This xBmt was completed by a member of The Brü Club in collaboration with Brülosophy as a part of The Brü Club xBmt Series. While members who choose to participate in this series generally take inspiration from Brülosophy, the bulk of design, writing, and editing is handled by members unless otherwise specified. Articles featured on Brulosophy.com are selected by The Brü Club leadership prior to being submitted for publication. Visit The Brü Club Facebook Group for more information on this series.
Author: Matt Skillstad
For reasons including shelf-life, price, and ease of use, I prefer having a stock of dry yeast to choose from rather than having to plan my brews around ordering liquid yeasts. However, some brewers seem to believe dry yeasts produce a lower quality beer, a claim that’s cause for consideration among anyone who wants to make the best beer possible.
I performed this xBmt last Fall, which is Brown Ale season for me, the malty flavors a perfect accompaniment to the changing weather. Brown ale was my gateway craft beer and opened me up to darker styles I still enjoy to this day. I’ve brewed numerous batches of Brown Ale with different types of yeast, but I’ve yet to have success when using dry versions.
My go to yeast when brewing this style is the Fuller’s strain and it seems most labs have available for purchase. A popular liquid version is Imperial Yeast A09 Pub, which I’ve used numerous times and have come to enjoy quite a bit. Recently, I heard Lallemand was producing a dry yeast they call London ESB that’s described as being a “true English ale strain selected for reliable fermentation performance and moderate ester production.” While the description sounded promising and seemed similar to my preferred liquid yeast, London ESB yeast has been noted not to have been sourced from the Fuller’s Brewery. With scant and inconsistent reviews, I decided to do the compare them for myself.
| PURPOSE |
To evaluate the differences between beers fermented with either Imperial Yeast A09 Pub or Lallemand London ESB yeast.
| METHODS |
For this xBmt, I went with a variation on my American Brown Ale recipe.
An English Autumn
Recipe Details
| Batch Size | Boil Time | IBU | SRM | Est. OG | Est. FG | ABV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 gal | 40 min | 30.2 IBUs | 20.9 SRM | 1.056 | 1.019 | 4.9 % |
| Actuals | 1.056 | 1.013 | 5.7 % | |||
Fermentables
| Name | Amount | % |
|---|---|---|
| Pale Malt (2 Row), Rahr | 10 lbs | 83.33 |
| Crystal Dark - 77L (Crisp) | 1 lbs | 8.33 |
| Chocolate (Briess) | 8 oz | 4.17 |
| Victory Malt | 8 oz | 4.17 |
Hops
| Name | Amount | Time | Use | Form | Alpha % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nugget | 14 g | 45 min | First Wort | Pellet | 12.3 |
| Willamette | 28 g | 10 min | Boil | Pellet | 5.1 |
| Crystal | 28 g | 0 min | Boil | Pellet | 3.3 |
Yeast
| Name | Lab | Attenuation | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imperial Yeast A09 Pub OR Lallemand London ESB | 72% | 64°F - 70°F |
Notes
| Water Profile: Ca 100 | Mg 10 | Na 24 | SO4 55 | Cl 60 |
Download
| Download this recipe's BeerXML file |
The day before brewing, I measured out two identical sets of grain then milled them directly into Brew Bags.
I then filtered the full volume of brewing water, which was adjusted to my desired profile.
The next morning, I heated the water, added the grains, and checked the mash temperature before weighing out the kettle hops.
At the end of each 60 minute mash rest, I hoisted the grain bag out of the kettle and allowed it to drain as I began heating the sweet wort.
The wort was boiled for 45 minutes with hops added at the times listed in the recipe. Once the boil was complete, I quickly chilled the wort with my IC.
A refractometer reading showed the wort was right at my target OG.
The wort was then evenly split between two sanitized stainless fermenters.
The filled fermenters were placed next to each other in my chamber controlled to 68°F/20°C, at which point I pitched the yeast, one receiving a pouch of Imperial Yeast A09 Pub while the other received a sachet of Lallemand London ESB yeast.
