# Nottingham Dry Yeast Vs Wlp039 Nottingham Ale



## Jim_Levet (16/7/07)

Anybody here done a side by side( :beer: ), or used both of the Nottingham Dry yeast & White Labs Nottingham Ale,WLP039. I am thinking of doing a few ales then some darks on the liquid version. I haven't seen the dried version in Sydney, although I know it must be around somewhere! Any type of feedback would be appreciated. 

James


----------



## T.D. (26/11/07)

Well, I did this very test recently with a double batch of pale ale. The recipe was a basic pale ale recipe which I thought would showcase the yeast characteristics well (see recipe below). I fermented one 17L lot with a 12g pack of Dry Nottingham and the other 17L lot with liquid Nottingham (WLP039). Both were pitched at the same time, fermented side by side in the exact same conditions, and bottled at the same time too. The beers also finished within 1 SG point of one another, which makes for quite a good comparison of the dry vs liquid Nottingham yeast.

I took both beers to a mate's place the other day for a bbq where there was a commercial brewer and another experienced AG brewer. It was unanimous among us all that the liquid nottingham beer was far better. I never thought the difference would be so obvious! The WLP039 beer seemed a lot fresher and just had much more depth of flavour. The dry yeast beer seemed thin by comparison, and as one of the fellas said had kind of an unusual bready flavour. I always thought Nottingham was a fairly lifeless and even "boring" yeast but I must say the liquid version has much more going on. 

I am really starting to wonder if the same trend would exist for the other dry yeasts. Has anyone done a side by side test on US-56 or S-04 and their liquid equivalents? This comparison has really made me consider going back to liquid yeasts again!




Here's the recipe:


Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Batch Size: 34.00 L 
Boil Size: 39.08 L
Estimated OG: 1.041 SG
Estimated Color: 9.3 EBC
Estimated IBU: 24.9 IBU
Brewhouse Efficiency: 71.00 %
Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
Amount Item Type % or IBU 
3.00 kg Joe White Traditional Ale (5.9 EBC) Grain 47.62 % 
2.00 kg Joe White Export Pilsner (3.2 EBC) Grain 31.75 % 
1.00 kg Joe White Munich, Light (17.7 EBC) Grain 15.87 % 
0.30 kg Joe White Wheat Malt (3.5 EBC) Grain 4.76 % 
56.00 gm Hallertauer [4.10 %] (50mins 15.4 IBU) 
28.00 gm Hallertauer [4.10 %] (20mins 4.9 IBU) 
28.00 gm Hallertauer [4.10 %] (10mins 2.9 IBU) 
28.00 gm Hallertauer [4.10 %] (5mins 1.6 IBU) 


Mash Schedule: Single Infusion, Medium Body, Batch Sparge
Total Grain Weight: 6.30 kg
----------------------------
Single Infusion, Medium Body, Batch Sparge
Step Time Name Description Step Temp 
60 min Mash In Add 16.43 L of water at 74.4 C 67.8 C


----------



## Tickstar (26/11/07)

Can't speak for the liquid yeast but I used dry Nottingham recently in a blonde. Came out with a definite dusty taste. Ruined what would have been a great beer, but all a learning experience I suppose! Probably be great in darker beers where there's enough oomph in the flavour to cover any dusty taste.


----------



## Stuster (26/11/07)

Great experiment. :super: 

Very interesting results, with such easily tasted differences between the two batches. Was the liquid yeast still a fairly clean, low ester yeast? Malty?


----------



## Screwtop (26/11/07)

Horses (yeast) for courses (beer), Nottingham (dried) for darks, and leave it long enough to clean up the dusty taste. Did you make a starter of the White Labs? What pitching rate for the liquid? What volume of wort did you pitch too? What was the pitching temp? What was the ferm temp?

Sorry to sound like Tony Barber!


Screwy


----------



## T.D. (26/11/07)

Stuster said:


> Great experiment. :super:
> 
> Very interesting results, with such easily tasted differences between the two batches. Was the liquid yeast still a fairly clean, low ester yeast? Malty?



