WY 1968/ WLP002 Bottling Tips

[AT-JeffT]

The answers to all your british yeast questions are contained in this thread: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=221817

...spoiler alert: wy1968 is a tough one to bottle condition with.

I don't remember if its actually from the thread or my own personal experience but 1318 london 3 isn't the best tasting but it is pretty good and the easiest to use. Its not the amazing malt bomb that is 1469 or 1968 but it wont floc out on you and then restart in your bottles, it wont **** out a ton of diacetyl, it won't turn to cidery rocket fuel when you repitch.

Hey GBX,

Yeah, I've read through all the pages in that thread. Nobody seems to have a definitive answer as to how to solve the issue. Some users have the issue, some don't. I want to figure out why and solve it once and for all.

I'm very familiar with 1318. It's 1968 or bust for me.

What have your personal experiences been with 1968?

 

[lowtones84]

Honestly, I've been using WLP002 for over a year now as my house yeast because I've been on a bitter and mild kick. I've only had drastic over-carbonation once and other than that have not had a problem bottle conditioning, as I never keg.

As another member said, try an "open" or loose-top primary. Are starters being used? What temp are we doing the primary at? What temp are we bottle conditioning at? How many volumes of c02 are we shooting for when we bottle condition? Are we estimating volume of beer we're carbonating accurately?

I only ask because my fairly low gravity bitters and milds have been turning out great with 10 days of primary around 65-68F and 10-14 in the bottle near 70. It just seems like people are working too hard and over-complicating things to me, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Anyhow, I hope we all figure it out!

 

[AT-JeffT]

Honestly, I've been using WLP002 for over a year now as my house yeast because I've been on a bitter and mild kick. I've only had drastic over-carbonation once and other than that have not had a problem bottle conditioning, as I never keg.

As another member said, try an "open" or loose-top primary. Are starters being used? What temp are we doing the primary at? What temp are we bottle conditioning at? How many volumes of c02 are we shooting for when we bottle condition? Are we estimating volume of beer we're carbonating accurately?

I only ask because my fairly low gravity bitters and milds have been turning out great with 10 days of primary around 65-68F and 10-14 in the bottle near 70. It just seems like people are working too hard and over-complicating things to me, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Anyhow, I hope we all figure it out!

I can't speak on the bottle conditioning part, but my beers that are kegged and then bottled form the keg still exhibit the continued attenuation. I do use starters. I've tried overpitching as well as underpitching.

Do you use yeast nutrient by chance?

 

[lowtones84]

I do not, no. My methods are incredibly basic. Honestly my advice would be to look at a simpler solution. Rousing the yeast (gently) once a day in the first 2-3 days or so is a good idea even by white labs' advice. Also perhaps just shoot for slightly lower volumes of c02 on your next batch using the yeast. Even .2 volumes can certainly make a difference.

 

[AT-JeffT]

I do not, no. My methods are incredibly basic. Honestly my advice would be to look at a simpler solution. Rousing the yeast (gently) once a day in the first 2-3 days or so is a good idea even by white labs' advice. Also perhaps just shoot for slightly lower volumes of c02 on your next batch using the yeast. Even .2 volumes can certainly make a difference.

Yeah, I rouse daily. I've certainly found that anything over 2.5vols does not suit this yeast. Maybe 2.5vols would be fine once it's stable. In either case, I do prefer around 1.5-2.0 volumes.

If you have the time, please look over the thread from post #1. I would love a simple solution to this, hopefully you could pinpoint what you do differently in your process than those of us with the issue.

 

[gbx]

Hey GBX,

Yeah, I've read through all the pages in that thread. Nobody seems to have a definitive answer as to how to solve the issue. Some users have the issue, some don't. I want to figure out why and solve it once and for all.

I'm very familiar with 1318. It's 1968 or bust for me.

What have your personal experiences been with 1968?

I used 1968 for about 20 batches and had similar results. I couldn't get a beer that was malty that didn't have a ton of diacetyl. I did have some success bottle conditioning if I left it in the primary for upwards of 2 weeks but the resultant beer was very very clean and all the Englishness was gone. The last beer I did with it was a 1.070 old ale that I keg conditioned for 6months before bottling. It was really good for the first year in the bottle but then it started to overcarb and get thin. Maybe its an infection but its very typical 1968. The best results I had were in low gravity bitters and milds that I overpitched (ie more than a pint of thick slurry into 5gal) and fermented cool (starting at 62F) and kegged, crash cooled and fined within a week. There was still a perceivable amount of diacetyl but awesome malt and fruit was still there.

