| |
Main
Date: 30 Oct 2006 07:20:18
From: sanchopanza
Subject: Pacman vs. 1056
|
>From what I've been reading, Pacman is an attenuative and clean yeast.
How different is it than, say, 1056? I'll be making an IPA with it this
week and I like to find a bit more info if possible.
Here is my grain bill:
76% Pale
12% Munich
9% Crystal
3% Wheat
About 50 IBU's with Centennial.
With this grain bill and the Pacman yeast, should I mash hot
(158-160F)? I'm looking for some maltiness to be present.
Thanks,
John
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:22:34
From: boiler
Subject: Re: Pacman vs. 1056
|
IMHO Pacman leaves a slightly more malty flavor than 1056 eventhough it
is more attenuative. Agreed that it is cleaner--perhaps why the malt
comes through more. I would recommend a starter with the Pacman yeast.
I find it's a slower starter than 1056.
---- >Boiler
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:01:37
From: sanchopanza
Subject: Re: Pacman vs. 1056
|
Thanks everyone for the help.
By the way, I sent the same question to Wyeast and one of the
biologists there said I could expect roughly the same attenuation as
1056, which is 73-77%.
Have a good one.
John
boiler wrote:
> IMHO Pacman leaves a slightly more malty flavor than 1056 eventhough it
> is more attenuative. Agreed that it is cleaner--perhaps why the malt
> comes through more. I would recommend a starter with the Pacman yeast.
> I find it's a slower starter than 1056.
>
> ---->Boiler
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:21:29
From: boiler
Subject: Re: Pacman vs. 1056
|
IMHO Pacman leaves a slightly more malty flavor than 1056 eventhough it
is more attenuative. Agreed that it is cleaner--perhaps why the malt
comes through more. I would recommend a starter with the Pacman yeast.
I find it's a slower starter than 1056.
---- >Boiler
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 10:48:09
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Pacman vs. 1056
|
sanchopanza wrote:
>
> >From what I've been reading, Pacman is an attenuative and clean yeast.
> How different is it than, say, 1056? I'll be making an IPA with it this
> week and I like to find a bit more info if possible.
> Here is my grain bill:
> 76% Pale
> 12% Munich
> 9% Crystal
> 3% Wheat
> About 50 IBU's with Centennial.
>
> With this grain bill and the Pacman yeast, should I mash hot
> (158-160F)? I'm looking for some maltiness to be present.
PAcman seems even more attenuative and cleaner than 1056. In addition,
it performs well at even lower temps than 1056. Personally, I certainly
wouldn't mash higher if you use it.
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:58:36
From: Ed Edelenbos
Subject: Re: Pacman vs. 1056
|
"Denny Conn" <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote in message
news:454648E9.EC07EEE6@ci.eugene.or.us...
> Personally, I certainly
> wouldn't mash higher if you use it.
>
> --------->Denny
>
I know what you mean... but that sure is worded funny. (grin)
Ed
|
|
