exBEERiment | Yeast Comparison: White Labs WLP029 vs. Wyeast WY2565 In A Kölsch

Author: Ray Found

Beer recipes are funny to me in that they often call for specific amounts of specific malts mashed at a specific temperature then boiled for a specific amount of time with a specific quantity of specific hops added at specific points followed by chilling to a specific temperature before pitching, well… your choice of this, that, or the other yeast. I get that many recipe designers out there do encourage the use of a particular yeast, but look around for a bit and I think you’ll see what I mean. Don’t have access to WLP002 English Ale yeast? No worries, just sprinkle on some Safale S-04 and you’ll be fine! If you can’t seem to get your hands on Wyeast 1450 Denny’s Favorite 50, just use WLP001 California Ale yeast, it’ll get you close enough.

If close enough is your goal, by all means. But when I’m brewing someone else’s recipe, I want to know my finished beer tastes as close as possible to what the beer was designed to taste like.

Recently, Love2Brew Homebrew Supply offered to sponsor an xBmt by providing a couple ingredient kits. Being the middle of summer, I chose to go with their highly rated all grain Kölsch kit and knew immediately what the focus of this xBmt would be– Wyeast 2565 Kölsch yeast versus White Labs WLP029 German Ale/Kölsch yeast, a Brülosophy favorite. Both of these strains are purported to be from a similar region in Germany known for this delicious lager-like style with subtle fruity esters. Given how light the Kölsch style is and how specific the guidelines are, it’s easy to assume these yeasts would produce nearly identical beers.

But we all know what they say about those who assume.

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between 2 beers produced from a split batch of the same wort and fermented with Kölsch yeasts from different manufacturers– White Labs WLP029 German Ale/Kölsch yeast and Wyeast 2565 Kölsch yeast.

| METHOD |

This was only the second kit beer I’ve ever brewed, the first being my inaugural batch. I have to admit, there was a certain ease to using it since everything was basically prepared for me. The packaging, labeling, and cleanliness of the kit surpassed my expectations. Besides everything being clearly marked, Love2Brew provides some really rad stuff on their website– not only are they completely open with their recipes, but they also include a BeerSmith XML file for brewers to download, allowing them to log and even tweak the recipe of their kit beer. This should be a mandate!

Love2Brew Kölsch

Fermentables

Hops

Yeast

Water Profile

The assumed efficiency for Love2Brew kits is 72% with a target of 5 gallons into the fermentor. Since I typically get higher efficiency and prefer splitting larger batch sizes into separate fermentors, I reworked things a bit in BeerSmith, combining both kits into a single 10.5 gallon batch and setting the efficiency to my usual 78%. With about 36 hours until my brew day, I made a starter for each yeast using my preferred calculator to determine their size.

I awoke the morning of brew day and immediately began heating the strike water, during which time I milled the grains.

Per the instructions, I targeted a mash temp of 151°F, which I only barely overshot thanks to my impatience waiting for strike water to cool.

After a 1 hour saccharification rest, I collected the wort in a bucket then transferred it to my kettle.

Due to the heavy dose of Pilsner malt in the grist, I ceded to convention (and the kit instructions) by performing a full 90 minute boil. Once that was finished, including the oh-so-difficult task of cutting open meticulously labeled hop bags and laboriously dumping them into the kettle, I used my Hydra IC to rapidly chill the wort to 6°F above ground water temps.

On this day, that was 88°F, which fucking blows. Usually. This day was different in that I’d previously frozen 3 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket, to which I added another gallon or so of water that was recirculated through my IC using a sump pump. After only 5 minutes, the wort had reached my target pitching temperature of 60°F.

I simultaneously transferred the chilled wort into 2 carboys then placed them in my temp controlled fermentation chamber.

Hoping to coax a little extra character out of WLP029, I deviated slightly from Love2Brew’s recommended 60°F fermentation temperature and set my controller to 63°F, which happens to fall square in the middle of the recommended range for WY2565. It wasn’t too long after pitching that I observed noticeable differences in yeast behavior with the WY2565 batch developing a krausen nearly 12 hours before the WLP029 beer.

The blowoff produced by the WY2565 batch was another potential indicator of a difference, as the krausen on the WLP029 batch remained in the fermentor.

After 3 days of intently watching and noting any differences in fermentation… I went to Hawaii.

Before leaving, I showed my sister, who was watching my kids, how to bump the temp on my STC-1000 regulator, which she did a few days prior to my return. Once home, the beers appeared to have finished fermenting. A quick hydrometer measurement revealed both were at an identical 1.009 SG.

But they certainly didn’t look the same– while the WLP029 beer was fairly clear, the WY2565 batch was noticeably hazier. However, Wyeast offered reassurance that what I was seeing was typical:

This powdery strain results in yeast that remain in suspension post fermentation. It requires filtration or additional settling time to produce bright beers.

I let the beers stay in the warm chamber for a couple more days before proceeding to crash and fine with gelatin, which I was certain would assist in clarifying the WY2565 beer.