I observed activity in the London ESB beer later that evening, roughly 12 hours post-pitch, while both were kicking along similarly the following morning. Each fermenter was then connected to a sanitized keg with a disconnect on the gas post for venting, thus using the naturally produced CO2 to purge the keg of oxygen.
After 2 weeks, I took hydrometer measurements showing the beer fermented with Imperial Yeast A09 Pub attenuated more than the one fermented with Lallemand London ESB yeast.
I then racked the beers into the naturally purged kegs.
The filled kegs were placed in my kegerator, burst carbonated, and left to condition for a few weeks before they were served to tasters.
| RESULTS |
A total of 17 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 1 sample of the beer fermented with Imperial Yeast A09 Pub and 2 samples of the beer fermented with Lallemand London ESB yeast in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. A total of 10 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, though only 8 did (p=0.17), indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a Brown Ale fermented with Imperial Yeast A09 Pub from one fermented with Lallemand London ESB yeast.
My Impressions: I attempted 4 triangle tests and got it correct 3 times, though it largely felt like guessing. These beers were extremely similar. If I had to identify differences, I’d say the beer fermented with Imperial Yeast A09 Pub was a little more toasty and roasty while the one fermented with Lallemand ESB was just a touch creamier. I really enjoyed both beers equally!
| DISCUSSION |
As a busy father of 5, I prefer the flexibility and ease-of-use that dry yeast offers, but for certain styles I settled on liquid yeasts due mostly to a lack of dry options. For example, when making Brown Ale, I prefer the Fuller’s strain and have been using Imperial Yeast A09 Pub, in part because I’d never found a dry substitute I was happy with. After learning about Lallemand London ESB, I was curious to see how it compared to my go-to. Interestingly, despite purportedly being sourced from different breweries, tasters in this xBmt were unable to reliably tell apart beers fermented with either Imperial Yeast A09 Pub or Lallemand London ESB.
While the sensory results were not significant, there were some observed differences worth considering, primarily in terms of attenuation– whereas the beer fermented with Imperial Yeast A09 Pub finished at 1.013 FG for an apparent attenuation of 76%, the Lallemand London ESB beer finished at 1.020 FG for an apparent attenuation of just 63%. As such, the beers had an ABV difference of nearly 1%, which apparently wasn’t enough for tasters in this xBmt to perceive. Personally, I was shocked the beer fermented with Lallemand London ESB wasn’t overly sweet given the higher FG.
Seeing as Imperial Yeast A09 Pub and Lallemand London ESB were sourced from different breweries and go through vastly different production processes, we can’t say they can be used interchangeably to produce the same outcome. They are different. But, the results of this xBmt do suggest either can be used to produce a Brown Ale similar enough for many not to notice a difference, and it’s possible this is case for other styles as well. While I’ll continue to use liquid yeast, I definitely plan to keep a couple packs of London ESB on hand for its ease-of-use, though I’ll consider adjusting my mash temperature to account for the lower attenuation.
Matt Skillstad is a happy husband to a wonderful wife (who likes his beer!) and proud father of 5 children under 7 years old from Pierce, Nebraska. He has been brewing since 2011 and, in addition to The Brü Club, is a member of the Elkhorn Valley Society of Brewers. He enjoys experimenting with his brewing in an effort to make better beer in less time with less effort. When not brewing or hanging with his family, Matt enjoys bike riding and golfing (poorly).
If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!
Support Brülosophy In Style!
All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!
Follow Brülosophy on:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!
43 thoughts on “The Brü Club xBmt Series | Yeast Comparison: Imperial Yeast A09 Pub vs. Lallemand London ESB In American Brown Ale”
Did you re-hydrate the dry yeast before pitching?
No, just sprinkled it on.
I’m wondering if it would have made any difference? Most Lallemand packets say to re-hydrate before pitching.
