Ss Brewing Technologies Giveaway!

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > Fermentation & Yeast > California (WLP001) vs. San Diego (WLP090)
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-09-2012, 01:41 PM   #1
Brulosopher
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,695
Liked 199 Times on 165 Posts
Likes Given: 114

Default California (WLP001) vs. San Diego (WLP090)

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!

Brulosopher is offline
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-09-2012, 02:09 PM   #2
duckmanco
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 702
Liked 22 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 19

Default

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.

__________________
duckmanco is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-09-2012, 02:29 PM   #3
Brulosopher
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,695
Liked 199 Times on 165 Posts
Likes Given: 114

Default

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?
Brulosopher is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-09-2012, 08:51 PM   #4
duckmanco
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 702
Liked 22 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 19

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brulosopher View Post
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!
__________________
duckmanco is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-09-2012, 09:13 PM   #5
jammin
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
 
jammin's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Meridian, ID
Posts: 1,253
Liked 192 Times on 152 Posts
Likes Given: 129

Default

thanks for sharing this! great info.

those beers look very tasty!

__________________
jammin is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-09-2012, 09:15 PM   #6
Brulosopher
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,695
Liked 199 Times on 165 Posts
Likes Given: 114

Default

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...
Brulosopher is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-10-2012, 05:31 AM   #7
jtejedor
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 651
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 6

Default

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.

__________________
jtejedor is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-10-2012, 02:15 PM   #8
Brulosopher
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,695
Liked 199 Times on 165 Posts
Likes Given: 114

Default

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.
__________________
How To Easily Harvest Clean Yeast from Starters

Make Good Lager in Less Time!

|BRULOSOPHY|
Brulosopher is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-10-2012, 04:03 PM   #9
jtejedor
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 651
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 6

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brulosopher View Post
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.
__________________
jtejedor is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-10-2012, 04:15 PM   #10
Brulosopher
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,695
Liked 199 Times on 165 Posts
Likes Given: 114

Default

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.
__________________
How To Easily Harvest Clean Yeast from Starters

Make Good Lager in Less Time!

|BRULOSOPHY|
Brulosopher is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply



Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast scottland Fermentation & Yeast 172 05-07-2014 03:47 AM
WLP090-San Diego Super Yeast Performance ahurd110 Fermentation & Yeast 24 02-10-2014 03:42 PM
San Diego Super Yeast WLP090 FG too high? mscaron Fermentation & Yeast 13 07-05-2012 11:42 PM
WLP090 San Diego not so Super? BribieG Fermentation & Yeast 11 01-29-2012 07:31 AM
WLP090 San Diego Super yeast baltjoe Fermentation & Yeast 6 12-06-2011 09:13 PM