# Liquid Yeast Of Choice To Replace S04.



## chadjaja (21/7/09)

Hey guys, I know there are a few options of wyeast for the english ale style. Whats a few of peoples favs to use where they would or could of normally used S04?

I'm wanting another choc porter and Real ale soon and both would simply use S04 but I want to use a liquid yeast for each. Just the one for both would be better.

cheers


----------



## DJR (21/7/09)

Whitelabs or Wyeast?

If wyeast then http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_styledetails.cfm?ID=158 reckons 1028, 1056, 1275 or 1335 and then http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_styledetails.cfm?ID=147 reckons 1099, 1968, 1275, 1318 or 1335 so put them all together and you get 1275 or 1335 for both.

Then according to this chart http://www.mrmalty.com/yeast.htm the equivalents for 1275 is WLP023 in White Labs and WLP025 for 1335 (platinum strain)


----------



## Screwtop (21/7/09)

chadjaja said:


> Hey guys, I know there are a few options of wyeast for the english ale style. Whats a few of peoples favs to use where they would or could of normally used S04?
> 
> I'm wanting another choc porter and Real ale soon and both would simply use S04 but I want to use a liquid yeast for each. Just the one for both would be better.
> 
> cheers




Can't remember which Liquid yeast is supposedly the same yeast, I like 1098, have used it in the last batch of IPA, very nice.

Screwy


----------



## Fourstar (21/7/09)

two good yeasts from wyeast to replace the S04 are the 1968 London ESB and the 1469 west yorkshire strain (this was a special release)

Both very nice. I love the 1968, ive used it in stouts, milds and bitters alll with great results. Anoth option woudl be the 1318 London Ale III. A good allrounder.


----------



## drtomc (21/7/09)

DJR said:


> Whitelabs or Wyeast?
> 
> If wyeast then http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_styledetails.cfm?ID=158 reckons 1028, 1056, 1275 or 1335 and then http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_styledetails.cfm?ID=147 reckons 1099, 1968, 1275, 1318 or 1335 so put them all together and you get 1275 or 1335 for both.



I note that some people find 1275 a bit tricky - it's liable to go to sleep before you want it to, and can be a pain to rouse, so I'd advocate trying one of the other strains first out. If you've got good temperature control, you'll probably be fine.

T.


----------



## warrenlw63 (21/7/09)

Wyeast 1098 and S04 and supposedly the same Whitbread strain. That said I fail to pick the similarities. Like Screwy I reckon 1098 is a nice greedy yeast for bigger beers. Finishes quite clean and neutral too.

Warren -


----------



## Bribie G (21/7/09)

In my fairly limited use of liquid ale yeasts so far, I keep coming back to Wyeast 1768 but it's a special release as well and currently not available. I'm thinking of going on to 1968 myself. However another good ale all rounder that I'm currently using in bitters, stouts and a mild is Ringwood 1187. Goes great in real ales and I currently have 2 stouts, one made on S-04 and the latest one on Ringwood and it stomps all over the S-04 version.


----------



## DiscoStu (21/7/09)

+1 to Wyeast 1968 London ESB. I've used it in a bitter and a mild with good results.


----------



## buttersd70 (21/7/09)

personally I don't like 1968. Just doesn't do anything for me....horses for courses, though. Some love it, some don't. 1469 (if you can get some) is a cracker, my absolute favourite. closely followed by 1275....like many of the english yeasts, 1275 is slow when cold...20C ferment is the key imo. 1187 ringwood is a great yeast for lower gravity beers, cos it has low attenuation, and leaves body in it.


----------



## katzke (21/7/09)

DJR said:


> Whitelabs or Wyeast?
> 
> If wyeast then http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_styledetails.cfm?ID=158 reckons 1028, 1056, 1275 or 1335 and then



I thought 1056 is the same as US-05 or an American Ale Yeast.

Well it was on the Brown Ale page if I recall correctly. You can brew an American Brown Ale so it works.


----------



## DJR (21/7/09)

katzke said:


> I thought 1056 is the same as US-05 or an American Ale Yeast.



Yup, it sure is. I didn't write that page...


----------



## RdeVjun (21/7/09)

+1 for Butters', BribieG's, Fourstar's and other suggestions. Unfortunately 1768 is not available any more from most HBSes (nor of course 1469), but 1968 is reportedly quite similar, although I've not tried it before and it has a few doubters. 1768, if you can still get it, does produce some excellent malty ales, so does 1187 and they both have thumbs up from many quarters.
Also, as per Tom's and Butters' posts, 1275 was indeed a bit fiddly but I just wasn't overly thrilled with it. The results were certainly on par with S-04, it was however the first liquid strain I'd ever used.
I haven't used 1318 but I have a pack in the fridge waiting for the temps to warm up and also space becoming available in my fridges.

