wlp004 and wy1084 probably arent the Guinness strain

[ekul]

I was talking to a microbiologist friend today who has been comparing the genetics of wlp004, wy1084 with the Guinness strain. He found that whilst wlp084 and wy1084 are nearly genetically identical they are very different to the Guinness strain. In fact, both yeasts are more similar with wlp013 (london ale) than Guinness.

Thought it was an interesting tidbit.

And no he cant get the Guinness yeast for us, sadly the sample is gone. It was cultured up from a single spore from a bottle of guinness, took them a lot of bottles to find one. Must have been a **** day at the lab :chug: .

 

[Camo6]

Now I'm not a microbiologist by any means but how sure could they have been that the one spore they found was actually pure Guinness yeast? Someone needs to take one for the team and smuggle some out of a Guinness brewery.

 

[MHB]

Up until the late 1970's Guinness used live yeast in their bottles and casks, it became the mainstay of the UK home brewing community and has been kept alive and is still widely used there. This is I believe what Wyeast and White Labs have cultured.

When we are talking about big brewers these days everything is filtered and pasteurised and in the case of many brewers if a bottling/casking yeast is used it will be a different strain to the primary yeast, simply because a good fermenting yeast might not be an ideal secondary yeast and many brewers regard the yeast as proprietary and they don't want to share it! Guinness has also gone through a lot of changes (not all good ones from my POV) and may in fact be using a totally different yeast to that that made them famous.
Worth looking at what Coopers did with their yeast a decade or so ago, cleaned up from a mixed strain including some Brett, to a single pure culture, and yes you can taste the difference.

A single cell in a bottle is a pretty problematic sample to draw conclusions from, its as likely to be a "wild" yeast as the brewery yeast, just as likely to be contamination from the lab.
Not saying that it isn't what Guinness are using now, just that I would be very cautious drawing too many conclusions without a lot more evidence.
1084 is still my go-to yeast for stout brewing - what ever its pedigree.
Mark

 

[ekul]

Thats why I said probably isnt the Guinness yeast, its a very small sample size to draw conclusions from. I dont think it would have come from contamination from the lab but it could have been a rogue yeast from the brewery (one that survives the sterilisation process).

I thought it was interesting because I've heard a lot of people saying not to use the 1084 or wlp004 for guinness because it doesnt fit the profile and this could explain why.

Im going to talk to him further about whether he can compare the coopers bottled yeast to wlp009. They are very simililar (and both great yeasts) but not the same. This could be from mutation from sitting in the bottle or something else.

 

[elcarter]

A single cell in a bottle is a pretty problematic sample to draw conclusions from, its as likely to be a "wild" yeast as the brewery yeast, just as likely to be contamination from the lab.

Personally I'd say it's less likely to be a wild yeast. Wouldn't the amount of money at stake ensure that rigorous, proven process's were adhered too?

Certainly possible to be a wild strain but if it was extracted under proper process I'd have my money on it being what was used in the fermentation or bottle conditioning phase.

 

[MHB]

I put wild in parenthesis because its a technical term, refers to any yeast that isn't the intended strain, quite clearly the lab where the testing was done has had London ale in it (or they couldn't be doing the comparison). So the possibility of contamination is very real.
I would love to know what the reference Guinness strain is, as the tester is saying in effect that he knows what Guinness are using and it isn't W1084/WL084.

Meh - I have been following some of the gene sequencing work on yeast and think its interesting, and will eventually help with brewing, or at least with yeast selection, there are probably a lot fewer yeast strains used in brewing than we realise.
Good fun Mark

 

[ekul]

The reference was the spore they found in the guinness. He was very confident about his result so I personally dont doubt it but i can see how others would.

He is just getting into brewing all grain so hopefully he makes his way over to this forum eventually. He said a lot of the stuff he does could be done at home.

 

[mje1980]

More importantly, do Guinness make a starter?

 

[MastersBrewery]

More importantly, do Guinness make a starter?

how many kittens do they have and do they rehydrate?

 

[seamad]

What's the technique to find one viable spore in a bottle ? Luck wise it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack and instead finding the farmers daughter.

 

[Adr_0]

Sure that 1084 isn't Kilkenny?

 

[labels]

I've heard from a number of sources that Guinness now use a lager yeast, how true that is I don't know. But it does make sense. Lower power consumption for one thing and Guinness is not a yeast driven beer, in the case of Guinness draught it is more of a texture driven beer and the experience of the tight foam head sitting on top of a relatively flat, insipid black beer. I love Guinness by the way.

 

[Lemon]

Labels, I understand that for brewing under licence here in Aus, that CUB got approval to make Guinness with a lager yeast, because that's all CUB were familiar with.
FWIW
Lemon

 

[Blind Dog]

Labels, I understand that for brewing under licence here in Aus, that CUB got approval to make Guinness with a lager yeast, because that's all CUB were familiar with.
FWIW
Lemon

Given that the ?Guinness brewed here tastes like sh*t, it's hardly a recommendation.

 

[ekul]

I forgot to mention that the guy found 3x fpg in the yeast (foam producing gene). Which could explain the luxurious creamy head on a guinness

 

[Spiesy]

I forgot to mention that the guy found 3x fpg in the yeast (foam producing gene). Which could explain the luxurious creamy head on a guinness

Either that, or nitro.

 

[seamad]

nah, it's the microscopic scuba leprechauns that make the tiny bubbles.

 

[Dunkelbrau]

Labels, I understand that for brewing under licence here in Aus, that CUB got approval to make Guinness with a lager yeast, because that's all CUB were familiar with.
FWIW
Lemon

uhh.. CUB don't brew Guinness in Australia, Lion does.

 

[Bribie G]

Guinness was originally Brewed by Coopers till the 1970s when Tooheys got the gig. They got permission to use a lager yeast. CUB took over around 12 years ago and brewed at Yatala, on lager yeast. Lion have the gig once again.

When I lived in the UK all the bottled Guinness was done by local bottlers, often your regional soft drinks company.
It was sent over in special barges. As Mark says it was the mainstay of home brewers.

Current practice at St James Gate is to ferment for 40 hours, allowing to rise to just under 25. I've done this a few times with the Wyeast and it works fine.

Any rumours about lager Yeast probably got confused with Australian practice.

 

[MHB]

Guinness in Australia has indeed had a checkered history, something that probably should be made clear is that since the big two have been making it, the beer is brewed as a blond beer and then 3-4% "secret St James Gate flavour additive" is mixed in. From what I have heard, it's double strength stout made in Ireland, possibly infected with Lacto and/or Aceto (or maybe not any more), filtered, pasteurised, sterilised then shipped all over the world to flavour Guinness.

Where I have a problem with the OP is that the assumption that the yeast found in the Guinness is the yeast used in Ireland, not the yeast used to make 96-97% of the beer, that it isn't contamination/wild yeast picked up in the brewery either in Australia or Ireland, in transit, or in the lab where there has obviously been London Ale.

The other problem being that just because the single cell is thought to be from the Guinness, that has become a reference for Guinness yeast, that is very poor experimental procedure.

Far from sure that a sample of 1 cell is a safe sample to build a conclusion on.

Mark