Nottingham Dry Yeast Vs Wlp039 Nottingham Ale

[Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

hmmm

 

[sluggerdog]

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]

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]

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

 

[randyrob]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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