WLP025 (Southwold) - any profiles close? (Adnams Broadside-esque)

[Gadjobrinus]

Been really loving my re-discovery of First Gold across my recent bitters. Wanting to play with it more and have read of Adnams Broadside, it's bottled version, in many places. Never fortunate enough to try it yet, so am trying to capture something of it's qualities and what I can suss across forums and Adnams itself.

Further digging confirms the bottled version is 100% First Gold. Playing with the balance of bittering to late hops - if my "normal" IBU balance for bitters is 80% bittering IBU, here I'm shooting for 70% First Gold bittering and the balance at 10 min., and 30 min (170F) WP/Steep.; if my "normal" BU:GU for bitters is .85-.90, shooting for a much lower ratio here of .61 or so. 1.064 OG, 39 IBUs, 5.8% abv.

Looking for something in a tawny-ruby; looking for some but not unctuous residual sweetness. 156F 60 minute mash (I mash most bitters at 149-150 x 90 minutes; darker strong ales, 152-153). I thought I'd go with Golden Promise over MO, in this same vein. 97% Golden Promise, 2.5% dark chocolate, .5% black malt. No crystal.

Now, to the yeast issue. I understand Adnams's is a very special house yeast. I've heard some report of WLP025 being an acceptable Southwold ale yeast. I am seeking an estery, fruity yeast that may be different from those I typically use (I use almost exclusively Wyeast 1469). I'd anecdotally read Adnams ferments a tad high, 72F or so, to "slightly stress" the yeast, and thought I, too, might ferment higher for the same purposes.

So - looking for some yeast help, in the absence of finding WLP025 anywhere. I did see on a British forum of a user achieving some success with Ringwood, but I've never used it and in truth I'm not sure I want to (for no other reason than a vague memory of people's troubles with the yeast).

 

[ba-brewer]

I don't recall wlp025 as being very estery, I do recall it being not very good at clearing.

Recently used wlp023 burton ale and it was fairly fruity, took a while to clear. WLP041 is quite fruity but I get/got banana which is not my favorite flavor.

Ringwood makes a good beer given some time to clean up. The first time I used it I think I rushed it and got a ton of diacetyl. WLP006 is similar to wlp005 but less diacetyl, it is a seasonal or vault strain but seems to come around every year.

 

[DuncB]

Yeast is tricky for Adnams based on this brewery visit and beer recipe build.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Yeast is tricky for Adnams based on this brewery visit and beer recipe build.

Thanks, watching now. Appreciate it.

 

[kmarkstevens]

I've heard on the Interwebs that Adnams was/is a dual strain. That WLP025 is the "flavor" strain, and the other is "flocculant" strain is the Wyeast. I vaguely remember trying to reculture the WLP025 a few years ago, and it was really powdery. As in, I cold crashed the 2L Erlenmeyer flask with about 1cm of yeast sediment in the bottom. When decanting the liquid to get that yeasty goodness, most of the yeast had poured off. Wierd. First yeast I've ever had do that. I was barely able to bank anything and not sure if still viable? I don't remember what the brewed taste was, but will try to reculture and revisit once there is a good looking recipe. Gut feel is to let the WLP025 go to work for 2-3 days, then hit it with something really flocculant like the Fullers strain. (I don't remember how well the West Yorkie flocs, but that's a fine yeast.)

 

[Gadjobrinus]

I've heard on the Interwebs that Adnams was/is a dual strain. That WLP025 is the "flavor" strain, and the other is "flocculant" strain is the Wyeast. I vaguely remember trying to reculture the WLP025 a few years ago, and it was really powdery. As in, I cold crashed the 2L Erlenmeyer flask with about 1cm of yeast sediment in the bottom. When decanting the liquid to get that yeasty goodness, most of the yeast had poured off. Wierd. First yeast I've ever had do that. I was barely able to bank anything and not sure if still viable? I don't remember what the brewed taste was, but will try to reculture and revisit once there is a good looking recipe. Gut feel is to let the WLP025 go to work for 2-3 days, then hit it with something really flocculant like the Fullers strain. (I don't remember how well the West Yorkie flocs, but that's a fine yeast.)

Good note, thanks. I seem to recall @Northern_Brewer talking about this - extremely flocculant in that it drops really bright, but easily disturbed and becomes dusty with any jarring.

I really love the 1469. I actually just pitched a 3rd generation crop into an oatmeal stout tonight, really eager to try out different time and temp regimes with the yeast.

Happy new year, and happy brewing in the upcoming year!

