# 1272 Or 1056 For An Apa



## Alien boy (1/5/05)

................................


----------



## JasonY (1/5/05)

Personally I prefer 1272 (have 40L on the go now ). I know that Guest Lurker did a split batch which a number of us tried. I think the opinions differed. From memory the 1272 was clearer. 1272 will give you a more fruity profile which I like in combination with lots a cascades.

Anyway my vote goes for 1272.


----------



## Jazman (1/5/05)

sorry cant help i have used 1056 which is good i have got a sample of 1272 but i have also used the 1728,(scottish) which was good and now got one with the 1028 in the fermetor but so far that is good but a neutral yeast will work fine but the 1272 is spos to be more fuiter i think jayse prefers the 1272


----------



## GMK (1/5/05)

my vote goes for 1272 as well - just do a diacetyl rest for 2-3 days prior to CCing in the fridge for a min of 2 preferably 4 weeks.

use some amarillo and a little chinook - goes really well.


----------



## Gulf Brewery (1/5/05)

GMK said:


> my vote goes for 1272 as well - just do a diacetyl rest for 2-3 days prior to CCing in the fridge for a min of 2 preferably 4 weeks.
> [post="57072"][/post]​



GMK

What effect is a diacetyl rest going to have on a beer fermented at ale temperatures? You raise the temperature with lager yeasts to assist in the removal of diacetyl. An ale yeast should be fermented at around the same temperature you do a diacetyl rest for a lager, so overall, diacetyl rest in an ale = no effect.

Pedro


----------



## Gough (1/5/05)

I like the 1272 in a range of beers, but I don't think you can go wrong with either yeast in an APA. Both good yeasts, I tend to use the 1272 more often personally...

Shawn.


----------



## GMK (1/5/05)

OK - Flame suit on - i ahve brewed it at 18 degrees and then raised it to 22-24 for a couple of days - ie as in a diacetyl rest.
It cleans up and tastes better iMHO.

I have also read somewhere about a diacetyl rest benefiting ales - ie at a higher temp than priamry fermentation - cant find/remember the reference now.

I also CC my Ales - guess in your eyes tahts wrong too.

This is the best thing about brewing - u brew for u and use what works for you and what u like.

End of rant....
Glad i have a flame suit...


----------



## Gulf Brewery (1/5/05)

GMK

Get an ice bath ready, you are going to need it 

Raising your ale to 23/24 would be no different to leaving the ale at 19 for a day. Yeast scrubs the diacetyl from the beer after it has finished fermenting. It is more effective at 19C, that's why you raise lagers to that temperature. Raising an ale above its fermentation temperature is not going to make any difference. 

Pedro


----------



## GMK (1/5/05)

Ok - might have it a little skewed - here is an excert on a diacetyl rest for ales: ref: http://www.draymans.com/Articles/Diacetyl.php
Method 2
If a warmer primary fermentation temperature was used for ale or lager the diacetyl rest involves either lowering the beer temperature 2 or 3C at the end of primary fermentation or keeping it constant for up to 6 days. In lager yeast strains with low diacetyl production it is common practise nowadays to employ a short diacetyl rest followed by centrifuging to remove excess yeast and then crash cooling to 0C. When brewing ales, that should have very low diacetyl levels especially German Ales like Alt and Klsch, the implications are to not use highly flocculent yeast and to allow an extended primary fermentation, albeit at cooler temperatures until sufficiently low diacetyl levels are reached. Yeast that settles in the cone is still removed on a daily basis.

St pats web site states this:
Interestingly, ales can also benefit from a diacetyl rest on occasion. Fullers in London puts all of their ales through a diacetyl rest by actually lowering the temperature from 20C to 16-17C for one day. However, Fullers ferments under unusually high pressure (20 psi) which leads to high diacetyl.


----------



## GMK (1/5/05)

here is another excert from the yeast i was using tonight - wyeast 1968...