Yeah Stu, still had quite a clean profile, with low esters. But it just seemed to have more depth and mouthfeel - almost like its flavour was 3 dimensional as opposed to 2 dimensional, if you get my drift... The WLP beer seemed much more "polished" than the dry yeast beer.


----------



## devo (26/11/07)

I guess you could look at it from this point of view....how would you perform after being dehydrated to near death then resuscitated back to life and expect to function normally as if nothings happened?!


----------



## Adamt (26/11/07)

Devo: 

After drinking too much and dehydrating myself (probably not to near death), when I wake up, and resuscitate myself with a big glass of juice, loads of water and a greasy breakfast, I'm usually fine!

:icon_offtopic:


----------



## devo (27/11/07)

:lol:


----------



## Uncle Fester (27/11/07)

I believe Nottingham is Ross's yeast of choice. Maybe he has some value add to this.

Not sure whether he uses liquid or dry (I suspect dry).

Certainly no shortage of beer styles to choose between at Carbrook though.

Festa.


----------



## Ross (27/11/07)

Uncle Fester said:


> I believe Nottingham is Ross's yeast of choice. Maybe he has some value add to this.
> 
> Not sure whether he uses liquid or dry (I suspect dry).
> 
> ...



Hi Festa,

Not my yeast of choice at all. I've been a fairly lone voice in the dustiness it leaves in some brews, especially in light flavoured brews. It also sticks out (to my taste) in apas, which rather surprised me. A lot of brits swear by it though & its used a lot commercially. The recipe of Td's i'd never use it in; but the experiment was to compare the 2 types & for that it was probably a good choice to let the yeast come through. Would be interesting to see how they compare in a brew more suited to the yeast though. 
That said, in some beers it works excellently, eg alts, & dark beers. i also have an irish red on tap made with it & that is excellent. I'm about to make Andrew Qld's Aussie ale & notice he uses it for that, but in 2 minds whether to substitute with US-05.

Cheers Ross


----------



## warrenlw63 (27/11/07)

Nottingham makes a ripper dry stout too. B) 

Can't comment beyond that because that's all I've used it for... As Ross said. US-05 for paler beers. No complaints there.

Also many thanks T.D. It's experiments like that making this forum progressive. :beer: 

Warren -


----------



## The King of Spain (27/11/07)

Ross said:


> ..., but in 2 minds whether to substitute with US-05.
> 
> Cheers Ross




Don't do it Ross. I was tempted to swap to US-05 and am very glad I did not. That brew (Andrews Aussie Ale) is pretty much my standard house ale now.


----------



## Ross (27/11/07)

The King of Spain said:


> Don't do it Ross. I was tempted to swap to US-05 and am very glad I did not. That brew (Andrews Aussie Ale) is pretty much my standard house ale now.




Ok - Notts it is  

+++

I agree Warren - fantastic in a stout.

+++

On checking - I've got 7 beers in kegs using Nottingham at the moment, so can't be all bad B) 

Cheers Ross


----------



## devo (27/11/07)

I'm going to be trying the Nottingham for the first time in a PA that I cubed a few days ago. I've always used liquid yeast but have been experimenting with some of the dehydrated varieties of late.


----------



## troydo (27/11/07)

This is great timing i have an aussie ale planned for nect week and im planning on using nottingham, only cause i had it left in the fridge


----------



## KoNG (27/11/07)

T.D. said:


> and another experienced AG brewer.



Agreed..! :lol:


----------



## Linz (27/11/07)

T.D. said:


> I took both beers to a mate's place the other day for a bbq where there was a commercial brewer and another experienced AG brewer. It was unanimous among us all that the liquid nottingham beer was far better. I never thought the difference would be so obvious! The WLP039 beer seemed a lot fresher and just had much more depth of flavour. The dry yeast beer seemed thin by comparison, and as one of the fellas said had kind of an unusual bready flavour. I always thought Nottingham was a fairly lifeless and even "boring" yeast but I must say the liquid version has much more going on.



What about repitching on to the cake of the dry yeast??

How would that beer turn out compared to the liquid yeast beer??

