Newest Threads

**Brulosopher** · 09-09-2012, 01:41 PM

I got on a WLP090 kick a few months back, which started after I heard it is basically the "more flocculant yeast from WLP001." I've brewed many good beers using this strain and do certainly notice it flocs and drops relatively well. For comparison's sake, I brewed 10 gallons of IPA a few weeks ago and pitched 001 into 5 gallons and 090 into the other (1.5L starters of each). The beers are currently kegged and almost fully carb'd. Here are some observations I've made thus far (if anyone even cares):

- Fermentation (67F) took off and completed in about the same amount of time- FG was reached for both within 5 days; vigor was about the same as well.

- WLP001 had a much larger/fluffier kraeusen than WLP090, and it hung around much longer

- Both beers ended with the same exact FG, despite WLP090 supposedly being somewhat more attenuative... and despite the myriad complaints I've read of WLP090 stopping early (I've never experienced this with this strain)

- The hydro samples I pulled off while kegging appeared to be similar in clarity, which made me think what I'd heard about 090 being more flocculant was a myth (WLP001 on left, WLP090 on right)

- After about a week in the cold kegerator, the WLP090 appears to be clearing up faster/better than the WLP001, I'll try to post a comparison pic of this when I get a chance *DISCLAIMER: This is a very highly hopped DIPA, so I don't expect it ever to get fully bright*

- Some flavor differences are present, though they're so subtle I'm having a hard time coming up with the words to describe it. The WLP001 tastes more "full," if that helps. That's not to say it tastes better.

Overall, I'm still not sure which one I'd say I preferred if I were forced to do so. Given my experience, the faster clarification of WLP090 will likely keep me coming back to this strain. Though I'm currently on a WLP001 kick, mainly because of my yeast harvesting process.

I'm curious what others have experienced with WLP090. Also, if anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask!

duckmanco · 09-09-2012, 02:09 PM

Great experiment, but for me, I cant ever see the need to use wlp090 when cal ale is just about perfect for I need it for. I'm good with however long 001 takes, I'm rarely in a rush with beer these days. If I was a commercial brewer though, I could see how it would make a difference.

Now, what I would like to see... Wlp002/wyeast 1968 in a dry form that's as close as us05 is to 001/1056. That would be nice.

**Brulosopher** · 09-09-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckmanco

Great experiment, but for me, I cant ever see the need to use wlp090 when cal ale is just about perfect for I need it for. I'm good with however long 001 takes, I'm rarely in a rush with beer these days. If I was a commercial brewer though, I could see how it would make a difference.

Now, what I would like to see... Wlp002/wyeast 1968 in a dry form that's as close as us05 is to 001/1056. That would be nice.

I hear ya, mate. And I may just do the comparison you mentioned... 002 vs S-04, you think?

duckmanco · 09-09-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brulosopher

I hear ya, mate. And I may just do the comparison you mentioned... 002 vs S-04, you think?

I actually meant it would be great if a yeast manufacturer would bring a dry version of wlp002 or wyeast 1968 to market, not necessarily a comparison.... However, that doesn't mean don't go for it. I think you'll find two markedly different beers with so4 being one of the dryer whitbread strains and wlp002 wyeast 1968 being the Fullers yeast.

May still be a cool trial either way. I think a neat trial would be Pacman at 60f and Nottingham dry yeast at 60f. Some folks around here claim a tart flavor with Nottingham at 60, and either I can't pick it up, or it's not an issue with current packets. Either way, great write up, and let me wholeheartedly say, I most certainly care about experiments like this. It's what a lot of use to make better beer. Cheers!

**jammin** · 09-09-2012, 09:13 PM

thanks for sharing this! great info.

those beers look very tasty!

**Brulosopher** · 09-09-2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammin

thanks for sharing this! great info.

those beers look very tasty!

My pleasure! I'll update it soon with photos. And they are pretty darn tasty...

jtejedor · 09-10-2012, 05:31 AM

Yeah my experiences have been pretty much the same. Only difference seen to be the slightly better floculation. That and the super yeast seems to be just a bit more sensitive to the fermentation temperature.

**Brulosopher** · 09-10-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtejedor

Yeah my experiences have been pretty much the same. Only difference seen to be the slightly better floculation. That and the super yeast seems to be just a bit more sensitive to the fermentation temperature.

Interesting. I ferment both of these at the same temps with fine results.

jtejedor · 09-10-2012, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brulosopher

Interesting. I ferment both of these at the same temps with fine results.

The temperature range on wlp090 is pretty narrow. And like others I had read about I tried fermenting it cooler at 60 degrees and that made it go much much slower, I had to get it back up to 66-67 to get it to finish. I have fermented wlp001 at that temperature just fine, I usually just make a little bigger starter if I am going to ferment it that cool.

**Brulosopher** · 09-10-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtejedor

The temperature range on wlp090 is pretty narrow. And like others I had read about I tried fermenting it cooler at 60 degrees and that made it go much much slower, I had to get it back up to 66-67 to get it to finish. I have fermented wlp001 at that temperature just fine, I usually just make a little bigger starter if I am going to ferment it that cool.

Good info! I start both at 64F for 36-48 hours, then let them free rise up to 72F until they reach FG, which is usually 3-4 more days. Never an issue.