Wyeast 1968 Special London Activator Pack
Price: $6.50
Quantity in Basket: none

Probable origin: London, England 
Beer Styles: British Pale Ales, Special Bitters 

Commercial examples may include: Fullers London Pride, Young's and Greene Kings 

Unique properties: This extremely flocculant yeast produces distinctly malty beers. Attenuation levels are typically less than most other yeast strains making a slightly sweeter finish. Ales produced with this strain tend to be fairly fruity. Fruitiness increased with higher fermentation temperatures 70-74 F, (21-23 C). Diacetyl production is noticeable and a thorough rest; 50-70 F, (10-21 C) is necessary. Yeast traps trub easily and autolysis is possible. A very good cask conditioned ale strain due to thorough flocculation characteristics. Beers become readily bright within days. Brilliant beers easily achieved without any filtration. Alcohol tolerance approximately 9% ABV. Flocculation - high; apparent attenuation 67-71%. (64-72 F, 18-22 C)


----------



## sosman (1/5/05)

I have used 1056 and 1272 for APA's but not side by side or with exactly the same recipe so it is difficult to tell. The 1272 certainly comes up nicely and I find it is a good yeast for various other brews too.


----------



## Guest Lurker (1/5/05)

Yes I did a split batch, and about 10 AHB people tasted them side by side. As I recall nearly everyone was able to distinguish between 1056 and 1272 in a blind tasting, based on fruitiness, but opinions differed over which was the best. But, in that case the 1272 batch finished 2 points higher, and those that preferred the 1056 pointed out the lack of residual sweetness. So personally, I prefer 1272 now, which definitely accentuates hop fruitiness, but only if you pay attention to yeast health and get good attenuation.


----------



## Ross (2/5/05)

GMK,

I bring my ales up in temp for a couple of days at the end of ferment, as it really seems to knock those last few points off, don't think it has any diacetyl benefits though...


----------



## deebee (2/5/05)

I was at the taste test GL refers to and I preferred the 1272 by a flea's apendage. You could certainly tell them apart but they were very close and both great beers. Without having the beers in front of me (*sigh*) my memory tells me it was the fruitiness of the 1272 that won it for me.


----------



## warrenlw63 (2/5/05)

Having used both as much as I prefer 1272, I find 1056 a little more suitable for an APA.

1272 just reminds me of a fairly clean English Ale Yeast. Which means you could probably substitute a lot of English yeasts for it. This in some ways makes it more suitable for a wider variety of applications.

I like 1056 for its clean, dry neutral flavour. Lets the hops really jump out. Seems to rob the beer of a lot of malt flavours though. 

Warren -


----------



## Stratis (2/5/05)

I did a split batch once for an APA. The 1272 is a bit more estery and malty. If you want a nice clean APA which accentuates hops then go with the 1056.


----------



## jayse (2/5/05)

I like 1272 better aswell, but i must admit i haven't used 1056 in a couple years.
All the same I have tasted too many APA's from other brewers to even try to recall. In the end you could make a beer that is better than one used with the other yeast and next batch it might work the otherway around. Or another brewers spilt batch is better with the other yeast.
Some brewers spilt batchs i think may be very easy to pick the difference in the two but i would also pressume some brewers could make beers where you couldn't tell them apart that easily.
Anyway in the end for me 1272 has more of a 'wow' factor. 
You don't really get references to 'wow' in brewing text but its there.



The song remains the same.
Jayse


----------



## Darren (2/5/05)

1056, clean and dry


----------



## Mr Bond (24/1/06)

Doing some research(via the search function) and came across this thread,thought it was worth a drag up.

I will(thanks to a brew buddy) be getting some 1272 soon,and thinking of trying it on an APA.
Given that its a little more fruity in the finish would it be wise to up the IBU's by 5 or more.I was thinking 36 ish, but may be able to get away with 42 ish.

For the record I will use a combination of challenger and cascade for the experiment.

Any one got anything to add. 

Meanwhile I'm reading my way through the skunkfart thread(again  ) to try and arrive at a Grain bill.
Ahhhh....the possibilites

Of course there is still the aussie pale to bottle, the dunkel weizen to rack and another weizen variation (with a little munich)to be brewed this weekend(cool spell).

Cheers dave.


----------



## Ross (24/1/06)

Brauluver,

I haven't tried the 1272, but guess it's long overdue to do so. I love the 1056 but also the ESB 1968 works really well. Recently used the London III 1318, in a Summer Ale & an American Amber - both have turned out really nice & given me the lower FG I was after...

cheers Ross


----------



## Aaron (24/1/06)

Ross said:


> Brauluver,
> 
> I haven't tried the 1272, but guess it's long overdue to do so. I love the 1056 but also the ESB 1968 works really well. Recently used the London III 1318, in a Summer Ale & an American Amber - both have turned out really nice & given me the lower FG I was after...
> 
> ...