Getting more than just one batch from a single smackpack is pretty easy and an economical move. (Try search terms "prepare wyeast starter" and "split smackpack".) I do it all the time and there's plenty of other similar reports, so I recommend that to the OPer if a decision can be made WRT the strain.


----------



## Fourstar (21/7/09)

katzke said:


> I thought 1056 is the same as US-05 or an American Ale Yeast.
> 
> Well it was on the Brown Ale page if I recall correctly. You can brew an American Brown Ale so it works.



I'd have to say, having used 1056 exclusively over the past 6-8 moths over using dried US05, the profile you get from the liquid yeast is alot cleaner or 'refined' and less estery when fermented at the same temperatures. Take my Housemates pilsner-ale (92% Pilsner 5% carapils 3% melanoiden) fermented with US05 to my cream ale (90% Ale, 5% Carapils, 5% sucrose) fermented with 1056.

They where both fermented at the same time in the same room @17deg~ (the crawlspace under the stairs). The ester profile in the pilsner-ale was very high, compared to the cream ale which was uber neutral. Not to mention the flocculation of the cream ale was superb! (same water profile too). It was bright in a matter of days and was stored @ ambient temps. The pilsner-ale on the other hand had taken 2 weeks whilst being fridged @ 4-5deg~ to drop bright.

If you can get your hands on liquid yests, i advocate using them where possible as the dry's can be somewhat one-dimensional. For convenience or a matter of emergency i'll still continue to use dry yeast where necessary but liquids seem to give me a better result.


----------



## BoilerBoy (21/7/09)

Basically any of the above English strains mentioned above is going to be better than S04! h34r: 

Cheers,
BB


----------



## drsmurto (21/7/09)

I have a brown porter and a bitter (real ale - isnt that the name of a kit?) on tap at the moment, both fermented with wyeast 1187 - ringwood. 

Come to think of it, the 3rd tap is a stout, also fermented with ringwood :lol: 

Love this yeast :beerbang:


----------



## Renegade (21/7/09)

I wonder what the advantages are of finding a liquid equal to S-04 ? I thought the whole point of using liquid strains was to embrace new yeasts with different characters to the restrictive variety of dried yeasts on the market.


----------



## RdeVjun (21/7/09)

DrSmurto said:


> I have a brown porter and a bitter (real ale - isnt that the name of a kit?) on tap at the moment, both fermented with wyeast 1187 - ringwood.
> 
> Come to think of it, the 3rd tap is a stout, also fermented with ringwood :lol:
> 
> Love this yeast :beerbang:


Aye- seconded! 

Am presently bottling a couple of ESBs (a Ruddles X TTL and a generic goldings ESB) that were Ringwoodized (thanks to BribieG for the sample!)- they're just superb and I can't wait!


----------



## buttersd70 (21/7/09)

The OP didn't say he wanted to use a liquid that would be _like _so4, but that he wants to use liquid yeast that would go with the _type of beer_ that so4 would be used for. So he _does _want to embrace a new strain. At least thats the way I read it.

(but then, I tend to read the entire post, and apply some context to it. h34r: )


----------



## haysie (21/7/09)

I`ll stick my big nose in and say 1028, was surprised it wasnt mentioned earlier, 1084 is another cracker yeast that has always given me good results for porters and ales. The 1028 can tend to have a little lag time and sometimes at lower temps needs a wakening/rouse but always finishes clean and complimentary too your fermentation temp. 
The 1084 for mine is the best for big malty finishes, an ole favorite!
And all the others mentioned apart from 1469 havent used/tasted it are terrific.


----------



## Fourstar (21/7/09)

haysie said:


> I`ll stick my big nose in and say 1028.
> 
> The 1028 can tend to have a little lag time and sometimes at lower temps needs a wakening/rouse but always finishes clean and complimentary too your fermentation temp.



Not to mention it can taste like drinking a mixed spoonful of Gypsum, Epsom salts and Chalk. 

1028 is notorious for having a very minerally profile. I found my dry stout made with wyeast 1028 with No water additions to have a greater mineral profile detectable compared to my dry stout with wyeast 1968 with water additions of 200+ppm of HCO3 20ppm Mg and 80ppm Ca.

This is one reason why this yeast is disliked by many. Be careful


----------



## haysie (21/7/09)

4star,
I was posting in response to the O/P, . FWIW 1028 no changes to water profile, my ESB scored quite well at Melbourne Brewers English comp, same yeast scored very well at Stout Extravaganza.
I reckon 1028/1084 are great yeasts.
Plenty of recommendations here for Ringwood?? IMO a non conditioner, green beer only.


