WLP 099 Barley Wine

[Cloud Surfer]

I make a lot of Imperial Stouts and Barley Wines up to 14% using standard yeast. Recently started barrel aging batches as well. I want to push a Barley Wine up into the 18% area for an extended barrel age. I’ve never used WLP 099 and want to know if I’m on the right track with this yeast.

I can make a 1.100 wort and then pitch my usual Barley Wine blend of Wyeast 1028 and 1098. After 3 days it will be around 1.040, at which time I would pitch the WLP 099. As the fermentation nears an end, I would start drip feeding 2kg of dextrose. I use a TILT which is a great way to see how the fermentation keeps progressing after the dextrose additions.

Anyway, I believe that’s how some of the big boys do it, and unless anyone thinks that process won’t work, I’ll give that a shot.

 

[Cloud Surfer]

Just bumping this as I’m about to brew the Barley Wine. I’m stuck on one part of this process and hoping someone can chime in with some help.

So I’ll mostly ferment the wort out with my usual yeast. Then I want to pitch the WLP 099 starter and start feeding the dextrose. There will be no O2 in the wort by this stage and I’m not about to pump it full of O2 at that point either. I don’t know how the WLP 099 will handle pitching into a wort with no O2, but I don’t see any other option.

Except, maybe I could pitch the first chunk of dextrose into the WLP 099 starter, oxygenate that, and then pitch into the fermenter.

 

[jsphlynch]

I pushed a beer up to 22% following basically what you propose: Fermentation was started on 1056 using the entire yeast cake from a pale ale, then pitched WLP099 partway through fermentation (I'd have to check my notes for details, but as I recall I pitched the 099 when the beer was at ~7% ABV. Throughout fermentation I was dosing with added sugars (first concentrated wort, then a little maple syrup, then sucrose). I didn't add any extra oxygen for the 099. Fermentation did hesitate a bit after adding the 099, which I attributed to the 1056 getting tuckered out before the 099 had a chance to really get going.

 

[DBhomebrew]

Except, maybe I could pitch the first chunk of dextrose into the WLP 099 starter, oxygenate that, and then pitch into the fermenter.

I'd get the 099 going in a Shaken-Not-Stirred-Starter. Pitch the whole thing at high krausen.

You're sending in a relief pitcher at the height of a championship game. Do you send them in warm from the bullpen or cold from the bench?

 

[Cloud Surfer]

I pushed a beer up to 22% following basically what you propose: Fermentation was started on 1056 using the entire yeast cake from a pale ale, then pitched WLP099 partway through fermentation (I'd have to check my notes for details, but as I recall I pitched the 099 when the beer was at ~7% ABV. Throughout fermentation I was dosing with added sugars (first concentrated wort, then a little maple syrup, then sucrose). I didn't add any extra oxygen for the 099. Fermentation did hesitate a bit after adding the 099, which I attributed to the 1056 getting tuckered out before the 099 had a chance to really get going.

That’s great to know you had success pitching the WLP 099 without having to oxygenate. All the way to 22%, that’s huge.

 

[Cloud Surfer]

I'd get the 099 going in a Shaken-Not-Stirred-Starter. Pitch the whole thing at high krausen.

You're sending in a relief pitcher at the height of a championship game. Do you send them in warm from the bullpen or cold from the bench?

Yes I’m thinking I should send the starter in when it’s still active.

 

[Cloud Surfer]

I didn't find much info about using WLP 099 to make high ABV beer, so I thought I would continue with my journey using it for the first time.

I brewed my Barley Wine, without adding any dextrose on the day. OG was 1.110. Pitched a blend of Wyeast 1028 and 1098 from big starters, at 18C. Five days in and fermentation was almost at a stop at 1.035.

At this stage I took the WLP 099 starter from the fridge to warm up and decanted it, leaving just the yeast cake behind. I saved 2 litres of wort from brew day. I took that out of the fridge and warmed it up, then pitched it into the starter flask. I gave it a long aeration and stir on the stir plate for about 30 minutes, and then didn't touch it again. It only took an hour to start fermenting again.

I left it for 12 hours, by which time it was still fermenting vigorously. Then I pitched the whole thing into the fermenter. It only took a few minutes for the airlock activity to take off, and now a few hours later it's fermenting hard again and I can see the SG has dropped a couple of points already. So far so good.

Now I'll give it a day or two, and then I'll start feeding it the dextrose. Somewhere around 1.5kg in a few doses and hopefully it doesn't finish too dry with too much ABV. I might give it the first 1kg and then wait and see where the SG pulls up. I would much prefer it finish under 18% than over it.

 

[DuncB]

Just bumping this as I’m about to brew the Barley Wine. I’m stuck on one part of this process and hoping someone can chime in with some help.

So I’ll mostly ferment the wort out with my usual yeast. Then I want to pitch the WLP 099 starter and start feeding the dextrose. There will be no O2 in the wort by this stage and I’m not about to pump it full of O2 at that point either. I don’t know how the WLP 099 will handle pitching into a wort with no O2, but I don’t see any other option.

Except, maybe I could pitch the first chunk of dextrose into the WLP 099 starter, oxygenate that, and then pitch into the fermenter.

Hi I've used the wlp099 on two barley wines and an imperial stout, plus dregs for the partigyle brews.

First go last year I built the starter to 5 litres and pitched it into 1.107 Thomas hardy ale clone. Fermented fast and incredible barm on it down to 1.036.
The dregs of the starter I used on a 1.041 partigyle that fermented fast as well. I racked off that and pitched a 1.107 imperial stout onto it.
Once that had finished activity on airlock I incrementally fed it with 2.2 kg of dextrose and it coped fine.
I did oxygenate the first barley wine on day 2 again and then racked it to secondary onto some oak blocks.
Nothing really happened to gravity for several months. I then added some fresh wrp1007 yeast and bottled it a few weeks ago gravity had fallen to 1.020.
2 weeks ago I built another 6 litre starter for another go at the Thomas Hardy barley wine this time learnt 'nd mashed better got 23 litres of 1.127 and a partigyle of 1.044,
Racked into secondary last night at 1.046 and will wait a month before adding the extra yeast.
No oxygenation this time after 2 days just rose slowly and held at 23C.
Lots of questions about this yeast some say it's a +ve yeast others that it's a wine yeast that can't ferment complex sugars.
It can certainly cope with alcohol at high and low levels.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Lots of questions about this yeast some say it's a +ve yeast others that it's a wine yeast that can't ferment complex sugars.
It can certainly cope with alcohol at high and low levels.

The most plausible guess I've seen is that it's a blend of a diastatic beer yeast to release sugar from dextrins and a wine-like yeast for alcohol tolerance.

 

[DuncB]

This site about the yeast seems quite solid.
https://beer.suregork.com/?p=3850
Which is where you might have got your information from @Northern_Brewer

 

[jsphlynch]

When I used WLP099, I plated it and picked a single colony for making a freezer stock, then later heard the theory that WLP099 was actually a blend of an alcohol-tolerant and a diastatic yeast. I've not done any tests on what I've banked to see if it may be diastatic and/or alcohol tolerant, but I definitely will before I use it in an actual batch of beer. I will say that on the plate all the colonies looked identical, suggesting an single strain. I can't help but wonder if the anecdotes of hyperattenuation might be a consequence of White Labs not testing for diastaticus contamination prior to the Left Hand debacle, and such contaminations had plenty of time to drive attenuation when people were doing extended ferments for their monster beers.

 

[DuncB]

My experience has been that it didn't rip through all sugars on a long ferment.
Gravity didn't budge from October 22 at 1.036 to April 23. The gravity only dropped further with the addition of the wyeast 1007.
Current barley wine is a bit higher gravity starting but same recipe so I'll see how it goes over the next month. But plan to pitch some fresh 1007 in a month.
There's no doubt it coped with dextrose chaptalisation well in the stout.

 

[day_trippr]

I would agree with both the "tuned for monosaccharide additions" as well as likely diastaticus+ wrt wlp099 based on a singular and impressive experience using it for a barley wine that through regular feedings of CS reached almost 18% before grinding to a stop. And I have read some folks have approached 25% ABV with it...

Cheers!

 

[G_robertus]

White Labs themselves list WLP099 as STA1 positive, so the observation that isolated colonies won't ferment maltotriose would indeed suggest a blend.

 

[jsphlynch]

White Labs themselves list WLP099 as STA1 positive, so the observation that isolated colonies won't ferment maltotriose would indeed suggest a blend.

While that would indeed suggest a blend, it's not the only explanation. I recall seeing somewhere (I can't find the a source now, so I'm more than willing to be corrected if somebody has different information) that the STA1 +/- designation from White Labs is just a test for presence/absence of the gene and not whether the gene is actually expressed and functional. STA1- yeast require the AGT1 allele to be able to ferment maltotriose, but AGT1 is absent in most STA1+ yeast. So it's possible that WLP099 contains a single strain with a nonfunctional STA1 gene (making it positive by White Labs definition), but without AGT1 and without a functional STA1 it is unable to ferment maltotriose.

I'll run some tests on my WLP099 isolate and report back. I've got a busy schedule ahead, so this might take a while.

 

[G_robertus]

While that would indeed suggest a blend, it's not the only explanation. I recall seeing somewhere (I can't find the a source now, so I'm more than willing to be corrected if somebody has different information) that the STA1 +/- designation from White Labs is just a test for presence/absence of the gene and not whether the gene is actually expressed and functional. STA1- yeast require the AGT1 allele to be able to ferment maltotriose, but AGT1 is absent in most STA1+ yeast. So it's possible that WLP099 contains a single strain with a nonfunctional STA1 gene (making it positive by White Labs definition), but without AGT1 and without a functional STA1 it is unable to ferment maltotriose.

I'll run some tests on my WLP099 isolate and report back. I've got a busy schedule ahead, so this might take a while.

You are absolutely correct. I didn't think my statement through and just ignored the existence of upstream regulatory processes. STA1+ yeasts can ferment maltotriose by using glucoamylase according to sources on MTF, but I also found numerous genes that appear to be linked to STA1 functionality. The activity might also differ, with some strains having functional diastatic capabilities, but much slower due to limitations in transcription.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

While that would indeed suggest a blend, it's not the only explanation. I recall seeing somewhere (I can't find the a source now, so I'm more than willing to be corrected if somebody has different information) that the STA1 +/- designation from White Labs is just a test for presence/absence of the gene and not whether the gene is actually expressed and functional. STA1- yeast require the AGT1 allele to be able to ferment maltotriose, but AGT1 is absent in most STA1+ yeast. So it's possible that WLP099 contains a single strain with a nonfunctional STA1 gene (making it positive by White Labs definition), but without AGT1 and without a functional STA1 it is unable to ferment maltotriose.

I'll run some tests on my WLP099 isolate and report back. I've got a busy schedule ahead, so this might take a while.

The fact that its attenuation is officially listed as 80-100% suggests there is diastatic activity in there.

Traditionally people tested just for the presence of the actual gene, but Suregork's work showed that many such strains have a broken promoter ("switch") so don't express the gene. See this for the grisly details - he also has a simple PCR test for the presence of a working promoter. But I'd guess that given its intended purpose and declared attenuation, WLP099 won't be one of those with the broken switch.

https://beer.suregork.com/?p=4068

 

[suregork]

All single colony isolates of WLP099 I have tested are STA- and unable to use maltotriose. We've also whole-genome sequenced one such colony, and the strain is a POF-, STA- wine strain. I have never tested extracting DNA directly from a WLP099 package and testing for STA1 by PCR. Since people are reporting normal (70%+) or high attenuations with WLP099, and if White Labs say it's STA1, the only possible explanation is that it is a blend of the dominant wine strain and a small amount of a diastatic strain.

 

[DuncB]

Certainly my limited experience with high gravity wort has shown it stubbornly grinds to a halt with wort alone. It's seems very happy to chomp away at simple dextrose.
There's also the role of the STA 2 and STA 3 which is an underexplored action or not action.
Could it be possible 2 strains in the isolate pure culture one are and ,no wine but the wine strain takes over as fermentation progresses and is a kill strain?

 

[jsphlynch]

I will say that on the plate all the colonies looked identical, suggesting an single strain.

Some googling led me to @suregork's several year old post about 099 on the Milk The Funk facebook, and in the comments Lance Shaner posted a picture of a streak plate that very obviously has multiple strains. I'm now firmly in the "intentional blend" camp.

 

[Cloud Surfer]

So I fed the fermentation 1.7kg of Dextrose in 3 doses over a period of 6 days. It's pretty much finished now at around 1.019, which is 16.5% ABV. That's perfect. I could have easily kept feeding it and pushing up the alcohol. But I believe at these levels you don't gain anything by the extra alcohol. I'll let it rest in primary for another couple of weeks then transfer to a once used (for beer) whiskey barrel and leave it sit for 1 year. Next up is to do exactly the same thing with my Imperial Stout recipe.