1318 is a sensational yeast in my opinion. I use it in all my American Ales and it comes out fantastically. I have never used 1056 but I have used 1272. I really didn't like 1272 but they be as much the beer I used it in as anything to do with the yeast it's self. I did get a significant amount of diacetyl in my beer even though it was fermented at a normal ale temperature. That said I have not heard of anyone else having this result with 1272.


----------



## BoilerBoy (24/1/06)

I have used 1272 a number of times with what I would describe as disapointing results.

I kept thinking it was me who was doing something wrong when I kept getting this strange "hard to describe" aftertaste, yet it only ever occurred with this particular yeast. I"ve bought it 3 different times thinking I have to be stuffing up somewhere, but always with the samw result!

It really is intensely fruity and smells absolutely fantastic! a real delightful fragrant aroma, but for me after many goes I cant get used to that taste , I will be definitely trying an alternative option for APA"S now.

Alot of people swear by it, I guess its an aquirred tatste but worth a go .....You just might like it!

Cheers
BB


----------



## Mr Bond (24/1/06)

BoilerBoy said:


> I have used 1272 a number of times with what I would describe as disapointing results.
> 
> I kept thinking it was me who was doing something wrong when I kept getting this strange "hard to describe" aftertaste, yet it only ever occurred with this particular yeast. I"ve bought it 3 different times thinking I have to be stuffing up somewhere, but always with the samw result!
> 
> ...



Lucky for me,my brew buddy will be supplying a beer that was made with this yeast for me to taste as well.If I have any doubts I'll resort to the good ol 56 for safety/conformity.


----------



## Jazman (24/1/06)

i know a few brewers who love the 1272 and i dont miond th 1056 it is netural but i fing a good english yeast makes good a apa


----------



## BoilerBoy (24/1/06)

Yeah I'm going to try an English yeast with my next apa. I have the 1968 ESB and the 1335 British Ale 2 to try though I believe the 1028 is a good yeast also.

The 1272 is a favourite for alot of brewers which is why I Tried it in the first place I guess I'm just a philistine.
Probably a good name for a brewery that" Philistine Brewing"  

Cheers BB


----------



## Stuster (24/1/06)

Aaron said:


> I did get a significant amount of diacetyl in my beer even though it was fermented at a normal ale temperature. That said I have not heard of anyone else having this result with 1272.
> [post="104422"][/post]​



So that's what it is. I was wondering about the diacetyl taste in the beers I've made with this yeast. Thought it must be something about my process, but maybe I'm off the hook.



> It really is intensely fruity and smells absolutely fantastic! a real delightful fragrant aroma, but for me after many goes I cant get used to that taste



I agree with you boilerboy. The taste just doesn't live up to the smell. :unsure: 

Just drinking an Adnams Suffolk Strong Bitter. Very nice. I'm trying to culture up some of that yeast, apparently the same as WLP025 Southwold Ale. Maybe I should try that in an APA.


----------



## warrenlw63 (25/1/06)

Brauluver said:


> Given that its a little more fruity in the finish would it be wise to up the IBU's by 5 or more.I was thinking 36 ish, but may be able to get away with 42 ish.
> [post="104404"][/post]​



Brauluver.

I'll stick my own limited experience's worth of 2 bob to this. :lol: 

IBU relevance to the yeast should really account for nothing. Use the same amount of hops for 1272 as you would for 1056. Beers from both yeasts will of course be different. One yeast not being better than the other yeast... Just different. 

Contrary to what others may say my experience with 1272 is that it's a nice yeast. Fruiter and probably a bit more charismatic than 1056 with no strange aftertastes whatsoever.  This comes from limited experience with my own use of it and a very nice example via another brewer.  

Don't get too hung up on a grainbill for an APA. You can use Ale malt and crystal, Pils malt and crystal, or as I like to do with this style a 50/50 combination of Ale and Pils and some colour/crystal malts. Even add small amounts 10% or so of Vienna and/or Munich Malt to the bill. No magical numbers are really required. Just a nice, honest malt backbone to balance the hops.

Stay around the 40 IBU region and most probably be more experimental with your hop additons (particularly later ones) as opposed to your grainbill. 

Oh, and I almost forgot. Use lots of Amarillo.  

