different.

I then transferred the warm beers to CO2 purged kegs, doing my best to ensure both had similar oxygen exposure.

The filled kegs were placed on gas in my keezer to condition at serving pressure for 3 weeks, at which point they were similarly carbonated and ready to serve.

| RESULTS |

A total of 22 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 1 sample of the beer fermented with Wyeast 1318 London Ale III and 2 samples of the beer fermented with Safale S-04 English Ale yeast in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. A total of 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, yet only 8 tasters did so (p=0.460), suggesting participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a NEIPA fermented with Wyeast 1318 London Ale III from one fermented with Safale S-04 English Ale yeast.

My Impressions: At the time of kegging, I felt these beers were noticeably different, the Wyeast 1318 version tasting brighter with a more citrusy and “juicy” hop character. It was also hazier. The S-04 version was similar, but the hops seemed slightly muted, and I perceived it as having a subtle bready/doughy tang in the finish. By data collection time, I thought the beers tasted far more similar than different. Of the 8 triangle tests I attempted, I selected the unique sample only 2 times. While both beers shared a pleasant fruity hop aroma and flavor, it was pretty soft, not quite pungent enough for what I would want in this style.

| DISCUSSION |

Yeast substitutions are a necessary part of sharing recipes because not all brewers have access to the same yeast suppliers. To me, Safale S-04 English Ale yeast seems like an odd substitute for Wyeast 1318 London Ale III, but I’ve seen it used by many trusted brewers of the NEIPA style. And the fact tasters in this xBmt were unable to reliably tell apart NEIPAs fermented with either strain suggests whatever characteristics either impart are more similar than they are different.

Deep thoughts…

In thinking about the results of this xBmt, I took a look at previous yeast comparison xBmts and noticed an interesting trend– when the yeasts being compared are from the same region and not highly expressive, the results tended to be non-significant. While the available data is inconclusive when it comes to the impact beer style has on yeast expression, it seems plausible that more flavorful styles might mask subtle fermentation characteristics that simpler styles let shine through.

The results in this xBmt seem to fit with this, as despite one being dry and the other liquid, both were of English origin. Also, the beers were fermented at a pretty low temperature, which could have minimized potential differences. Maybe close is close enough, at least in a highly characterful beer that’s not yeast driven. While I still prefer liquid yeast for various reasons, I won’t think twice to use Safale S-04 in a pinch for NEIPA when my desired strain isn’t available.

Matt Skillstad is a happy husband to a wonderful wife (who likes his beer!) and proud father of 5 children under 7 years old from Pierce, Nebraska. He has been brewing since 2011 and, in addition to The Brü Club, is a member of the Elkhorn Valley Society of Brewers. He enjoys experimenting with his brewing in an effort to make better beer in less time with less effort. When not brewing or hanging with his family, Matt enjoys bike riding and golfing (poorly).

If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...