WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast

[snowninja1]

Besides the very fast fermentation this yeast dropped really clear really fast. Just kegged yesterday and it was also very clean tasting. Im a fan.

 

[trent]

So, I just want to have this written, after 4 beers (and more coming) from one vial of SDSY, this is my new house yeast. The beers finish fast, this yeast drops out like a MOFO, and leaves a very clean crisp finish that has a great highlight on hops and malt alike.

I found it -- my new house and goto yeast.

 

[phoenixs4r]

Been meaning to try it. I used rogue yeast last and kicked myself for not saving any for later.

Fermentation of an RIS at 1.090 down to 1.25 in 2 days? It was crazy, damn thing fermented like a starter.

 

[Gtrman13]

Brewed my christmas spice ale with this yeast. I'll report back in a couple of months on the taste. Fermentation seemed to go very well, though.

 

[Jamison]

Just put my starter on the stir plate. I'm doing an all Citra hopped IPA PM (Three Floyd's Zombie Dust clone). Couldn't decide if I wanted to use WLP001 or try 007 when I stumbled upon 090. This sounds like it could be the best of both worlds.

 

[Jamison]

Fermentation really took off! Getting rapid bubbles through the blow off in under 2 hours.

 

[apratsunrthd]

I used this yeast in a 1.066 OG IPA. I fermented at exactly 65degF. Fermentation was complete in 4 days. FG was 1.015 (just a little higher than I'd hoped). I'm getting some light pear esters and flocculation is poor. I'll definitely be trying this yeast again but I'll probably go down to 62degF to see if I can get those esters out while maintaining the fast fermentation time.

 

[calebawilson]

Used this yeast on a pale ale with of of 1048 did great them put a barley wine on the yeast cake oh was 1120 and it's super clean almost lager like.

 

[Montanaandy]

Getting towards the end of a high gravity IIPA brewed with SSY which I added onto an order from NB because I can't get White Labs locally. The IIPA turned out great and I was impressed with SSY, in particular because I probably ended up under-pitching due to a mishap with the starter flask, but the beer still fermented quickly and cleanly. I taste a little bit more in the way of esters with this yeast using my standard IIPA recipe than I do when I use PacMan (which is normally my go-to yeast for IIPA's) and that is not a bad thing at least as far as I am concerned. Reminds me of a Wyeast PacMan/Am Ale II combo if such a thing existed. Nice yeast.

 

[Brulosopher]

Holler!

Just used this yeast for the first time... yowza! That puppy fermented out quick, flocc'd just fine, and left me with a crisp and well-balanced beer (1.049 OG, simple pale grist bill with English hops). Brewing this weekend and thinking about changing plans a bit... was considering a Hef using WLP029, but now I'm thinking I'll brew up a IIPA using SSY... plus I just got my order of Centennial, Simcoe, Cascade, and CTZ hops.

Word.

 

[Alphonso]

I used this yeast in a 1.066 OG IPA. I fermented at exactly 65degF. Fermentation was complete in 4 days. FG was 1.015 (just a little higher than I'd hoped). I'm getting some light pear esters and flocculation is poor. I'll definitely be trying this yeast again but I'll probably go down to 62degF to see if I can get those esters out while maintaining the fast fermentation time.

One question; did you use a starter for that IPA? Because if not, I feel like that may be the source of some of those esters. I think this may be the case because of Montannaandy's comment about possibly underpitching and getting more esters than from pacman. Personally, I've found this yeast to produce less esters than pacman. Anyone else have any thoughts on that?

Also, I would recommend not dropping the fermentation temp to 62. I've found that fermentation temp control is pretty key to this yeast. Once I started holding at 65 (beer temp) for the duration of fermentation, it really fell into line; clean, fast, and dropped clear. I've noticed that deviations from the 'sweet spot' can cause the fermentation to take longer (yes, I believe that in this case warmer = slower) and not floc out as well. I've found it to still be pretty clean, if maybe a bit more estery at higher temps.

I really like this strain - I've found it to be extremely clean, better tasting than chico in smaller beers (I think chico has a 'funny' taste in low abv beer), and I feel that it accentuates malt characteristics slightly better than chico (anyone else?). Combined with the better flocculation and faster turnaround that's why this one is my new go-to clean yeast. Good stuff.

 

[Alphonso]

Oh, extra note; I think this is a superb yeast that offers great results, BUT is a bit more exacting in terms of it's demand on the brewer. Its not a dump it in and forget about it for 3-4 weeks kind of thing. I think that's where the chico strain excells.