Also while British yeasts would be an OK choice. That said why not run horses for courses first and stay truer to style? IMO the use of British yeasts will lean you more towards the experimental British new-age styles of bitter that some UK micros are serving up now. Once again great beers, no better or worse, just different. 

Warren -


----------



## Gout (25/1/06)

I made a APA (70Lt) and brewed half with 1056 and the other half with CL50 yeast, both off slants and started the same time same freezer same temp etc etc

the CL50 ended up a much better beer to me. was clear and bright also, and dropped further in gravity. great beer, the 1056 was ok but i wont use it now, rather the cl50 for my apa's


----------



## Beer Krout (8/4/06)

I have used the 1272 a few times as well in two APA's and an Amber

Originally I was quite happy with it. 

My APA aroma was fantastic made with Amarillo and Cascade. 

The initial taste does have a nutty "oily" sensation which is fine.

I was less impressed with the "tart" aftertaste. Although I'm sure this tartness wasn't apparent till summer. In some cases I couldn't finish a brew due to this aftertaste.

It's a pity that I enjoy most other aspects of the yeast, but this aftertaste has put me off the yeast.

Due to my early successes, I may use this yeast once more, under stricter brewing and storage temperatures and see if this minimises the "tart" aftertaste.

BK

Any thoughts?


----------



## JasonY (8/4/06)

BK, I have used 1272 a stack of times and I wouldn't blame it for a tart aftertaste. I would suspect some kind of infection or perhaps the brew is over bittered? Certainly the hop aroma will drop off with time, these brews are best drunk fresh IMHO.

I wouldn't put it down to the yeast personally.


----------



## NRB (8/4/06)

I agree with JasonY, tart is definitely not in the flavour profile of 1272 from my experience.


----------



## Beer Krout (8/4/06)

JasonY said:


> BK, I have used 1272 a stack of times and I wouldn't blame it for a tart aftertaste. I would suspect some kind of infection or perhaps the brew is over bittered? Certainly the hop aroma will drop off with time, these brews are best drunk fresh IMHO.
> 
> I wouldn't put it down to the yeast personally.
> [post="119055"][/post]​



Hi JasonY & NRB

I had figured this was part of the yeast after reading the wyeast website entry on 1272.

_1272 American Ale Yeast II. Fruitier and more flocculent than 1056, slightly nutty, soft, clean, *slightly tart finish*. Accentuates hop character at warmer fermentation temperatures with intense fruitiness. Flocculation - high; apparent attenuation 72-76%. (60-72 F, 15-22 C)_
Reference Here

I'd like to think I have ruled out infections as a factor, as I have tried this yeast three times myself and also drunk a mates brew that used this yeast.

Interested to hear that you didn't taste the "slightly tart finish". 
That's good news. I'm more likely to try it again under strict temperature storage regimes, if that does help me avoid that aftertaste.

Note. During summer my entire house got pretty hot and I store my beer in a "cool" dark bedroom, which may have contributed to this flavour profile.

Thanks for your replies.

BK


----------



## Ross (8/4/06)

Beer Krout,

There's a difference in a yeast creating "a slightly tart finish" & one that you can't drink after it's been in the keg/bottle awhile. I'm assuming it tastes fine before kegging/bottling.

I'd be looking at your recipe formulation & possible infection taking hold, before blaming the yeast...

cheers Ross


----------



## Beer Krout (8/4/06)

Ross

Your quite correct I should look at all that stuff first. 
And before posting this, I did.

I've used this yeast three times before I decided to comment.

My friend has used this yeast also, in an AG brew, and gave me three bottles. The first two were fantastic, but the last one. I tried after our first hot spell last year and I couldn't believe it was the same brew.

At one stage last year I was concerned about my brewing practises, so I joined the local homebrewers club and am now pretty confident that they are fine.

I almost certain now that heating a bottle brewed with 1272 to 30+ degrees with bring out the tartness in its flavour profile. Just something to note for the archive for anyone using this yeast.

I'm betting that Ross, JasonY and NRB have their bottles/kegs stored in a nice constant temperature area and hopefully will never encounter this issue.

I'm not denying this is a good yeast. I'm just recommending a note of caution on storage temperatures.

BK.


----------



## Ross (8/4/06)

Beer Krout said:


> I almost certain now that heating a bottle brewed with 1272 to 30+ degrees with bring out the tartness in its flavour profile. Just something to note for the archive for anyone using this yeast.
> 
> [post="119112"][/post]​



i think you've just solved your own problem...