I believe it was the famed Pliny the Elder who said something along the lines of the only certainty is that nothing is certain. What I am certain about is that the WY2565 beer never cleared to the same level as the WLP029 beer, despite the gelatin fining and hanging out nearly a month in my cold keezer.

| RESULTS |

Important side note: we were recently made aware that the statistical procedure we’ve been using to determine the p-value for the triangle test (2-tailed binomial proportions test), while not uncommon in sensory analysis, is not the most appropriate approach. Henceforth, we’ll be using the 1-tailed version of this test based on the recommendation of Brülosophy supporter Justin Angevaare, who is currently working on his Ph.D. in statistics. He explained that by using a 1-tailed test, we are sensitive only to evidence of more tasters being able to identify the odd-beer-out than would be expected under random selection. Needlessly, the 2-tailed test is also sensitive to evidence of fewer tasters identifying the odd-beer-out than would be expected under random selection. By using the 1-tailed binomial proportions test, the number of correct tasters required to reach statistical significance in an xBmt is slightly reduced. While researching this concept, I discovered Justin’s suggestion was inline with that provided in the book Sensory Evaluation of Food. If you’re wondering how this change might have impacted some of our prior xBmts that only barely failed to reach significance, so are we. We plan to go back through every xBmt and re-run the numbers, making sure to publish an update article should any change.

A total of 19 friends, family, and members of my local BeerMe homebrew club participated in this xBmt. Thanks to Dave Ruegg for hosting the meeting and allowing me to collect this data in his home!

Each participant was blindly served 2 samples of the WLP029 beer and 1 sample of the WY2565 beer then asked to select the one they perceived as being different. Given the sample size, 10 tasters would have needed to accurately select the odd-beer-out in order to imply statistical significance (p<0.05), which is exactly the number that did (p=0.037), allowing us to say that tasters were capable of reliably distinguishing between the WLP029 and WY2565 beers. In other words, although similar in many respects and both stylistically within bounds, these yeasts produced different beers.

My Impressions:  This was one of those xBmts where I constantly floated between answers, at once very certain of the differences, then at other times questioning my certitude. It seemed like if I didn’t dwell on aroma too much and took a cold sip from a full glass, the beers were pretty damn close. However, the differences became more pronounced as they warmed, or when I drank from a glass designed to emphasize aromatic qualities. Ultimately, I was reliably able to tell these beers apart, to me, they were noticeably different. I perceived the beer fermented with WPL029 as being decidedly cleaner and lager-like, while the WY2565 beer was much “funkier” for lack of a more appropriate term. Not funk like a sour beer or Brett, just a lot more yeasty character (not specifically esters or anything). It was especially noticeable to me in the aroma, though I also found the WLP029 beer to possess a crisper/sharper mouthfeel compared to the more soft, almost slightly creamy feel of the WY2565 beer. If they weren’t on the exact same CO2 pressure, for exactly the same amount of time, I would have sworn the WLP029 was slightly more carbonated – perhaps that conveys the mouthfeel difference the best. My preference was strongly towards the batch fermented with WLP029 German Ale/Kölsch yeast.

| DISCUSSION |

While the comparative analysis yielded nothing of any uniformity, a few comments from discussions had about the beers after the test was complete stood out. A couple veteran xBmt participants were able to identify the different beer immediately based on aroma alone, which I also found to be the easiest and most reliable way to distinguish between the beers. For these dudes, the WLP029 beer was preferred over the batch fermented with WY2565, both describing the latter in mostly unpleasant terms.

On the other hand, my wife, who views Kölsch as a “boring-er less yummy Pilsner,” ended up preferring the WY2565 beer, saying the WLP029 sample was bland and “very Coors Light-y.” Her descriptive abilities are truly something to behold. I’d be hesitant to fully disagree, as the beer was extraordinarily quaffable, though as is often the case with beer, what excites one can bore the shit out of another. In fact, I experienced the Love2Brew Kölsch as so clean and lager-like that I ended up entering it in both Kölsch and Munich Helles categories in a local competition.

I am confident both of these yeasts can make an enjoyable Kölsch, but that doesn’t change the my experience and those of a significant portion of the participants that they produce beers with different character. For those looking to make a Kölsch with a bit more complexity and softer mouthfeel, Wyeast 2565 Kölsch yeast is one route to consider. If crisp and refreshing is your bag, then you can’t go wrong with WLP029 German Ale/Kölsch yeast, which many have discovered works amazing for myriad styles. Cheers!

This xBmt is sponsored by Love2Brew Homebrew Supply, a national home brewing ingredient/supply distributor carrying everything you need to homebrew beer, wine, and/or cider. Offering a huge selection of items at great prices, check out Love2Brew for your next homebrew purchase!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

FACEBOOK   |   TWITTER   |   INSTAGRAM

| Read More |

18 Ideas to Help Simplify Your Brew Day
 7 Considerations for Making Better Homebrew
 List of completed exBEERiments 
 How-to: Harvest yeast from starters
How-to: Make a lager in less than a month 

| Good Deals |

Brand New 5 gallon ball lock kegs discounted to $75 at Adventures in Homebrewing
 ThermoWorks Super-Fast Pocket Thermometer On Sale for $19 – $10 discount
 Sale and Clearance Items at MoreBeer.com

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!