I think for this yeast to give optimal results it is more important to pay attention to pitching rate, fermentation temp control, and 'yeast health' (ie. oxygenation, etc) than with some other strains.

thoughts?

 

[Brulosopher]

I brewed a US hopped Red Ale on Sunday and dumped it right onto the WLP090 cake from another batch... it took off within about 5 hours and is still roaring! This is a first for me, as I usually harvest yeast, make starters, and then pitch into the wort. The beer that came off the yeast, a Pale Ale using UK hops, is wonderful- crisp, clean, and well attenuated. It wasn't a very hoppy beer, so I'm interested to see how the San Diego Super Yeast responds to this next brew.

As far as fermentation with this yeast goes, I pitch at about 66F, let it naturally rise to 68F where it stays for 3 to 4 days until the beer is almost fully fermented out, then I drop the temp a couple degrees every day over the next couple days, and finally crash it to 34F where it sits for another week before kegging. This is great yeast to ferment warmer (I use a lot of WLP002 and WLP007, which I like to ferment around 65F)!

I've heard speculation that WLP090 is Port Brewing's house strain, so I bought a bottle of their IPA just for comparison this weekend. The beer was clean and tasty with similar characteristics to the beers I made (minus the hop difference). I wouldn't doubt if 090 is Port's yeast.

Cheers!

 

[terrapinj]

White Labs says it's not from any brewery but just named SDSY because that's where they are based

Is this strain from one of your San Diego clients?

No. We included the name San Diego in the title to honor the hometown of White Labs.

 

[jtejedor]

Its pretty hard to tell apart from wlp001, at least in the finished product. And the strain had to come from somewhere didn't it?

 

[pm5k00]

Its pretty hard to tell apart from wlp001, at least in the finished product. And the strain had to come from somewhere didn't it?

If I were to venture a guess, I would say White Labs harvested the yeast that flocc'd the fastest from a batch of WLP001, seeing as the flavor profile is so similar.

 

[jepp0174]

Sad to say, since I like many of White lab's products, but wlp090 has definitely not proven itself a good yeast in my experience. It actually turned me down on everything it promised. It has low attenuation, not high, it produces a **** load of diacetyl, so it's not neutral and it ferments slowly not quickly! It might be a suitable yeast for some low gravity beers but as far as its advertised properties go, it definitely let me down. I did two beers with it, one low and one high gravity. Both ended up in stuck fermentation stinking like a diacetyl bomb. I was able to clean them up a bit by adding many packages of Fermentis US-05 to both beers and they turned out ok, eventually. Wasn't easy though.
Have I just been very unlucky with this? Does it matter? That's up to you but I want you to know that I am an experienced brewer, I follow pitching rates, I use good sanitation and I don't have anything against White labs' products all in all.
Yeast tends to mutate along the way which is why you can't reuse your yeast too many times. - So developing yeast can only be based upon letting it mutate. Did white labs this time let the base strain mutate too far? Is it a very unstable strain so that some tubes are good, while some are bad? I don't know. But I'm staying away from wlp090 from now on.

 

[Brulosopher]

Sad to say, since I like many of White lab's products, but wlp090 has definitely not proven itself a good yeast in my experience. It actually turned me down on everything it promised. It has low attenuation, not high, it produces a **** load of diacetyl, so it's not neutral and it ferments slowly not quickly! It might be a suitable yeast for some low gravity beers but as far as its advertised properties go, it definitely let me down. I did two beers with it, one low and one high gravity. Both ended up in stuck fermentation stinking like a diacetyl bomb. I was able to clean them up a bit by adding many packages of Fermentis US-05 to both beers and they turned out ok, eventually. Wasn't easy though.
Have I just been very unlucky with this? Does it matter? That's up to you but I want you to know that I am an experienced brewer, I follow pitching rates, I use good sanitation and I don't have anything against White labs' products all in all.
Yeast tends to mutate along the way which is why you can't reuse your yeast too many times. - So developing yeast can only be based upon letting it mutate. Did white labs this time let the base strain mutate too far? Is it a very unstable strain so that some tubes are good, while some are bad? I don't know. But I'm staying away from wlp090 from now on.

That's too bad. I've heard of a few others who had a difficult time with this strain, you're certainly not alone. In the many times I've used 090 it has attenuated fully (78%+) within 3-5 days, dropped clear quickly, and produced a clean beer. I recently did a split batch using WLP001 vs WLP090, check it out: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/california-wlp001-vs-san-diego-wlp090-353205/

I love 001 characteristics, but it takes forever to go bright. 090 tastes different, but in a good way I think. Cheers!