 

[McMullan]

Let's be honest, all the info we're ever going to get from a brewery (unless we're buying it) is a version of the tour spiel that helps promote the brewery, its brand and product (its business). It's just a form of enjoyable marketing. They aren't going to provide an accurate description of their procedures and recipes. It's all very general and incomplete, often with a hint of mystery signposted down a rabbit hole. The better their beer, the more so. That's the pattern I've noticed. We're often told that a brewery uses more than one strain due to "flocculation issues" with the favoured strain. Yet, we can pitch among the least flocculant strains and do what many British brewers do; add isinglass at cellar temperature and end up with crystal clear beer within a day or two. I found the description of the yeast - the inevitable uphill struggle to keep it balanced - inconsistent with the rest of the brewery's claimed ethos of "keeping things simple and working with what we've got to make us unique". I bet, like most traditional English breweries serially repitching house yeast, they've got one strain with variants and a big tub of isinglass. If WLP025 is a related to the key Adams strain, it can still be pitched alone to achieve something comparable to some noticeable level. Failing that, pitch a healthy cup of any English strain, supplemented with a few cloves or other spice(s), if that helps achieve part of the aim. Definitely 1469. There's still going to be a nice beer to be had regardless.

 

[DuncB]

@kmarkstevens
The video suggests finicky strain of yeast. Which mirrors @McMullan statements.

 

[kmarkstevens]

I had two bottles of Ghost Ship this summer, from a bottle shop in Toronto. My palate really doesn't like most American C hops, which generally taste to me a combination of cat whiz, skunked and/or dank. I would have passed on getting the Ghost Ship had I actually read the label in the bottle shop. Did drink both bottles so the C hop character wasn't completely nasty, but not my thing.

Broadsides was simply a superlative beer. I only had about 100cc worth since we were sharing, but I would put it in my all time top 10 beer list.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Thanks guys. Have to say, I know it won't be the same beer (and it never is, obviously), but I do love 1469. Just roused a beautiful oatmeal stout, hour 48. @kmarkstevens , looking forward to this.

Have to say, in terms of my imagined attributes of this beer or others I'm sketching out, I find a total absence of crystal kind of amazing, but I know that's my error. I get the GP, which I find sweeter and less nutty, toasty than MO (GP is new to me as of coming back recently). But my bias will always tend to some C 135-165, a crystal I actually love to a fault. Anyone comment on hints of prunes, or what I think of as baked dark fruit? Not in any pronounced way, at all, not here - but a note, against a backdrop of the moderate chocolate and black? (I've got 97% GP, 2.5% English chocolate, .5% black malt).

 

[Colindo]

I used Wyeast 1335 for an Adnam's clone before and it gave me the same flavours that I got from a bottle of Adnam's Soutwold, being liquorice and some hop spiciness (like a large whirlpool addition, even though one of my beers had only bittering hop additions). The thing is that Adnam's has a second strain that makes the beer drier, so some co-pitched Nottingham or WLP007 might be needed.
I tried a clone of the Broadside using 2% Chocolate malt, but had issues with the yeast health at that point.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Good note, thanks. I seem to recall @Northern_Brewer talking about this - extremely flocculant in that it drops really bright, but easily disturbed and becomes dusty with any jarring.

Sounds more like something I'd say about Windsor, which is a classic example of that, I've not used WLP025.

Just to be clear, if a yeast is easily disturbed then it is *not* flocculant, flocculation is about how well it "sticks" to itself or other yeasts. The speed or otherwise of dropping is a completely separate thing.

 

[Gadjobrinus]

Sounds more like something I'd say about Windsor, which is a classic example of that, I've not used WLP025.

Just to be clear, if a yeast is easily disturbed then it is *not* flocculant, flocculation is about how well it "sticks" to itself or other yeasts. The speed or otherwise of dropping is a completely separate thing.

Oh I was speaking about the characteristic, not this yeast specifically. I do recall a conversation somewhere on Windsor, must have been where I saw your comment. And that distinction is what I recall now - your comment on how easily or quickly it drops out, what I always associated with flocculation, isn't flocculation or related to it. I forget the principle involved - was it a physical thing? Something about ion exchange, density? I can't remember now but that was fascinating to me.

 

[McMullan]

The primary principle, in a brewery fermentation, is gravity. Different strains stick together to varying degrees. Some much better than others, which make better home brewing yeast, imo. I did try Windsor, as part of my adventure into dry yeast. What a recalcitrant thing it was too! Not very often I need to prep some isinglass.