Yeast for an Imperial Porter. In Between WLP-002 and WLP-007.

[Fat Bastard]

Well, like it says on the box. Looking for a yeast inbetween WLP-002, which I found didn't attenuate enough and WLP-007 which the NSW comp judges felt was too dry and tannic. Admittedly there was only 1 point between them in the scores, but I'm happy to take suggestions!

Cheers,

FB

 

[Blind Dog]

WLP023 / wyeast 1275

Fruity, complex and a little spicy. Good from 18C to 22C with more fruit at the higher end. Bit more attenuation than WLP002

 

[Mr. No-Tip]

007 and try again. If it was too dry, make your starting OG a bit higher. As for tannic, I don't think that's the yeast's fault. Also, sometimes judhes make shit up/do best guesses (guilty as charged your honour)

 

[Spiesy]

WLP005 is in between 002 and 007, both numerically and in character.

 

[Weizguy]

Have you considered the option of US-05 or the liquid equivalent, or even W1272?
W1028 (London) - attenuates well for me, as does W1187 (Ringwood) - with a large starter and/or agitation.

If you can get hold of some, maybe the Flying Dog yeast might be suitable. They make the Gonzo Imperial porter with it.
Maybe I can send you a stubbie of the clone I have and you can culture the yeast from it? Or maybe just a small starter?

Let me know, please.

007 and try again. If it was too dry, make your starting OG a bit higher. As for tannic, I don't think that's the yeast's fault. Also, sometimes judhes make shit up/do best guesses (guilty as charged your honour)

As I've been informed on several occasions, the judges can only tell you what they taste, and they should report any unusual flavours as detected. Yeah, sometimes it's a guess, but I normally check if the other judge tastes the same character.

 

[HBHB]

I've used Denny's Favourite with a big pitch in Imperial Porters up to about 1.090 worked well. Clean profile that lets the malt shine.

Alt is Nottingham with a pleasant ester profile in them.

 

[Fat Bastard]

007 and try again. If it was too dry, make your starting OG a bit higher. As for tannic, I don't think that's the yeast's fault. Also, sometimes judhes make shit up/do best guesses (guilty as charged your honour)

Yeah, I dunno... The brew I did this year was identical apart from the yeast. Judges last year both said it lacked complexity. it finshed up around 1.022. This years finished up at 1.016 and one judge said "Good Complexity" but both noted the dry and tannic finish. Didn't change anything else apart from the yeast, and the final runnings gravity and pH were well out of the range you'd expect tannins to be extracted. I can only put it down to the yeast at this stage.

Lez, PM sent!

 

[Spiesy]

Good chats

 

[ricardo]

Yeah, I dunno... The brew I did this year was identical apart from the yeast. Judges last year both said it lacked complexity. it finshed up around 1.022. This years finished up at 1.016 and one judge said "Good Complexity" but both noted the dry and tannic finish. Didn't change anything else apart from the yeast, and the final runnings gravity and pH were well out of the range you'd expect tannins to be extracted. I can only put it down to the yeast at this stage.

Lez, PM sent!

What was the OG on the beer that finished at 1.016? I'm planning on using WLP007 for a foreign stout with an OG of 1.076 and am targeting an FG in between 1.020 - 022. I'm planning on mashing quite high at at 67 but my fear with this yeast is that it could go down as low as 1.016