Wlp001

[Amy Kemp]

this is my first experience with WLP001. From their website it list attenuation at 75-80%. Temp range 63ish-72 (please correct me if I’m wrong). So I did a recipe kit AG, SG 1.046 when I pitch, 2L starter. That was 7 days ago. I did 63F at pitch, 65F 24 hrs later, followed by 2F increase starting day 3-5 topping out at 71F. I check the SG at it at 1.001, totally chewed through it.
Initial flavor profile is not bad, I don’t detect any strong off flavors and has good nose appeal. Should I expect this level of attenuation from WLP 001?
I’m going to attempt my first yeast wash/harvest with this as well. Any comments greatly appreciated

 

[brownni5]

That seems high for Chico yeast, but there are too many unknown variables to pin down why you saw that.

 

[Abrayton]

001 always ferments lower than I expect, but not that low.

 

[Abrayton]

Also lots of us don’t bother to “wash” the yeast. Just leave a little beer on top, swirl to mix it up with the yeast cake and jar it.

 

[Terpene]

Double check your measurements.

Double check your instrument(s), hydrometer, refractometer. Make sure they're in calibration.

Make sure you're taking measurements at the right temperature for your instrument.

Does it drink like a super dry 1.001 beer?

 

[Amy Kemp]

Double check your measurements.

Double check your instrument(s), hydrometer, refractometer. Make sure they're in calibration.

Make sure you're taking measurements at the right temperature for your instrument.

Does it drink like a super dry 1.001 beer?

My hydrometer is calibrated, checked that a few brews back. Temp was 71F and the correction was nominal.
Taste wise, not sure I have developed my palate to know what a 1.001 is supposed to taste like, never had a beer ferment to that level.
Hopefully I have a better idea of what this will taste like after keg and carb.

 

[Amy Kemp]

Also lots of us don’t bother to “wash” the yeast. Just leave a little beer on top, swirl to mix it up with the yeast cake and jar it.

There so many different ways, trying to figure out what works for me.
So your process would be rack beermoff of yeast cake. Swirl up contents and Pour right into a cleaned/sterilized Mason jar? Attempt to pour the suspended off any traub/floculated yeast?

 

[IslandLizard]

There is no way you end up at 1.001 FG. Did you perhaps mean 1.010?

 

[isomerization]

I’d suspect a wild yeast contamination to take the gravity that low, or perhaps you recently used a saison-type yeast?

 

[Abrayton]

There so many different ways, trying to figure out what works for me.
So your process would be rack beermoff of yeast cake. Swirl up contents and Pour right into a cleaned/sterilized Mason jar? Attempt to pour the suspended off any traub/floculated yeast?

You’ll get a mixture of trub and yeast. I usually harvest from a smaller low hopped beer, use harvested yeast for several batches and repeat.

 

[Terpene]

My hydrometer is calibrated, checked that a few brews back. Temp was 71F and the correction was nominal.
Taste wise, not sure I have developed my palate to know what a 1.001 is supposed to taste like, never had a beer ferment to that level.
Hopefully I have a better idea of what this will taste like after keg and carb.

Okay, so if your measurements are correct, the only thing I can think of is that some extraneous enzyme(s) or organism(s) got into your process somehow.

It wouldn't be as much taste as mouthfeel of a 1.001 beer. It might, perhaps, feel a little (or a lot, frankly) more watery than your average all grain beer. It might feel less dense, less full in your mouth, generally less substantial.

 

[Terpene]

Just thought of something:

Amy, you mentioned an all grain kit. You didn't say what style it was. Was it a brut IPA kit? Did it come with an extra enzyme packet?

 

[Amy Kemp]

Just thought of something:

Amy, you mentioned an all grain kit. You didn't say what style it was. Was it a brut IPA kit? Did it come with an extra enzyme packet?

No, it was the Lunar Shock From morebeer. It’s a blue moon type clone. I’m going to have to take a look at the SG again when I get home, cause something doesn’t add up for me based on the comments.

 

[brewbama]

Also lots of us don’t bother to “wash” the yeast. Just leave a little beer on top, swirl to mix it up with the yeast cake and jar it.

I’ve recently been exposed to no rinse cropping. From what I understand it’s best for the yeast.

 

[Comfort_Zone]

What temp did you mash at? How accurate is your thermometer? With a low enough temp it's definitely possible to get Chico down that low. I do it all the time.

 

[Mer-man]

What temp did you mash at? How accurate is your thermometer? With a low enough temp it's definitely possible to get Chico down that low. I do it all the time.

You get a chico strain to 1.001 with an all malt grist? I don't think that's possible without diastaticus.

 

[Comfort_Zone]

You get a chico strain to 1.001 with an all malt grist? I don't think that's possible without diastaticus.

Maybe not down to 1.001, but I've definitely gotten close. Do a step mash and really focus on the limit-dextrinase and beta-amylase ranges. You can get a super fermentable wort from that. Having a lower OG definitely helps too as at a certain point you'll eventually yield enough non-fermentables.

With diastatic yeasts, mash temp means a lot less. 3711 and Dry Belgian can get really close to or even below 1.000 with really simple grain bills.

 

[Mer-man]

Maybe not down to 1.001, but I've definitely gotten close. Do a step mash and really focus on the limit-dextrinase and beta-amylase ranges. You can get a super fermentable wort from that. Having a lower OG definitely helps too as at a certain point you'll eventually yield enough non-fermentables.

With diastatic yeasts, mash temp means a lot less. 3711 and Dry Belgian can get really close to or even below 1.000 with really simple grain bills.

You mean like stare at it really hard?
I found a good paper on limit dextrinase but no indication of whether it's any use below gelatinization temp for the amylases.

 

[Pappers_]

You can definitely get Chico down to the low 00's without any wild inoculation happening. As state above, there are too many variables to say what exactly is going on here. Mash temp, for example? Exact grain bill. Plus, we know she raised the temp during fermentation, which would have aided attentuation. Plus, using a hydrometer, the difference between reading 1.001 and 1.003 is well within user error (referring to myself as the user LOL).

 

[Pappers_]

For what its worth, I sometimes do what @Abrayton does - I rack most of the beer of the yeast cake in the fermenter, then swirl it up and fill up a largish sanitized ball jar. I do this usually when I'm planning on brewing a big beer - brew a small beer to build up the yeast, then save the yeast for a big pitch in the big beer. I usually plan on using the yeast within a week or two of saving it. Works like a charm.

 

[IslandLizard]

That! ^

 

[Comfort_Zone]

You mean like stare at it really hard?
I found a good paper on limit dextrinase but no indication of whether it's any use below gelatinization temp for the amylases.

Indeed, one must stare with the utmost determination. In all seriousness though I've done mashes where I start at ambient temp and finishing off around 148F. Finishes off real nice and low. If I use something like 3711 then all bets are off, that's a beast.

 

[Amy Kemp]

For what its worth, I sometimes do what @Abrayton does - I rack most of the beer of the yeast cake in the fermenter, then swirl it up and fill up a largish sanitized ball jar. I do this usually when I'm planning on brewing a big beer - brew a small beer to build up the yeast, then save the yeast for a big pitch in the big beer. I usually plan on using the yeast within a week or two of saving it. Works like a charm.

Great advice, thank you.
Also in regards to user error, there probably is some with the hydrometer.