@Jamy I haven’t noticed a difference between rehydrating and direct-pitch at 100gal batch sizes (500g bricks). That doesn’t mean there aren’t any, but I can assure you that pitching without rehydrating at 166.67 grams/BBL doesn’t harm your beer.
May I ask why you compared ~200B cells of A09 Pub yeast to ~55B cells of London ESB yeast?
Reference: https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/united-states/product-details/london-esb-english-style-ale-yeast/
Pitching rate/cell count for dry yeast is a crap shoot in my opinion. I understand that Lallemand quotes 55bil for 11grams, but dry yeast companies seem to sand bag their numbers for cells per gram. In my recollection people who have done cell counts on dry yeasts have typically found the numbers to be closer to 200billion per 11g pack. I’m sure that varies though…. Additionally if I go by Lallemands pitching rate calculator it only calls for about 66bil cells / 13g for 5gal of 1.056 beer with this strain…… Ultimately I tested it the way I would use it because that’s what I wanted to know about. When I use dry yeast, I use 1 pack (maybe 2 if high OG). I can agree that it might be interesting to do the comparison again with an equal cell count, but personally I would never use almost 4 packs of dry yeast in 5gal of moderate gravity beer.
When I go to their pitching calculator, https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/en/australia/brewers-corner/brewing-tools/pitching-rate-calculator/ , I get 23g New England Yeast for 5g of 1.056 OG.
This was London (ESB). New England is a different strain. They call for a higher pitching rate with New England.
Well, you have a sample showing signs of a severe underpitch, a pro brewer (who uses dry yeast) calling you out for not using a datasheet, with said datasheet showing you severely underpitched.
Do what you want to do.
Greg, as an aside, London ESB has a high tendency to stall at 5° for whatever reason. I’ve seen it discussed in homebrewing and professional brewing forums before using it myself. In two brews, I’ve had London ESB ferment an OB to 3.2°P (69% AA) and an oatmeal stout to 5°P (63% AA). The finicky nature of London ESB seems to be much more dependent on mash temperature than pitch count IMHO.
Greg, what “signs of a severe underpitch”? If I read the write-up correctly, the dry yeast started fermenting sooner and produced a beer that was not discernibly different according to the results of the blind sensory tests. While the London ESB did not attenuate as far as the A09, that is to be expected since it can’t utilize all the same sugars.
Furthermore, he pretty closely followed the pitch recommendations from the manufacturer, as he used 11g and they recommend 13.25g.
If it were me doing the experiment, I would have done it differently than Matt did (I’d sub-culture each strain, make equal starters, and pitch those). However, since Matt was trying to see if London ESB would substitute for A09 Pub using his standard practices for each yeast type, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to consider both pitch rate and yeast form (dry vs liquid) functions of the variable that he was trying to test. In fact, if he had done it my way, the experiment would not have tested what he wanted to test.
@Joe While I appreciate the response, you can’t compare yeast strains, especially with the premise that they may be identical, unless you have identical pitch rates.
This test didn’t produce identical beers, and one of the reasons that happened was because the pitch rates were different. The beer with less yeast finished sweeter. The correct amount of dry yeast to use for this test–to ensure the samples had the same amount of yeast–was approximately 40 grams, per the datasheet.
Lallemand’s recommended pitch rates are different than Imperial’s.
Now, as @PerzellBrewing aptly noted, there’s some discussion over London’s ability to ferment maltotriose, despite being STA1-negative.
Overall, this is something I want to take back to the brewery and test on my own, with cell counts.
Do it and we’ll happily share your results with the masses!
Sweet! Will do.
Badass! Shoot me an email, we’ll set it up.
“This test didn’t produce identical beers, and one of the reasons that happened was because the pitch rates were different”
Was that a reason? We definitely don’t have enough information to say for certain that it was, and it actually seems unlikely given the totality of information about recommended pitch rates and known metabolic capabilities of the yeast strain.
“The beer with less yeast finished sweeter”
Did it? The blind tasters didn’t seem to notice that. Even Matt, knowing full well the difference in FG, didn’t note such a difference.