----------



## warrenlw63 (21/7/09)

Fourstar said:


> This is one reason why this yeast is disliked by many. Be careful



Define "many". Haysie is right. It's pretty much an old standard of Wyeast and from memory used by a few micros. At worst I'd say it just has a bit of character. :blink: 

Warren -


----------



## T.D. (21/7/09)

And maybe the minerally profile is due to too many extra salts added to the brewing water. I like to take a "laissez faire" approach to water chemistry.


----------



## Fourstar (21/7/09)

warrenlw63 said:


> Define "many". Haysie is right. It's pretty much an old standard of Wyeast and from memory used by a few micros. At worst I'd say it just has a bit of character.
> Warren -



There are alot of references on here to people not liking the profile of 1028. If i remember correctly, there where allot of talks about it in Thirstyboys thread on creating a yeast bank and coming up with ideas.

Its not that i dont like it, some people may find the mineral profile overwhelming. horses for courses. Its well suited to darker beers. i probably wouldn't use it in a bitter.


----------



## Bribie G (21/7/09)

haysie said:


> 4star,
> I was posting in response to the O/P, . FWIW 1028 no changes to water profile, my ESB scored quite well at Melbourne Brewers English comp, same yeast scored very well at Stout Extravaganza.
> I reckon 1028/1084 are great yeasts.
> *Plenty of recommendations here for Ringwood?? IMO a non conditioner, green beer only.*



I've been finding that myself, Ringwood, especially this time of year, takes a good three weeks or so to carb up in the bottles but once it gets away, it certainly gets away! I can imagine the little Ringwood yeasties in the bottle calling out "I've done my job, now piss off" :lol: Have a Ringwood Mild in a comp for this weekend and I have mercilessly tipped and roused the chosen bottles for the last seven days and the comp bottles are now firm, the others are still soft as. Just as well, as I've posted one to Butters so it shouldn't detonate in the mail.


----------



## warrenlw63 (21/7/09)

Fourstar said:


> There are alot of references on here to people not liking the profile of 1028.



There are probably a lot of references for people not liking virutally every strain. There's probably also a lot of references to people not liking said strain (1028) after using it once. Like everything on this forum you've got to take user error into account and I'm picking there's a great deal of it.

If my memory serves me correctly Murray's use it for a lot of their beers and there's no complaints there I'm sure. I'll have a "minerally" Nirvana Ale any day.  

Warren -


----------



## buttersd70 (21/7/09)

BribieG said:


> Just as well, as I've posted one to Butters so it shouldn't detonate in the mail.



:icon_offtopic: 
whhaaaaahaay! Goody gumdrops...can't wait to get it. :super:


----------



## Fents (21/7/09)

I just used 1968 london esb for the first time and think i've found the perfect yeast. not a great attenuator (bit like s-04 stops at 1.016) but a damn great flocc'er....i swear my beer came out of primary the cleanest and clearest i have ever seen.


----------



## T.D. (21/7/09)

warrenlw63 said:


> Like everything on this forum you've got to take user error into account and I'm picking there's a great deal of it.



Here here.


----------



## Fourstar (21/7/09)

warrenlw63 said:


> There's probably also a lot of references to people not liking said strain (1028) after using it once. Like everything on this forum you've got to take user error into account and I'm picking there's a great deal of it.



That is also very true. Hey, all i was doing was pointing out that the yest strain has a very distinct profile, much like any other high profile strain out there. e.g. 3068 or some of the begian strains. use it correctly and it can work well. use it poorly and you can set yourself up for disaster or a very lack luster beer. It wont be the last time i use that yeast. I could see it going well in a Foregin Export or a RIP. 

My comment wasnt designed to bruise any ego's by posting something that has been percieved as negative about a brewers yeast choice, It was just let the OP know it has a big profile that wasnt advised prior.


----------



## warra48 (21/7/09)

I've used WY1469, and liked the results. I still have a split in the fridge to culture up.

Lately, I've done a few batches with WY1968, and I just love the malt quality it produces, even in lower alcohol beers. I still have a split of that left as well, and will definitely use it again soon. Personally, I like it better than WY1469. 

I've not tried Ringwood, but am keen to try it.


----------



## dbod (18/9/09)

I've always used Dry Safale S-04 for all my beers (generally hoppy bitters) but am breaking out into Liquid Yeasts and have decided to mix it up a little bit and gone for:

Burton Ale Yeast WLP023 
_It provides delicious subtle fruity flavors like apple, clover honey and pear. Great for all English styles, IPA's, bitters, and pales, porters & stout

_I'm looking forward to trying something to bring through those fruit flavours in my Bitters a bit more.


----------



## tdh (18/9/09)

S-04 is supposedly 1099. Can't recall the source, you'll need to have faith.

tdh


----------

