A wet version of windsor

Share your experiences of using brewing yeast.
User avatar
john luc
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:04 pm

A wet version of windsor

Post by john luc » Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:03 pm

Is there a fresh wet yeast that is Windsor yeast. I have used this yeast as dry and do like it but would like to try a wet yeast version of it. :?:
Deos miscendarum discipule
http://www.nationalhomebrewclub.ie

User avatar
gr_baker
Piss Artist
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 1:52 pm

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by gr_baker » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:54 pm

Dried yeast is much easier to handle, use and store than liquid. So I think that if a yeast can be successfully dried then the manufacturers have no motivation to make a liquid version.

If you're getting results that you like then I'd stick with it.

User avatar
john luc
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:04 pm

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by john luc » Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:37 pm

I know but for example WLP001 is supposed to be US05 so I was wondering if there is a liquid version of Windsor.
Deos miscendarum discipule
http://www.nationalhomebrewclub.ie

Rookie
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2935
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: Vancouver, WA, USA

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by Rookie » Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:25 pm

john luc wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:37 pm
I know but for example WLP001 is supposed to be US05 so I was wondering if there is a liquid version of Windsor.
There are some differences between WLP001 and US05, as there are between the other yeast companies versions of the Chico strain.
I'm just here for the beer.

User avatar
PeeBee
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by PeeBee » Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:29 pm

john luc wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:37 pm
I know but for example WLP001 is supposed to be US05 so I was wondering if there is a liquid version of Windsor.
WLP002 is supposed to be "Fullers" yeast, and I was using it as such. Until it just wouldn't work as expected and I find these comparisons are very influenced by the cloud the comparer happens to be dreaming on at the time.

User avatar
PeeBee
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by PeeBee » Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:44 pm

john luc wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:03 pm
Is there a fresh wet yeast that is Windsor yeast. I have used this yeast as dry and do like it but would like to try a wet yeast version of it. :?:
If you like Windsor keep using it! It is cheaper and easier to handle than liquid so why bother with a liquid yeast to achieve the same flavours?

Dried yeast just represents the small subset of yeast strains that successfully tolerate the drying process. Apart from choice, there is nothing magical about liquid yeast.

The example I gave in my last post: When WLP002 wouldn't do the job I was expecting, I found S-33 (dry) could.

User avatar
john luc
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:04 pm

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by john luc » Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:26 pm

I get what your saying and for porters and such I will probably continue to use it but I was just curious if it was also available as a wet yeast too. Google says wlp013 and wyeast1098 are similar :?:
Deos miscendarum discipule
http://www.nationalhomebrewclub.ie

User avatar
PeeBee
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by PeeBee » Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:15 pm

I am still looking. But this is a "good" example: https://www.saltcitybrewsupply.com/medi ... rison3.pdf … it clumps my afore mentioned S-33 (dry) with WLP005 (liquid). I said it wrong in my last post - I was already using S-33 before I disastrously attempted to swap it for WLP002. I used S-33 because it is the poorest attenuator I know, but WLP002 was far too attenuative and White Labs describe WLP005 as:
This yeast is a little more attenuative than WLP002.
Obviously the information in the above linked PDF file is utter garbage.

But you are doing the right thing discussing it in a forum. You then get to make up your own mind from the different (often contradictory) thoughts that tumble in.

WLP013 similar to Wyeast 1098? I do like Wyeast 1099 in (historical) porter recipes (another supposedly Whitbread strain) because the smell it left around the house reminded me of fag-ends swimming about in ashtrays full of beer from my youth! I like things that remind me that I once was a youth.

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by Kev888 » Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:51 pm

I'd think that due to changes resulting from getting the yeast in a dried format, it would likely differ from its originating strain, even if this were available to us (I've not heard that it is, but haven't especially looked).

It could be interesting to take Windsor through a few generations in your own conditions and see if it results in anything slightly different. I'm not suggesting this would revert back to the original wet strain, whether that's desirable or not, but it might alter/adapt somewhat from the first pitch of dried stuff. I can't claim to have tried with Windsor though, so it's only a thought.
Kev

User avatar
john luc
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:04 pm

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by john luc » Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:06 pm

When I have used Windsor I pitch Nottingham 48 hours later to help it finish. Next time I use it though I'm thinking of using a lower mash temperature. This had me thinking of if it had a wet version would it be any different.
Deos miscendarum discipule
http://www.nationalhomebrewclub.ie

User avatar
john luc
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:04 pm

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by john luc » Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:49 pm

http://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/cana ... alculator/ Interesting when you use they pitching calculator from Lallemandbrewing they seem to ask for a higher rate than other calculator do. 23litres @1045 requires 23 grams which is more than 2 packs :-k
Deos miscendarum discipule
http://www.nationalhomebrewclub.ie

User avatar
Brewedout
Piss Artist
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:30 am

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by Brewedout » Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:05 pm

Wow I just did 19l of 1053 with 1 pack. Seriously under pitched then

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk


paulg
Tippler
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:56 pm
Location: Corfu,Greece formely Essex/Suffolk border UK

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by paulg » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:00 am

why if you need bigger amounts why do lallemand package @ 11g.
their calculator says 18 grams for my last 23 litre brew a standard 1.035 beer.
I pitched 11grams (1 pack) you would need to be brewing only 3 gallons to use 1 pack.Not sure if the calculator means uk or us liters,I am thinking us as per the spelling.

User avatar
Aleman
It's definitely Lock In Time
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:56 am
Location: Mashing In Blackpool, Lancashire, UK

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by Aleman » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:20 am

paulg wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:00 am
Not sure if the calculator means uk or us liters,I am thinking us as per the spelling.
Sorry to be picky but a Litre is a Liter is a Litre! It is defined by international standards as (IIRC) "the volume occupied by 1000g of water (IIRC) at standard temperature and pressure".

Can't help thinking that choosing water was a bad choice as it actually increases in volume below 4C, this is ameliorated somewhat by specifying the conditions of measurement, standard conditions are 1 Atmosphere of pressure and 20C!

I think you are getting confused between US gallons (3.875 Litres) and real Gallons (4.554 Litres)

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: A wet version of windsor

Post by Kev888 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:15 am

Yes, litres liters litri etc are all the same thing internationally. Not sure what is going on in this case though as the lellamand calculator John Luc linked to gives me different results - for me it only suggests 11.5 grams of windsor in 23litres at 1.045, the wort needs to be over 1.060 for it to suggest double the pitching rate.

Whilst this kind of trend with higher gravity is expected, the minumum unit of whole packs by dry yeast manufacturers leads to some fairly crude recommendations sometimes. For instance, the calculator suggests that wort at 1.0601 suddenly requires double the yeast of wort at 1.0600. IIRC the mangrove jack's datasheet suggestions are similar, except their threshold is lower, at 1.050. The reality is that you don't suddenly need double the amount with a 0.0001 increase, but you can't buy fractions of a pack.

For economy I think one can use some intelligent discretion when hovering just over their rather arbitrary threshold. However I wouldn't be too frugal as (for similar reasons) the suggested pitching rates are possibly getting a little low just under the threshold in any case. It is also partly down to yeast strain, beer type, circumstances and preferences though, which normally aren't factored in to simple calculators (beyond ale vs lager); they're really just a guide.
Kev

Post Reply