“The correct amount of dry yeast to use for this test–to ensure the samples had the same amount of yeast–was approximately 40 grams, per the datasheet.”
To quote the spec sheet “For London yeast, a pitch rate of 50 – 100g per hL of wort is sufficient to achieve optimal results for most fermentations.” As 5 gallons is a little under 0.2 hL, that would give a recommended pitch of 10-20 g dry yeast, perfectly in line with the 11 g used. The spec sheet goes on to recommend using the pitch rate calculator on their website, which is where the 13.25 g recommendation comes from.
“Lallemand’s recommended pitch rates are different than Imperial’s.”
Agreed. Imperial provides a calculator (https://www.imperialyeast.com/resources/calculators/) that for this beer recommends using 1 pouch, which Matt did. Lallemand’s spec sheet for this yeast recommends using 10-20 g, which Matt did.
“Now, as @PerzellBrewing aptly noted, there’s some discussion over London’s ability to ferment maltotriose”
Doesn’t sound like much of a discussion, but more like a declaration that London does not ferment maltotriose, consistent with anecdotal evidence (and the results of this test) that it’s a poor attenuator.
“Overall, this is something I want to take back to the brewery and test on my own, with cell counts.”
This would be fantastic! While I doubt you’d get a different result, we won’t know unless you try.
I really enjoy your tests, they appeal to the chemical engineer in me. I wonder about impact of yeast strains – can the use of an inappropriate yeast(say Safale 05) be detected compared to A09 Pub yeast in your brown ale?
I’d like to see this experiment done with an English bitter of some type or even an English brown ale done with more moderate hopping. Brewing to the high end of an American style category in alcohol and hopping to test English yeasts seems like it might mute both malt and ester differences. …OK, I’ve now broken my own rule about criticizing interesting tests that were done as a public service…
Great write up Matt. Father of 3 here so I definitely understand using dry yeast for the ease of use and found this article helpful in that prospective. Did you hydrate the dried yeast or just sprinkle it in? Did you make a stater for the liquid your just smack, shake, pitch? Thanks.
Thanks, I sprinkled the dry yeast & direct pitched the liquid.
That ESB strain is infamous for being unable to attenuate past 1.020, so note that lower mash temps may not make it go any lower
So, if I pitch 1.0Mcells/ml/degP (127 billion cells) of London into 5.5 gallons of 1.024 SG wort, it’s going to stall-out around 1.020?
“London ESB does not utilize the sugar maltotriose (a molecule composed of 3 glucose
units). Maltotriose comprises an average of 10-15% of total sugar in all-malt worts. The
result will be fuller body and residual sweetness in the beer. Be advised to adjust
gravities and mash temperatures according to desired result. ”
https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/docs/products/tds/TDS_LALBREW_PREM_LONDON_ENGLISH_DIGITAL.pdf
Good find!
Makes me want to run this test (A09 vs. London) on my own, with actual cell counts.
Thanks for the write up Matt! I’ve been considering using the ESB strain for a while now. I have noted on the Lallemand site they state that strain does not attenuate maltotrios. I’m curious what mash temp did you use for this beer? I had a similar experience using Omega IV or VII, which ever has lower attenuation. I mashed at 155 and finished at 1.020, which was 5-6 points higher than predicted. Do you think the attenuation was mash temp related or pitch rate? I’ve personally found the Lallemand pitch calculator to be very effective.
Mashed at 156 for 45min
I reckon this is the reason for the high OG Matt saw. I just used Lallemand ESB last week on a Best Bitter and while it is only 5 days in to fermenting, it looked done at 2-3 days so says my Float digital hydrometer. That is showing me an FG of 1.020 rather 1.010 Brewfather predicted. I mashed at 153F and it fell over 60 minutes to 149F. So assuming my Float is accurate and not out as they can be by 0.06 points then I missed my ABV by a bit. Will be interested to see if I can taste any residual sweetness or not. From all the experiments the boys do at Brulosophy the lower than planned ABV shouldn’t be discernible. I guess these lower attenuating English yeasts are part of the reason English brewers sometimes add extra fermentables
.