 

[periwinkle1239]

This summer I used the SD Super Yeast on a Stone IPA clone recipe and it turned out spectacular. Mashed at 152 degrees. Fermented right at 65-66 degrees. Great attenuation and cleared in no time. Bitter with a touch of sweetness/maltiness. In order to save it from disappearing from my keg, I bottled the last half of it!

Last week I just used the yeast again on NB's Kiwi Express IPA and I can't wait to see how it turns out!

 

[Montanaandy]

While I had a good experience with it the time that I used it, I did not find it to be much different from the Chico strain and not on par with PacMan which is what many have compared it to. I feel that it is a good strain but not great.

 

[Brulosopher]

While I had a good experience with it the time that I used it, I did not find it to be much different from the Chico strain and not on par with PacMan which is what many have compared it to. I feel that it is a good strain but not great.

I'll have to get my hands on this PacMan yeast (Rogue, right?)... never used it.

 

[Montanaandy]

I'll have to get my hands on this PacMan yeast (Rogue, right?)... never used it.

Yep. Wyeast makes it available in limited amounts (special order via the outfit that markets the Rogue Dead Guy kit, Brewers something...)

 

[Brewskii]

I'll have to get my hands on this PacMan yeast (Rogue, right?)... never used it.

Wyeast is the only one that has it. Wyeast 1764. Been meaning to try this but can never find it in stock when I want it.

 

[Brulosopher]

Wyeast is the only one that has it. Wyeast 1764. Been meaning to try this but can never find it in stock when I want it.

Yeah... an my LHBS doesn't carry Wyeast. It's the only ingredient I won't buy online.

 

[Brewskii]

Yeah... an my LHBS doesn't carry Wyeast. It's the only ingredient I won't buy online.

As long as you make a starter I wouldn't worry this time of year. I think AHS was the only of the big shops I remember carrying it.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

I am doing my Bourbon County Stout with this strain. OG of 1.129, split a 2L starter between two 3+ gallon batches.

The first batch was made on Monday night and is just about done fermenting as of saturday. The second was made on Tuesday night and looks like it will be done on Sunday. 5 days at around 68°F.

No FG readings yet, but it looks like a good fermentation to me. Anything below 1.040FG will be considered a success.

One thing I noticed is that the cold crashed starter for Monday's batch took about 24 hours to get going (I use pure O2 when I pitch). However for the second batch, which I pitched at high krausen ( by adding a little more wort about 12 hrs before pitching), I had it bubbling away after about 12 hours.

This yeast floccs so well I am not sure it's the best choice for a cold-crashed starter. Pitching at high krausen looks like it gives better results.

 

[jepp0174]

Thanx for your input, guys. I might in fact give wlp090 another go like in a year or so if it's still available.
btw: When you mention the Chico strain, do you mean Wyeast 1056? That's pretty good. I used it a lot - but I do tend to stick with US-05 (dry) which is one third of the price.

 

[Brulosopher]

Thanx for your input, guys. I might in fact give wlp090 another go like in a year or so if it's still available.
btw: When you mention the Chico strain, do you mean Wyeast 1056? That's pretty good. I used it a lot - but I do tend to stick with US-05 (dry) which is one third of the price.

Chico strain = WLP001, Wyeast 1056, and Safale US-05

 

[DonLiguori]

Sorry for the re-post on this, I figured this thread was more appropriate for the question:

Does anyone have any idea how high of an OG this yeast is capable of? I put together a recipe for an IIPA and frankly, the results are terrifying. I planned on making a decent starter, but am definitely going to have to get an O2 tank and now it seems like I may also have to coax the yeast by doing multiple wort additions throughout the fermentation. By calculations (which of course are probably slightly flawed), the recipe I have is going to land the OG in the area of 1.174. The highest I've ever gone is 1.08, so this is completely new territory for me.

So I guess my questions are, can this yeast handle this level of ethanol? With a high-attenuating strain like this, I'd anticipate an ABV of 17-18%. I'm afraid I may have to go to the WLP099, and I really was looking for the profile that 90 offers. If it can handle this brew, am I forced into a position to do multiple fermentation wort additions, or can I skate away with a healthy starter directly into this high of a gravity?

 

[bigbeergeek]

That's a IIIPA, not a IIPA!

Even if you get 80% attenuation you'll still have a sweet SG of 1.030. I have no experience with WLP090, but that gravity seems unnecessarily high. Regardless, you'll want to stagger your wort additions and most definately work simple sugars into a significant percentage of the recipe. Forget starters, think yeastcake. Pure O2. Nutrients. Good luck, you psychopath.