yes you are correct it was the US spelling that confused me.Easily done mindAleman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:20 amSorry 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)
Share your experiences of using brewing yeast.
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:56 pm
- Location: Corfu,Greece formely Essex/Suffolk border UK
No. Windsor (and its close relatives S-33 and Munton's ordinary, which probably came from the same original source) is part of a funny group of yeasts that's not particularly closely related to the main group of brewing yeasts. In fact it's more closely related to certain bread and distilling yeasts if anything. Lallemand ESB (note _not_ WLP002) is also probably closely related to it.
1098 is a better attenuator and is most closely related to 1318 and WLP017; it's not particularly closely related to WLP013 which at least has attenuation more like Windsor but is most closely related to WLP006 and S-04.
Have a go with WLP041, which is a British yeast despite its name, has similar attenuation to Windsor (but is not related to it) and which just seems to make very drinkable beer.
When you say 'close relative' are you referring to hypothetical phylogenies based on genetic distances among very short non-coding ribosomal DNA sequences? If so, do you think that's a good predictor of how a yeast strain is going to behave? I would say behaviour is going to depend on the genome proper and how it interacts with the wort environment (and brewer). WLP005 and WY1187, for example, are reported as being 'closely related' yet they behave differently, in my experience, producing very different ales. I'd say using hypothetical phylogenies that are based on limited samples of unknown origins to be a bit hit and miss, wouldn't you? It seems a bit academic without any valid independent evidence. Such data by itself is of little value in the real world and doesn't improve brewing to any extent. A bit like stamp collecting. Just-so stories. Even with whole genome sequencing data it's proven very difficult to understand why a given strain behaves the way it does, which is why some very ambitious projects designed (quite naively in my opinion) to understand the genetics of yeast profiles have largely failed.