Next time I am mashing with ESB at 147F for 90 minutes to allow the Beta amalyase time to work on producing more fermentable sugars. Will get on that this weekend once I have kegged this batch. Interesting experiment.
Excellent write-up Matt! Underpitched, overpitched, baseball pitch, cricket pitch.. Who cares! – I think what you displayed here is perfect for what the majority of homebrewers come to Brulosophy for; in this case a direct comparison of typical yeast pitching of the same strain in liquid or dry varieties.
Keep up the damn good work, huge props for getting any brewing done let alone side by sides like you do with 5 young ones to keep busy!
Thanks Mickey!
I 100% agree with this statement. It’s easy to sit back and criticize but takes real balls to put your work on the Internet for all to see.
I will also probably give ESB a shot on my next English beer and just mash at a lower temp to help encourage a little more attenuation. Great job Matt!
Thanks for the XBMT! I think this is one or the more surprising results y’all have published. I’m not surprised you failed to detect a difference between liquid and dry yeast. And I’m not surprised there was no detectable difference between two non-identical, but similar yeast strains.
What does surprise me (and I’m a very RDWHAHB homebrewer) is that there is no detectable difference between two beers that finish with a FG of 1.013 and 1.020 and nearly 1% ABV difference.
That raises the question: Is there truly no detectable difference? Or is there a detectable difference but the XBMT failed to detect it? That is to say, is this a Type 2 statistical error. And by error, I don’t mean that you did something wrong but rather the study was underpowered.
So I would be interested in knowing if you estimate power when you decide how many subjects to use. Off the top of my head, 17 seems a bit low and I wonder if the study was underpowered. If you do power calculations, I think readers would be interested in seeing the specific assumptions you utilize and know the alpha for this particular study.
My personal opinion…. there was a subtle difference, but they were similar enough to make the triangle test difficult.The feedback I got from people after taking the test was similar to how I percieved them. Pub was a little dryer & roasty/toastier & ESB was a little creamier. I didn’t report preference because it was not significant, but it was almost an even split. I typically shoot for at least 20 participants. Unfortunately I ran out of beer early. It was a tasty one! (both versions). I don’t know anything about figuring power etc…. but hopefully I provided enough of my numbers for you to do it if you want.
Thanks for this xBmt! As you mentioned, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of consistant information in the homebrew community about the Lallemand London ESB strain. I tried it as soon as I saw it in my LHBS in hopes that it would be a dry equivalent of Fullers, but that fruity ester profile just isn’t there. I kind of wrote it off after that, but I hadn’t considered it for brown ales (until now).
I’ve always used S-04 as my main dry English yeast, but it tends to get a wierd bready flavor in the first generation. I have a batch of oatmeal brown on the schedule, so I think I might have to give it a shot with the London ESB now after reading your results. I think the lower attenuation will work pretty well for session beers, since it will hopefully leave some body behind.
Perhaps your next experiment should look at the ESB yeast under high and low mash temperatures just to make sure that your concluding thought to lower the mash temp really matters.
London ESB along with Windsor, Fermentis S-33 and Muntons regular ale yeast are very close relatives, all being unable to ferment maltotriose. I personally enjoy S-33 which works well in Pale Ales/IPAs and Windsor in anything Bitter, Mild, Red, Brown, Porter/Stout. These yeast need to be treated right in order to get your apparent attenuation between 68 and 72%. Only 63% AA in this experiment is not bad if that was the purpose, but goes to show that the mash temperature was inappropriate. These yeast need 60 to 90 minutes mash at 63-64C ( that’s 145-147F ) and a 5-10% sugar /syrup replacing some of the malt in the recipe. The product sheet from the mnufacturer/Lallemand also advises on adjusting your brewing process when using this yeast.