Especially if the yeast is still active, 30+ degrees is certainly going to affect the flavour profile of your brew diversely. Also, beer will not keep to well at those temps either. 
i don't think any yeast will give good results at those sort of temps...

cheers Ross


----------



## BoilerBoy (8/4/06)

I agree with most of what Beer krout is saying,

I have torn my hair out trying to get better results with this yeast and it really rattled my confidence with my brewing methods.

I examined everything over and over, but I never had the same problems with any other yeast. It just must be a persoal taste thing, I remember struggling through those brews and grimacing through that aftertaste wondering what have I done wrong? Yet the same recipes with different yeasts have been fine.

Its just not a yeast I would choose to use anymore, but would never dissuade anyone from trying it because they just may like it.

Cheers 
BB


----------



## Trough Lolly (10/4/06)

GMK said:


> OK - Flame suit on - i ahve brewed it at 18 degrees and then raised it to 22-24 for a couple of days - ie as in a diacetyl rest.
> It cleans up and tastes better iMHO.
> 
> I have also read somewhere about a diacetyl rest benefiting ales - ie at a higher temp than priamry fermentation - cant find/remember the reference now.
> [post="57085"][/post]​



G'day Ken,
You mention doing a diacetyl rest by raising ale fermentation temps, but all the articles that you quoted specifically mention the lowering of the temp for the ale for this so-called rest! Methinks these learned scholars are getting a diacetyl rest confused with cold conditioning?

Lets think about it: if an ale that's fermented warm has diacetyl present, then how the hell is the ale yeast going to scrub the diaceytl out of the beer when the temp of the beer is dropped???
As Ross points out, in certain circumstances I've pushed the ale up a couple of degrees to resume fermentation when the beer appears to have stuck short of the desired final gravity - but the risk there is the introduction of fusels and other undesireable contributions when I raise fermentation temps.

As for yeast, I prefer a clean finishing 1056 (Chico / Sierra Nevada Pale Ale strain) to 1272 in APA's...but only just, and it's only my personal preference. If I want a pale ale with a slightly fruity note, I'll brew an ESB with 1272!!

Cheers,
TL


----------



## Jim - Perth (10/4/06)

TL's right it is pesonal opinion but I must say, for my taste, 1056 is too clean, dry & neutral - I prefer 1272 for an APA.
J


----------



## Borret (10/4/06)

The first time I used 1272 I did notice a back ground tartness in the finish as you say. I fermented this beer at 18deg. 
Next brew was closer to 20 deg and it was still detectable but subsided fast. It had me beat as to what it was at the time and remember discussing it's handling with Gough and deciding maybe it was just not my yeast.
More recent incarnations with this yeast (all from the same original culture too) have been brewed at around 22 deg where to my palette the fruitiness/nutiness has increased slightly as planned but the tartness aftertaste has dropped off. Maybe my palette is a changin but I'm thinking it's the hadling of the yeast that has also contributed.
FWIW Although not best practice- some of the early brews linger in limited numbers in the garage where it's damb hot in summer. They get tried from time to time and have certainly not increased in this flavour any.

I've not used 1056 so can't compare here.

Brent


----------



## Gough (10/4/06)

FWIW I've used both yeasts and like the results both give. As has been said plenty of times the 1056 is the cleaner finisher of the two. Personally I much prefer the 1272 in APAs and a range of other ales. I like the extra 'fruitiness' it gives, but don't find it at all overpowering when fermented at high teens temps. I fermented it warmer (21-22) in a British Bitter style as well to increase the fruitiness with pleasing results.

Basically you can't go wrong with either in an APA. There is a very subtle 'tartness', or nuttiness perhaps with the 1272 that is part of its character and something I like. I've never had an overwhelming tartness from it - maybe something else is going on in your ferment producing that?

Shawn.


----------



## Trough Lolly (10/4/06)

Jim - Perth said:


> TL's right it is pesonal opinion but I must say, for my taste, 1056 is too clean, dry & neutral - I prefer 1272 for an APA.
> J
> [post="119393"][/post]​



G'day Jim,
That's exactly why I prefer 1056 - a clean neutral finish that lets the malt and hops do the talking! B) 

Cheers,
TL


----------