Did the 'tasters' have prior knowledge about which beer was which??(I'm assuming No)


----------



## sluggerdog (27/11/07)

Bugger, I've just bought the Nottingham (DRY) for a series of summer ales (4%) I was plannning in the next week or two.

Maybe i need to rethink this and get the US-56.


----------



## therook (27/11/07)

sluggerdog said:


> Bugger, I've just bought the Nottingham (DRY) for a series of summer ales (4%) I was plannning in the next week or two.
> 
> Maybe i need to rethink this and get the US-56.




Give it a try Slugger, you may find it not that bad. I recently made an aussie ale and it has turned out pretty darn drinkable :beerbang: 

rook


----------



## Steve (27/11/07)

therook said:


> Give it a try Slugger, you may find it not that bad. I recently made an aussie ale and it has turned out pretty darn drinkable :beerbang:
> 
> rook




ditto - dont be swayed by just one experiment (even though it was very good and has even me thinking). Nottinghams my house favourite and has been for the past few months. I still cant pick up on any dusty tones? Maybe they are all drunk before they have time to settle/balance?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ross (27/11/07)

sluggerdog said:


> Bugger, I've just bought the Nottingham (DRY) for a series of summer ales (4%) I was plannning in the next week or two.
> 
> Maybe i need to rethink this and get the US-56.



I really wouldn't use in a 4% summer ale personally. US-05 leaves it for dead IMHO or go the extra mile & use a lager yeast.
A friend is making my summer ale recipe regulary using Swiss Lager & it's beautiful.
The dustyness is definately something that some pick up on & others don't (drinking the same beer), so you may be ok.

cheers Ross


----------



## devo (27/11/07)

I would think that making it a summer lager instead of an ale if using a lager yeast? :huh: Or is he fermenting at ale temps??


----------



## Ross (27/11/07)

devo said:


> I would think that making it a summer lager instead of an ale if using a lager yeast? :huh: Or is he fermenting at ale temps??



The idea of the summer ale is a nice clean refreshing drink. Making it as a lager (lager temps) produces a really nice beer.
If I had the time, I'd make mine this way.

cheers Ross


----------



## troydo (27/11/07)

mmm now im thinking i should get some US-56. .....

hmmm


----------



## sluggerdog (27/11/07)

hmm decisions..

It needs to be a summer ale (4% Cascade/Amarillo Blend) as I already have my summer lager brewed (4% as well SaazB/Saaz/Halleratu Combo). both recipes are pretty similar just using a different yeast and different hops.

I think I will save it for a darker brew, been meaning to do up a double batch of my vanilla porter again, I'm sure it will work wonders in this.


----------



## warrenlw63 (27/11/07)

therook said:


> Give it a try Slugger, you may find it not that bad. I recently made an aussie ale and it has turned out pretty darn drinkable :beerbang:
> 
> rook



Yep, agreed. I tried Rook's Aussie Ale. The man speaks the truth.  

Warren -


----------



## troydo (27/11/07)

arg im torn....
but im also lazy so there is a high chance of me using the nottingham


----------



## randyrob (27/11/07)

Hey Guys,

what temps are you fermenting nottingham at? i gave it a go in a english summer ale @20*c and all i got was bananna :-(

Rob.


----------



## therook (27/11/07)

randyrob said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> what temps are you fermenting nottingham at? i gave it a go in a english summer ale @20*c and all i got was bananna :-(
> 
> Rob.



16c Rob..

I need to get that Cherry beer recipe off you also...

Rook


----------



## randyrob (27/11/07)

therook said:


> 16c Rob..
> 
> I need to get that Cherry beer recipe off you also...
> 
> Rook



ahh cheers mate, almost passed as a pretty good hefe  

i'll dig up the recipe for ya now and pm it across.

Rob.