I’ve also used A09 Pub and it does exhibit a bit of the ” orange marmalade ” ester you get in some Fuller’s beers. These two yeast are not the same and it shows in some styles of beer. It would be a good experiment to face-off more than two similar yeast, both liquid and dry, adjusting brewing process to get the best results intended for that particular style of beer. A 100% Pilsner/Pale/Maris Otter with a hopping rate of 10 gr/l – no dry hopping – as to not interfere too much with the yeast profile. S-33 is now recommended by Fermentis as a ” hazy ” beer yeast, but brewing with it for some years, it can clear up and it does work well with hops. Timothy Taylor, Fuller’s, 1318 and some whatever dry yeast there are, is what I would do.
Cheers!
I find that co-fermenting with Windsor and Nottingham gives the flavor profile I like from Windsor, but with an attenuation that doesn’t require recipe and mash adjustments. This combo has become my go-to dry yeast option for brown/mild/bitter recipes. That said, I am curious to see how the Lallemand New England does in this type of recipe.
Some Lallemand strains don’t eat maltotriose so you have to be carefull at what temp you are mashing. That’s why it finished higher.
I’ve used the Lallemand London ESB twice now, and noticed that a healthy small second krausen forms around the 2 – 2 1/2 weeks after pitching, subsiding about 3 1/2 weeks after pitch. I have read about similar experience with this yeast in some other forums. First time I almost bottled when it appeared stalled at 1.018 between week 1 & 2 (from 1.053), but decided to wait it out for my typical 3 week primary. Glad I did, as it continued down to 1.011 after the second krausen. Brewed the same recipe again to check if that first experience was a fluke, and it did the exact same thing. Recipe was a Pale/ESB 25IBU (Tinseth), mashed at 152F 90min, 30min boil, and rehydrated yeast, for what that’s worth. Anyway, where I’m going with this is it’s possible that this exbeeriment needed another week primary to ensure complete attenuation for the London ESB yeast.
That’s very interesting. Not sure I can wait that long to see but good to know.
I read this after making my own ESB. According to Beersmith the FG should be 1.013 after mashing at 67c. But it stopped at 1.020. This links up to what I see some guys have posted here in the comments too. Just wanted to add my experience.
I am professional brewer in the UK and I have been using ESB for years. I have had various discussions about it’s best use with the labs at Lal. I like it’s neutrality and reliability, leaving good mouthfeel but without being too sweet. I can concur with others pitching rate (I have tried under pitching and over pitching at various times) has a minimal to zero impact on F.G. The strain is extremely sensitive to mash temperature and grain selection because, again as others have stated, it doesn’t utilise maltotriose. With a fairly simple malt bill, say 20% malted oats, NEIPA and a mash temperature of 63/4 a 6% beer will finish in three days at around 1015/6 on a commercial scale. It likes to finish pretty warm as well, I always let it free rise to 24c (I am not re-pitching because I partially dhop during active fermentation). A large dry hop warm (say 20g per litre) will also take you down another gravity point fairly quickly via that sneaky hop creep. With a little practice this yeast is a beast and very versatile. I hope that info proves useful.
I swore off using Lallemand a years ago because of poor fermentation quality. Then somebody pointed out what the pitch rate calculator says. Contrary to what you read above, For a 1.056 OG beer in a temperature range nominal for all strains it calls for usually calls for two sometimes 11g packets. A lager strain might call for 3. The last time I used a Lallemand ale strain, I pitched two packs and was very happy with the results.
Not sure if Greg ever came back to right the wrong. I have been using it repeatedly and it has proven to be consistently stuck at 1020 for any recipe OG 1045-1055 20L(5gal) batches. This include direct sprinkle, direct dump on yeast cake or starter from harvested yeast. So I ruled out the possibility of under pitch. And probably due to time different, at least at since 2021 when I started using it, in lallemand own words says “does not utilize the sugar maltotriose”. I got down from 1025 to 1020 by lowering mash temp or steps from 60-65C. But ultimately I found substituting up to 5% cane sugar can consistently get down to 1015. Not pro just a junky home brewer. I hope this helps.