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!

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Brulosopher said:

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

Click to expand...

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!

thanks for sharing this! great info.

those beers look very tasty!

jammin said:

thanks for sharing this! great info.

those beers look very tasty!

Click to expand...

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

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Brulosopher said:

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

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Here's a photo comparing WLP001 (left) and WLP009 (right) after about a week of cold/keg conditioning:



It may be hard to tell in this pic, but the 090 is noticeably more bright than the 001. And I'm finally starting to taste a few differences, though I'm wondering if the 001 will start to take on similar characteristics as it continues to clear up. Either way, the 001 tastes very clean- neutral malt with an emphasis on hops, just as you might expect from this strain. The 090 seems to accentuate the malt a tad more, though the hops still shine... I'll admit, I'm wondering if there's something else going on here, as the taste difference is pretty obvious. Hmm.

They're both good and I'm still hard pressed to choose one I prefer over the other.

It's been a couple weeks and the 090 (left) is significantly more bright than the 001. It also has a more "Englishy" flavor. I like it better. The 001 is still very hazy, but tastes delicious too, a tad cleaner.

Great write up! Thanks!

d_striker said:

Great write up! Thanks!

Click to expand...

My pleasure! Expect more updates in the coming weeks.

Pulled of a pint of the WLP001 last night just to see if it is brightening up at all. Nope, still just as hazy as the last update. But delicious no less

Very interesting write up, thanks! WLP001 has been my go-to strain lately for many of my beers. You haven't convinced me to try the 090.

Yooper said:

Very interesting write up, thanks! WLP001 has been my go-to strain lately for many of my beers. You haven't convinced me to try the 090.

Click to expand...

I'd make a terrible lawyer

WLP001 is a great and very predictable yeast, hence the reason it's most folks' go-to. Actually, I've used it for my last 4 batches too. But, I really like 090 as well and plan to keep it in regular rotation. One thing I'm pretty certain of: 090 is not a more flocculant version of 001.

I have a Pale made with the SD Super 090 and it is very bright coming out of the keg. The beer is about 4 weeks old and the clarity is almost as good as DE filtered. The flavor has a mild, but firm, malt presence with a good hop back bone. Wish I were at home drinking it right now.

BW

B-Dub said:

I have a Pale made with the SD Super 090 and it is very bright coming out of the keg. The beer is about 4 weeks old and the clarity is almost as good as DE filtered. The flavor has a mild, but firm, malt presence with a good hop back bone. Wish I were at home drinking it right now.

BW

Click to expand...

Sounds great, man

Thanks, this was very helpful.

Pappers_ said:

Thanks, this was very helpful.

Click to expand...

My pleasure! And there's more to come- I've got some friends coming over next weekend who will be tasting the 2 blind and giving me their opinions, which I'll post.

any update?

ddrrseio said:

any update?

Click to expand...

I forgot about this. Both beers are long gone, but the hands down favorite amongst friends and brew club members was the 090.

thank you, sir, for my next project

I am currently fermenting 5 gallons of Graff with 090. For my last batch of graff I used 001 and it took about 6 weeks to reach a FG of 1.008.

Has anyone else used 090 to ferment graff?

Thanks for the write up. This was exactly the information I was looking for.

I'm planning to do an Alesmith IPA clone tomorrow with WLP090. OG 1.073, 93 IBUs. Recipe here http://byo.com/english-scottish-strong-ale/item/153-attack-of-the-hop-clones.

Do you guys think a 1L starter will be enough for that? I plan to pitch at around 68-70F and let it pretty much stay at 68 throughout primary.

Conman13 said:

Thanks for the write up. This was exactly the information I was looking for.

I'm planning to do an Alesmith IPA clone tomorrow with WLP090. OG 1.073, 93 IBUs. Recipe here http://byo.com/english-scottish-strong-ale/item/153-attack-of-the-hop-clones.

Do you guys think a 1L starter will be enough for that? I plan to pitch at around 68-70F and let it pretty much stay at 68 throughout primary.

Click to expand...

I've actually underpitched this yeast in the past and it worked out really well, so as long as your starter is made with a fresh vial, I think you'll be fine.

Cheers!

I'm currently fermenting my first batch with WLP001. it's a DIPA OG 1.078. I pitched the yeast Friday of the week before last. (sept 4). Fermometer said I was steady at 68F. Over the weekend I blew into the air lock. Last week, I popped the lid off my fermenter (Sept 10). I was amazed to still see krausen. gravity was still around around 1.030 but it tasted fine. I still have slow airlock activity today (Sept 15) but, I racked into secondary anyway. I had almost NO yeast cake - but there was obviously still a lot of yeast in suspension. gravity is around 1.015 now so, I'm attenuating nicely and the hops are really coming through.


The question is this - I can see through this thread that WLP001 is slow. But dang. Is it really THIS slow? Is my experience in line with what other have experienced with WLP001?

sareinhart said:

The question is this - I can see through this thread that WLP001 is slow. But dang. Is it really THIS slow? Is my experience in line with what other have experienced with WLP001?

Click to expand...

No, its different than my experience with WLP001. Usually, for medium sized beers, fermentation will be done in 10 days, tops. At least in my experience.

Pappers_ said:

No, its different than my experience with WLP001. Usually, for medium sized beers, fermentation will be done in 10 days, tops. At least in my experience.

Click to expand...

Well, then maybe I'm not so far off. Airlock is really settling down over the last couple days (largely stopped 13 days in). And this is going to be a monster. I expect to be above 8.5 - 9% ABV.

I'm calling it "Christmas Ale" Loaded with piney Chinook hops so it smells like a Christmas tree - and high enough alcohol to let you deal with your in-laws. :cross: