ID of WLP005 yeast strain

[okiedog]

I must say that I am confused about the identity/origin of White Labs WLP005 British Ale Yeast. When I picked up this yeast, I thought it was Ringwood Ale, same as Wyeast 1187. But most yeast strain comparison lists show it as being the same strain as 1198. Some show WLP005 as being both 1187 and 1198. So....which is it? Can anyone give me a definitive answer?

 

[couchsending]

Always thought 005 and 1187 were the same

 

[Northern_Brewer]

What lists would they be? Most of the lists kicking round the internet are based on Kristen England's list at http://mrmalty.com/white-labs.php which has never claimed WLP005 is equivalent to 1098. 1098 is supposedly derived from Whitbread B, as is WLP007 suppposedly. You can't get away from "supposedly" with this kind of stuff - and no strain will be identical to another even from the same source, they keep mutating away.

Mind you, British brewers can never quite understand the US fascination with Ringwood yeast.

 

[okiedog]

Okay, now that I have looked at even more yeast comparison charts, comparisons of WLP005 seem to be mixed. After reading a few articles on Ringwood Ale Yeast, and descriptions and characteristics of WLP005, I think 005 is similar but not exactly the same as 1187. I have found this to be true of other strains reported to be the same in Wyeast and White labs. They are similar, but have a slightly different character.

Here are the yeast comparison lists that I looked at:
https://www.homebrewsupply.com/learn/yeast-comparison-charts.html
https://www.saltcitybrewsupply.com/media/YeastComparison.JPG
http://mrmalty.com/yeast.htm
http://www.shegoguebrew.com/p/yeast-strains.html

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Every one of those lists has WLP005=1187 - and are based on Kristen's work, the giveaway is when they repeat nonsenses like the source of 1275 as the "brewery""Henley of Thames", when in fact it's trying to be Henley-on-Thames, hometown of Brakspear.

As I say, they will always be slightly different from different sources - but also they will report performance using different worts, so the reported attenuation figures even for an identical yeast will come out slightly different from different labs, you need to take them with a bit of a pinch of salt.

 

[okiedog]

Thanks NB. Tomorrow I'm planning on using WLP005 for a Best Bitter. It is in a starter now. In a few weeks I should know how it turns out.

Every one of those lists has WLP005=1187 - and are based on Kristen's work, the giveaway is when they repeat nonsenses like the source of 1275 as the "brewery""Henley of Thames", when in fact it's trying to be Henley-on-Thames, hometown of Brakspear.

As I say, they will always be slightly different from different sources - but also they will report performance using different worts, so the reported attenuation figures even for an identical yeast will come out slightly different from different labs, you need to take them with a bit of a pinch of salt.

I know I didn't list any of the links that listed 005 as both 1187 and 1098. That seems to be mostly what I found at first. Anyway, I wanted to try Ringwood, and it sounds I'm set. BTW, this is the most comprehensive yeast chart I have found: http://www.straighttothepint.com/yeast-chart/

 

[corax]

Mind you, British brewers can never quite understand the US fascination with Ringwood yeast.

A lot of US homebrewers and beer enthusiasts outside of the Northeast never quite understood the Northeastern US fascination with Ringwood yeast, either.

 

[okiedog]

Well, I was looking for a British strain with a little more character than 1098, which I like for Blonde ales and British Golden ale. Hopefully, WLP005/Ringwood Ale yeast will meet my expectations.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Sounds like you're ready for a Yorkshire yeast - like Yorkshire folk, they've got plenty of personality but... need a bit of handling (hope the other half doesn't see me write that!). Brewlab's the best place to go for British yeast, but 1469 is not a bad place to start, or WLP037 is close to coming out of the Vault. Try M15 as well - I've got some in the fridge waiting to try, I suspect it may be a Yorkshire-type yeast.

 

[corax]

Sounds like you're ready for a Yorkshire yeast - like Yorkshire folk, they've got plenty of personality but... need a bit of handling (hope the other half doesn't see me write that!). Brewlab's the best place to go for British yeast, but 1469 is not a bad place to start, or WLP037 is close to coming out of the Vault. Try M15 as well - I've got some in the fridge waiting to try, I suspect it may be a Yorkshire-type yeast.

What kind of handling is required? (The yeast that is, not your other half...) Does it need active rousing, or just a higher-temp. rest?

Regarding M15, do you generally trust Mangrove Jack's yeast? I've seen mixed opinions regarding their quality.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

She needs regular rousing, and plenty of oxygen. Sorry, I mean the yeast does - you can view the whole Yorkshire Square system as a hardware solution to the particular demands of Yorkshire yeast.

I have a feeling there's a lot of nonsense talked about yeast in general, and MJ in particular - in many cases they're just repacking someone else's yeast, but people on the internet will swear blind that they brew completely differently to the original version. You can imagine that differences in packing systems will have a small effect, but not on the scale people talk about. I've only used M36, which my LHBS is keen on, and it seems fine. USians seem to complain of problems with M15 but Brits less so, which makes me think that it just needs a bit of care in how you look after it. Notably it has an alcohol tolerance of only 8% or so, but some people want to throw it in imperial stouts and then wonder why it pukes out halfway. But from what I read, it sounds like it would make a lovely yeast for a dark mild or something, I plan to use it in a mild partigyled off a strong dark.

 

[okiedog]

NB, Yorkshire yeast sounds interesting, and I have considered it. The NLHBS did not have it at the time, so I ended up getting Ringwood. Thames Valley is the other yeast that I considered. For now though, I'll wait and see what I get with Ringwood. When I pitched this yeast from a decanted starter, I couldn't believe how it had compacted in the bottom of the flask. Also, the clarity of the starter beer was amazing.

 

[ong]

I just did a best bitter last week with 1469 (and all Bramling Cross), so I’ll try to post some tasting notes in a few days.

 

[okiedog]

Ong, how low do you age it?

 

[couchsending]

For those looking for more info on Ringwood, check out the “Wyeast 1187 for an APA” AHA thread. Lots of info on other British yeasts as well. Here’s a quote about why it was used so much in the Northeast. Sounds like 1187/005 is actually only half of Ringwood. I’ve heard Conan is the other half. The 1187 nomenclature is from the NCYC yeast bank, Conan is 1188. I’ve always wanted to try blending 1187 and Conan, just haven’t got around to it yet.

—————————

One can hit true Ringwood with a lot of hops (e.g., DFH 90 Minute IPA), and it still retains its British character. It is a flavor positive yeast strain. The only breweries that are using true Ringwood are the breweries that were built by Peter Austin and Partners or breweries that hired someone who was a brewer at one of the Peter Austin and Partners built breweries (e.g., Jason Kennedy, DFH's original brew master, was a brewer at Wild Goose, which was built by Peter Austin and Partners). The Wyeast and White Labs cultures are partial cultures that are the result of yeast ranching home brewers plating for singles. Ringwood is a multi-strain culture. From what I can ascertain, the only person alive who knows how to assemble it from isolates now that Peter Austin has left us is Alan Pugsley. There is zero doubt in my mind that the isolates are held in the NCYC.

 

[okiedog]

Very interesting. I'd heard that 1469 West Yorkshire was multiple strains as well. I believe it is supposed to be 4 different strains. Or am I confusing Timothy Taylor's yeast with Ringwood?

 

[ong]

Ong, how low do you age it?

It will be about a week in the fermenter before I keg. These low gravity beers finish super quick. I just need to free up a keg!

 

[okiedog]

I like to keep mine in the fermentor for 2 weeks, then age for 4 weeks, especially my British/English styles.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

For those looking for more info on Ringwood, check out the “Wyeast 1187 for an APA” AHA thread. Lots of info on other British yeasts as well. Here’s a quote about why it was used so much in the Northeast. Sounds like 1187/005 is actually only half of Ringwood. I’ve heard Conan is the other half. The 1187 nomenclature is from the NCYC yeast bank, Conan is 1188. I’ve always wanted to try blending 1187 and Conan, just haven’t got around to it yet.

Yep, I know the Austin connection, the question was partly rhetorical. Still no excuse for them still using it though, and certainly not homebrewers. The original Hull culture that was used by the Ringwood Brewery was a four-strain AIUI, but a lot of commercial breweries only use two of the strains.

There seems to be no solid evidence for Conan being connected in any way to Ringwood, Conan seems to be a member of the Fullers/Whitbread B family which is unrelated to 1187. People seem to have read too much into the original name of Conan being VPB1188, which is more likely to do with the fact that Vermont Pub and Brewery opened its doors in November 1988 than to NCYC1188.

 

[okiedog]

I'm kegging my Best Bitter today, and will be priming, keg conditioning/aging it for about 4 weeks before chilling and tasting it. I'm anxious to explore the character of this WLP005 yeast. For some later brew, I may even try 1187 to see how it differs from WLP005.

 

[ong]

I just did a best bitter last week with 1469 (and all Bramling Cross), so I’ll try to post some tasting notes in a few days.

Here’s the best bitter SMaSH with Bramling Cross, Golden Promise, and 1469 (West Yorkshire Ale). The yeast hasn’t proven super flocculant, especially compared to 1968 or 1318. In general I think those yeasts work better for the style, although there’s nothing obnoxious about the yeast in this beer. A lot of heavy dark berry flavor from the hops and some black tea astringency.

 

[ESBrewer]

Wlp005... no more. The White labs catalogue can be rather misleading when it states that 'this strain is similar to wlp002 but more attenuative'. In my experience, it produced tons of diacetyl and I don't think that the ester profile is too similar either.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Here’s the best bitter SMaSH with Bramling Cross, Golden Promise, and 1469 (West Yorkshire Ale). The yeast hasn’t proven super flocculant, especially compared to 1968 or 1318. In general I think those yeasts work better for the style, although there’s nothing obnoxious about the yeast in this beer. A lot of heavy dark berry flavor from the hops and some black tea astringency.

While I love Bramling Cross, it can get a bit much on its own - 50:50 with EKG is somewhere near my favourite combination. Did you give the 1469 much aeration? It needs it to be truly happy.

 

[ong]

While I love Bramling Cross, it can get a bit much on its own - 50:50 with EKG is somewhere near my favourite combination. Did you give the 1469 much aeration? It needs it to be truly happy.

Probably not enough. I certainly didn’t do open fermentation.

The Bramling Cross is interesting as a SMaSH — I can see it being much nicer with some Goldings. I’m kind of glad I didn’t dry hop.

The last bitter I brewed was all Target, with a pretty big whirlpool addition as well as a dry hop. It was a little much!

 

[okiedog]

For a Best Bitter, I don't think you want to over power the malt with late addition or dry hop flavors and aromas. I like it with balanced malt and hops character, and a good bitter foundation that does not detract from the malt and hops favors. That is a balancing act that is not so easy to do, but that's what I like, and it is to style. I have tried Bitters in England, and some had a bitterness that was a little too sharp for my liking. Others seemed to be spot on, though, and I have wondered if the water made the difference

 

[balto charlie]

Curious ( I know, old thread) how your bitter did with WLP005? I too have been experimenting with this yeast, I don't find it fussy at all. I tend to rouse my beers as they slow down anyway so no issues there. I did not realize this yeast was similar to Ringwood. My last use for the yeast was in an Amber ale. I also used some Thomas Fawcett medium crystal II along with Golden Promise. I think the yeast and crystal malt truly gave me the flavors of an English style ale. Next up is a porter using this yeast.

 

[okiedog]

It turned out great. I like the mildly fruity and malty character WLP005 leaves in the beer. I produces flavorful British ales, especially bitters. I have never had a problem fermenting with WLP005.

 

[balto charlie]

Thanks, I made the porter last night and pitch WLP005. It is a Deschutes Black Butte Porter so a little fruity flavor might be nice. Yeast seems a little sluggish this morning but pitched late last night.

 

[okiedog]

It should be just fine. I try to pitch the yeast at about 65F, and allow it to warm up a couple degrees a day for the first 2 days (not exceeding 70F). That usually gives the yeast a good healthy start.

 

[balto charlie]

By Sunday evening it was rockin'! Still going strong today

 

[okiedog]

It sounds like it's off to a good start. Just don't let the ferm. temps get too high. Good luck, and don't forget to tell us how this one turns out.