----------



## Steve (27/11/07)

randyrob said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> what temps are you fermenting nottingham at? i gave it a go in a english summer ale @20*c and all i got was bananna :-(
> 
> Rob.




banana  :lol: 

mine are done at 18-20


----------



## domonsura (27/11/07)

banana?! I've used Nottingham heaps at temps ranging from 12 - 23, and never had banana.......but I have noticed a slightly dusty taste in smaller lighter beers, but I interpret it more as the abscence of something rather than the prescence of something (if that makes sense?)
My only real criticism of Nottingham would be that it strips hop flavour, sometimes quite severely - and I've found with the last couple of brews 've done with it that it has attenuated more than I had expected or wanted. It dropped my latest ale to 1.005 (and yes I've checked it and checked it again with 2 hydro's and refract....) and it did it in 3 days from pitch to pretty much all dropped out. I thought that was quick and then I checked the gravity of the brew I pitched on Sunday night - OG at around 11pm Sunday night was 1.070, gravity is now 1.008.....  .....and it's even raised it's own temp to just under 23 degrees C from 18 degrees when pitched - seems the fridge didn;t keep up with it.......this one seems to have some decentish yeast character though as opposed to the brews I have done below 18 degrees.
I'd be interested to try the WLP039, who stocks it?


----------



## Stuster (27/11/07)

sluggerdog said:


> Bugger, I've just bought the Nottingham (DRY) for a series of summer ales (4%) I was plannning in the next week or two.
> 
> Maybe i need to rethink this and get the US-56.



What about an English yeast? IMO they're pretty good for low alcohol beers, giving a bit more character than US-05 and mostly a bit lower attenuation, which is usually a good thing in a low alc beer. There are heaps of liquids of course. Not sure if Windsor would work as I've never used it (but got some in the fridge ready to use). Anyway, just another option.


----------



## KoNG (27/11/07)

Linz said:


> Did the 'tasters' have prior knowledge about which beer was which??(I'm assuming No)



Linz it was possible that we could have been swayed by seeing bottle caps etc....
but it made NO difference either way....
there was quite a large gap between both the beers.
To tell you the truth i would have loved for the dry to shine and be just as good (i've been using dry yeasts for a year or so now, due to space constraints. but now have room to head back to liquid), that way i could let myself stick with the dry ranges....
but it wasnt to be, liquid was a clear winner

KoNG


----------



## jaytee (27/11/07)

> My only real criticism of Nottingham would be that it strips hop flavour,



I've got to agree Dom.

I've been doing 3kg Pale LME (lately equivilent amount BB Pale grain ), 250 medium crystal and 125gm choc for yonks with W1968 - 1.040 and 30 IBU.

Then I tried it with Nottingham (aka gervin in NZ).

The keg beer was very bland - thought I'd left out a hop addition - could've be a malt tonic for gran - but the bottled was flavoursome and great.

I know there's a diff between bottle & keg and there's age diffin the samples too, but this was severe

I have three or four house recipies and I've tried it on two, the pale is ok, going to try it on the b saaz ale when the grain arrives .. the jury's still out here

cheers, jt


----------



## dr K (27/11/07)

Sorry if I sort of flicked through the earlier posts before replying.
Is Nottingham Ale (dry yeast from Danstar I think) the same strain as WLP039 Nottingham Ale (a liquid yeast from Whitelabs) or is it that both strains use the word Nottingham.
If they are the same strain then it is worthwhile comparing apples and apples but I strongly suspect that they are not.
Now, as to whether the Danstar Nottingham Ale yeast is good or not, well, it has been a good workhorse for many years (and I have not used it for many years either) and my first thoughts are that Whitelabs are more likely (as would Wyeast) to market a single brewery strain (perhaps from the general area of Nottingham), particularly as it it is one of the Platinum strains rather than run with a fairly generic, workhorse that is, strain and ..liquefy it !!

K


----------



## Gerard_M (27/11/07)

First up I have to state that I am no great fan of dried yeasts. Yes they do a nice job, & yes I have used them in the past, but I prefer to use a White Labs vial. This is not a dry vs liquid type arguement & if it seems that way it is not intended to offend any of you "sprinklers". The question of whether they are the same strain that has been processed differently is a good one, & I thought that would have been raised much earlier. Maybe an email to Chris White could sort it out?

