Lallemand Windsor.

[peebee]

Do think what printed "attenuation" is trying to tell you. It isn't the limit for a yeast, but it is an indication of how a yeast copes with a wort. Give any yeast a pure maltose solution of say about 1.040, and they will all record 90-100% attenuation (small differences due to alcohol tolerance, flocculation, and the like). But for the printed attenuation figures they are given a "standard" wort containing a range of different sugars (maltose of course, but also maltotriose, maltotetraose, etc.).

The attenuation figure doesn't tell you how much sugar the yeast will consume, but does indicate how well it will deal with complex sugars.

I have got 80% out of a yeast only rated at 68-72% simply by manipulating mash temperatures. ( Victorian Bitter | The Homebrew Forum - Homebrewing Forums )

Windsor is a terrific yeast if you need something a bit dextrin (maltotriose, etc.) adverse. I generally use S-33, but I'm led to believe it and "Windsor" are the same. It annoys me when people get all uppity when the Windsor (S-33) doesn't meet their expectation for fermenting out dry. They should use a different yeast! Go back to "Nottingham" yeast or the inane US-05 and leave "Windsor" for those that know they want it!

But like in the OP; I can't understand why Windsor is called a "medium" attenuator. If anyone knows of a "low" attenuator, I'd like to hear of it!

 

[dmtaylor]

But like in the OP; I can't understand why Windsor is called a "medium" attenuator. If anyone knows of a "low" attenuator, I'd like to hear of it!

Indeed, when we refer to the manufacturers, the scale only goes from medium to high -- there is no low! Scientists (like me) who understand the importance of normalization of data know then that this really means medium = low, "medium-high" = medium, and high = high.

As the very definition of "low", the dictionary/reference should point to... WINDSOR. Folks, this strain is as low an attenuator as any commercialized yeast will take us.

 

[jayk34]

Do think what printed "attenuation" is trying to tell you. It isn't the limit for a yeast, but it is an indication of how a yeast copes with a wort. Give any yeast a pure maltose solution of say about 1.040, and they will all record 90-100% attenuation (small differences due to alcohol tolerance, flocculation, and the like). But for the printed attenuation figures they are given a "standard" wort containing a range of different sugars (maltose of course, but also maltotriose, maltotetraose, etc.).

The attenuation figure doesn't tell you how much sugar the yeast will consume, but does indicate how well it will deal with complex sugars.

I have got 80% out of a yeast only rated at 68-72% simply by manipulating mash temperatures. ( Victorian Bitter | The Homebrew Forum - Homebrewing Forums )

Windsor is a terrific yeast if you need something a bit dextrin (maltotriose, etc.) adverse. I generally use S-33, but I'm led to believe it and "Windsor" are the same. It annoys me when people get all uppity when the Windsor (S-33) doesn't meet their expectation for fermenting out dry. They should use a different yeast! Go back to "Nottingham" yeast or the inane US-05 and leave "Windsor" for those that know they want it!

But like in the OP; I can't understand why Windsor is called a "medium" attenuator. If anyone knows of a "low" attenuator, I'd like to hear of it!

Everydays a school day !

 

[Alastair70]

Here’s how the Irish Red turned out, 70% attenuation. It was pitched at 20C into well aerated wort and fermentation temp was rock steady throughout.

I’m not a fan of how the beer ended up tasting. I’ll be adding either WLP004 or wy1084 to the yeast bank now I’ve got the fridge space to propagate and store a few strains, and running with that next time.

 

[marshbrewer]

I generally use S-33, but I'm led to believe it and "Windsor" are the same

I don't think they are; the gene sequence charts that are floating around the net (or whatever their proper name is!) show s-33 and Windsor very close on the same branch, but different all the same.

 

[jayk34]

I'm due to bottle oatmeal stout on Friday and will finish at 1.019. might be a bit out depending on krausen on lid of ispindle but never more than a few points.

 

[peebee]

I don't think they are; the gene sequence charts that are floating around the net (or whatever their proper name is!) show s-33 and Windsor very close on the same branch, but different all the same.

Suits me. I can't imagine them to be identical.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I don't think they are; the gene sequence charts that are floating around the net (or whatever their proper name is!) show s-33 and Windsor very close on the same branch, but different all the same.

Unless they come from the very same vial, every yeast is a little bit different - even US-05 in 2019 has mutated slightly compared to 2018 (and someone has quantified exactly what mutations have happened in that case). In Suregork's cladograms you'll see how different strains are different even when we know that they have the same origins, like the Wyeast and White Labs versions of Ringwood, or the different members of the Chico family. You'll see the differences between Windsor and S-33 are of a similar magnitude, which is consistent with them both coming from the old EDME homebrew yeast. So not the same, but closely related and we know that they brew fairly similarly.

OTOH, you've got to be a bit wary of reading too much into genetic relationships as just one gene can make a huge difference - if you have identical twins with a mutation in just one sex-determining gene, one will be male and one will be female, you don't get much more different than that! On the flip side, Prince William looks quite similar to Prince Edward at the same age even though they only share 50% of their bloodlines. (but then compare Prince Harry and Princess Anne, who have the same relationship but are very different).

So it is with yeast, S-33 and Windsor are like a William/Edward relationship, whereas T-58 is essentially a Windsor/S-33 with a phenolic gene cassette that makes a very obvious flavour contribution, so might be considered more of a Harry/Anne relationship.

On the other hand, it's debatable how realistic it is to use yeasts that attenuate to <70% in standard worts. Commercial brewers are very interested in high attenuation to maximise the amount of alcohol, and in the commercial world the ancestor of Windsor was in a multistrain with the ancestor of Nottingham, so Windsor wouldn't have been on its own. I can just about see a place for it if you're trying to recreate the poor attenuation of historical beers made when malting technology wasn't so good, but not otherwise.

Whilst I'm here, Windsor has a bit of a reputation for cloudy beer. IME it's a classic example of a yeast that drops well but doesn't flocculate ("stick"). So you can make beautifully clear beer with it, but it "puffs up" very easily. So you need to pour it really carefully from a bottle and probably isn't well suited to in-keg fermentation. But adding a pinch of Notty/Wilko after high krausen should help stick it (but is not ideal if you plan to reuse the yeast cake).

 

[Slid]

I tried the Windsor / Nottingham yeast combination and it flocculated oddly, in the sense that big clumps of yeast formed, did not stick to the sides of the bottles and dropped into the glass even with a rack to secondary FV.