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

Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM OG FG ABV
10.5 gal 90 min 26  3.5 1.049 SG 1.009 SG 5.2 %

Fermentables

Name Amount %
Pilsner (1.6L) 15 lbs 85.7
Vienna (3.5L) 2 lbs 11.4
Carafoam (2L) 8 oz 2.9

Hops

Name Amt/IBU Time Use Form Alpha %
Hallertauer Hersbrucker 2 oz/20ibu 60 Min Boil Pellet  4.5
Hallertauer Hersbrucker 2 oz/6 IBU 30 Min Boil Pellet  2.6

Yeast

Name Lab Attenuation Ferm Temp
Kölsch Wyeast 2565 83% 63°F
German Ale/Hybrid Koösch White Labs 029 83% 63°F

Water Profile

Ca Mg Na SO4 Cl HCO3 pH
64 ppm 0 ppm 0 ppm 60 ppm 72 ppm 0 ppm 5.3

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.

01_Kolsch_starters
Click pic for Yeastir review

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

02_Kolsch_Mill

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.

06_Kolsch_Lauter
Click pic for Brew Bag MLT filter review

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.

Click pic for Hydra review
Click pic for Hydra review

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.

09_Kolsch_recirc

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

10_Kolsch_Runoff

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.

11_Kolsch_Krausen24hr

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.

12_Kolsch_48Krausen48hr

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

14_Kolsch_Hawaii
Hell of a view!

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.

15_Kolsch_FGWLvWY
Left WY2565  |   Right: WLP029

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.

Left: WY2565 | Right: WLP029
Left: WY2565   |   Right: WLP029

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.

Left: WY2565 | Right: WLP029
Left: WY2565   |   Right: WLP029

| 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 FoodIf 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!

19_Kolsch_seantaste
Sean Robinson with Nolan in arms at Fandhaus Brau Tasting room.

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!

tshirts_all

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


Follow Brülosophy on:

FACEBOOK   |   TWITTER   |   INSTAGRAM


patreon_banner


| 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!


Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

17 thoughts on “exBEERiment | Yeast Comparison: White Labs WLP029 vs. Wyeast WY2565 In A Kölsch”

  1. She sounds like a keeper, Ray. I vote she gets a paragraph in each new exBEERiment writeup! Who’s with me!?!?!

  2. Thanks for this comparison! I’ve brewed a few American styles with 029 and I’ve noticed a faint sulphur from the yeast. It doesn’t totally drop off with a few months age, so I’m curious if this is a common quality with this strain or if it’s something that can be managed with fermentation control. I fermented my beers at 60f before raising the temp at the end to 68f, fyi.

    1. I’ve never perceived Sulphur from WLP029. Though perhaps super low levels might be what triggers “Lager-like” in my mind? I don’t know. Your fermentation seems remarkably similar to my normal profile with 029.

  3. Ray, I wonder if another aspect of your method to test might be the types of samples presented. Should everyone be receiving two samples of beer A and one sample of beer B, or should that be randomized into two separate groups, one receiving 2 of A, 1 of B the other receiving 1 of A, 2 of B. I don’t know the answer, but you could ask your stats friend.

    1. Absolutely, randomizing the tasters (which beer they get two of, what colors they are in, etc…) would be the absolute, ideal solution, from a data collection standpoint.

      That being said, what seems like a simple change, is in practice a giant clusterfuck. Getting data collected, even in the non-ideal way we use, is a giant pain in the ass.

      Also, at this point, we do randomize which ones are blue/red/green, and also randomize if it is 2 “control” 1 “Variable” vs. 1/2. It is the best we can realistically accomplish.

  4. I totally get what you are saying about yeast almost being an afterthought in most recipes. I think that is because it is much harder to quantify the difference. Hearing your description of the difference between the two yeasts left me thinking that it didnt make an enormous difference between them, and if I were to make the beer I’d probably grab the fresher of the two yeasts in the LHBS fridge

    One way to look at your exbeeriment is to say Surprise! beers fermented with different yeasts taste different. The other way is to say if you want to clone a recipe, using a similar yeast will get you close, while the right yeast will make just enough difference to nail it.

  5. Wow Kolsch without wheat? The good people in Cologne would have a problem with that! Plus your Kolsch is very , very light gravity. It does look like Coors light. Mine are at the top of the scale and around 5.2 abv. I do use White labs 029 with good results even though some people ( Denny Conn for one ) do not think that strain represents the Kolsch style properly. Anywho its always been good for me! Thanks again for the exBEERiment!

    1. Everything I’ve read suggests the wheat is entirely optional.

      But mine is 5.2%abv… One of the other contributing writers was giving me shit about being too high gravity!

  6. A question that relates to all of your side by side yeast tests, not just this one. When you have two yeasts acting very differently (as is the case in this test) my assumption is that their internal temps are probably different. Is this something you try to account for? I would guess that any significant difference in temperatures between the fermenting beers especially the first few days may lead to unexpected flavor profile changes. (Assuming you are strapping your probe to only one of the fermenters and leaving it there for the duration)

    1. I don’t have any reason to suspect the wort was at significantly different temperatures during fermentation.

      So what I usually do, is the following:

      1. Wort comes out of the kettle at the same time, same temperature.

      2. Goes into the chamber together, probe insulated to the side of one carboy, but then the two are placed together, carboys touching, with temp sensor squished between the two.

      3. Monitor carboy wall temp with fermometor to verify it matches what is seen on the temp probe.

      4. We also haven’t seen major differences in the few temperature xbmts we’ve done so far, so I am very hesitant the minor differences in temps would result in the flavor differences found in the yeast comparison testing.

  7. I’ve had similar results with the wyeast strain not clearing regardless of the amount of gelatin. However if it lagers enough (3 months) it’s absolutely hands down holy crap amazing. The yeast gives it a funky (as you mentioned), bready, grassy taste, but once it’s finally decided to all drop out in the keg it’s pure heaven. The fruitiness is more subtle and it’s just got a clean pleasant summer beer with a hint of pear and apple at the end. It’s my most requested beer from friends.

    But… I hate making it because when I run out I need another 3 months before I can serve the next batch. I’m trying WLP029 for the first time this week… We’ll see what the fans of the previous versions have to say, or if I can even tell a difference.

  8. I’m not surprised people think WLP029 is not a proper kolsch yeast because it isn’t, it’s more closely related to British yeasts like WLP030, Whitbread B and Fullers.

    “the WY2565 batch was noticeably hazier… just a lot more yeasty character…the more soft, almost slightly creamy feel of the WY2565 beer”

    2565 seems to be related to 1318 and other odd yeasts like WLP036 Alt. Now if only there was a style of beer where haziness and soft, creamy mouthfeel were prized, that 1318 is popular for…

    1. 029 comes from Fruh Brewery and 2565 comes form Paffgen brewery. Not Koelsch ? Each that beer is different – one is more/less fruity, one is more or less hoppy. As far as I know a name of Yeast are not so important as along as it has BJCP requirements.

  9. Hello. I’m from Russia. I just can’t find a detailed description of your triangle test, how to conduct it. Maybe you have a link to the material explaining the sequence of actions?

Let us know what you think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up to be notified when we publish new content!

Thank you to our sponsors!

Brülosophy is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and other affiliated sites.
Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. Please support us by disabling these ads blocker.

Powered By
Best Wordpress Adblock Detecting Plugin | CHP Adblock
Scroll to Top