The beers both presented well, but one I finished & the other I tipped on the garden. There was a quality about the White Labs Nottingham version that set it apart. The balance of the hops & malt was pretty much spot on, but the flavours were presented fresh & clean, which left me very impressed. The Dry Nottingham left an odd dry bread like flavour, & lacked the hop aromas that were present in other beer. I guess Tim is quite fortunate that he can brew larger batches, making these type of comparisons a very interesting exercise. I will try the White Labs version next time it is available, the dried version won't get a run any time soon.



Linz said:


> Did the 'tasters' have prior knowledge about which beer was which??(I'm assuming No)


Linz, It wouldn't have made any difference, one beer was head & shoulders above the other.

Cheers
Gerard


----------



## Zizzle (27/11/07)

Gerard_M said:


> This is not a dry vs liquid type arguement & if it seems that way it is not intended to offend any of you "sprinklers".



Sssshhh... you are scaring all of us who have never been anything other than sprinklers.


----------



## dr K (28/11/07)

> First up I have to state that I am no great fan of dried yeasts. Yes they do a nice job, & yes I have used them in the past, but I prefer to use a White Labs vial. This is not a dry vs liquid type arguement & if it seems that way it is not intended to offend any of you "sprinklers". The question of whether they are the same strain that has been processed differently is a good one, & I thought that would have been raised much earlier. Maybe an email to Chris White could sort it out?


Fine, but I would have thought that as a Retailer and a Retailer of the yeast you prefer (Whitelabs) then you could have shed somewhat more light on what I had imagined was a fairly basic question.
Oh god, yes, we all know that US-05, 1056 and WLP001 seem to be the same strain and (yawn) the mother was Ballantynes IPA and (more yawning) that Zymurgy did a cross soporific on all three....
Still..no answer..let me put it another way: 
Is WLP039 a liquid version of a dried yeast that has been around for years or has there merely been some confusion ?
I know what I know.
K


----------



## Gerard_M (28/11/07)

dr K said:


> Fine, but I would have thought that as a Retailer and a Retailer of the yeast you prefer (Whitelabs) then you could have shed somewhat more light on what I had imagined was a fairly basic question. Is WLP039 a liquid version of a dried yeast that has been around for years or has there merely been some confusion ?
> I know what I know.
> K



K
I sent an email asking that question on Monday, when I get an answer I will post it here. 
Cheers
Gerard


----------



## Gerard_M (28/11/07)

Question asked
G'day Chris
Earlier this year I sold two vials of Nottingham WLP039, which has since caused a bit of discussion. Is this yeast in anyway related to the nottingham dried yeast by Danstar? Any info you are willing to share would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
Gerard Meares

I just found this in the inbox


It is similar to that strain, but not exactly the same. Thanks,

Chris
----------------------------

Christopher E White, Ph.D.

President, White Labs Inc.

Yeast and Fermentation

7564 Trade St. San Diego, CA, 92121 USA


----------



## Fatgodzilla (28/11/07)

Gerard_M said:


> Question asked
> G'day Chris
> Earlier this year I sold two vials of Nottingham WLP039, which has since caused a bit of discussion. Is this yeast in anyway related to the nottingham dried yeast by Danstar? Any info you are willing to share would be greatly appreciated.
> Cheers
> ...




Yes, I always thought dry Nottingham Ale Yeast was a dried version of a commercial yeast (think of someone drying the yeast after cultivating a Coopers Sparkling Ale yeast- and Coopers claim their yeast to be very, very old.). Got that idea from British sites. The liquid yeast is a derivitive of that commercial yeast. Time and tide sees these yeasts as close cousins (descendants of mutual grandparents, rather than from the same parent strain). That's what I thought as of about twelve months ago. Read nothing so far to sway me from that opinion.

Edit : Gran ma


----------



## troydo (14/12/07)

Well i made my "Pozzy Ale" using nottingham dry, 

70% Galaxy
20% Munich I
10% Wheat Malt, Pale

30.00 gm Cluster [7.00 %] (60 min) 22.4 IBU
10.00 gm Goldings, East Kent [4.30 %] (15 min) 2.3 IBU
10.00 gm Goldings, East Kent [4.30 %] (0 min)

This brew was desinged for the father in law and his cane farmer mates for thier Xmas party..

Tastes great, i don't notice any dustiness! Hopefully it will be a success!


----------