 

[lowtones84]

Yeah, I rouse daily. I've certainly found that anything over 2.5vols does not suit this yeast. Maybe 2.5vols would be fine once it's stable. In either case, I do prefer around 1.5-2.0 volumes.

If you have the time, please look over the thread from post #1. I would love a simple solution to this, hopefully you could pinpoint what you do differently in your process than those of us with the issue.

I did read through the whole thread before posting because I'm interested in the topic. Some differences are that I use WLP002. I know that they're supposedly the same strain, but even the "same strain" from different companies can exhibit different behavior.

I also make pretty low gravity beers usually, like around 1.045 OG. I almost always use a loose-top or open ferment for at least the first 3-4 days. I also pretty much never shoot for more than 1.5 volumes, or not much more. 2.5 is probably pushing it. If you're making English styles with it, many have low levels of carbonation anyhow.

A shorter primary might also help. Although I make mostly low gravity beers, I pretty much never let it go past 9-10 days, and have done 7 before with no issues. It's always done between 3-5 days for me anyhow, so not giving it extra time to sit around and flocc out hard like it does would see to be good advice to me.

Like I said, I hope everyone figures it out for their personal system and uses! I'm not an expert by any means, just detailing my process that seems to work.

 

[Natdavis777]

I brewed 10gal of an American wheat and split it with 1056 and 1968. The 1056 FG was 1.010 and the 1969 FG was 1.012. Started @60F and slowly raised. Both are kegged and the 1968 hasnt carbed up anymore than what it was initially.

 

[AT-JeffT]

Big news Everyone,

A very possible break through. I believe the source of the overcarbonation in my bottles is due to my lack of dedicated beer lines. My standard procedure(until this discovery) was to move my single beer line from keg to keg to serve all the beers I have in kegs. Typically I have at least 2 beers available at a time, usually 1 beer with 1968 and one with some other yeast. I was constantly swapping the line between kegs.

I also bottle off the kegs with a Biermuncher beer gun (See: here) When swapping lines back an forth I imagine a few yeast cells would cling to the walls of my serving line. Later, when bottling a few of those yeast cells would make it into my bottles. Since 1968 the least attenuative yeast I ever use, any other yeast would attenuate those sugars not consumed by 1968.

So, it would seem another problem is solved by cleaning and sanitation...shocking. I now have a dedicated bottling line and a dedicated floating line.

Testing the theory:
I bottled one beer with the non-dedicated line and bottled one beer with the freshly cleaned and sanitized dedicated line. I waited a few weeks (3, I think) and opened both. The results were in line with my theory. The non-dedicated line bottle over carbonated and the dedicated line was right on.

I degassed and checked the FG of both. The non-dedicated bottle had dropped a few points, while the dedicated one was the same FG as I recorded when kegging it. This is a first!

So it would seem that this is just a matter of true cross-contamination. If you are using your beer serving line as a bottling line, treat it accordingly.

I hope those who have also been having issues with 1968 will find this solves their issues as well. What I would like to know now, is if this could be the possible cause of your issues. Please let me know.

 

[AT-JeffT]

On a personal note; It may be quite a while before I can post another definitive test.

I would like to do another bottle test to be sure. I would like to give the bottles longer and bottle more than one to be sure.

Sadly, I find my motivation to homebrew waning. We've expanded our fermentation capacity at work and we are brewing about twice as much. This leaves me pretty unmotivated to homebrew.

I will hope to do another test, but hold tight. I am very, very eager to hear if this solves others problems. Please do your own experiments and let us know the results.

 

[Ryat66]

I found this thread because I've experienced exactly what others have with both variants of this strain, 1968/WLP002. I have simply given up on trying to bottle with it until I find a solution, my most recent experience was with an oatmeal stout. It was mashed at 153F, started at 62F and allowed to rise to 65F, beginning on day 4 it was raised 2F per day to 72F and held for 10 days. I waited until day 16 to take a gravity sample at which time was 1.018, my expected final gravity. I waited until day 21 and took another sample which was also 1.018 and packaged on day 22. Using Beersmith's priming calculator, I primed to 2.3 vols using 5.1 gallons and 72F as my temperature. After allowing the bottles to sit in a closet on the 1st floor of my home at 69F (we never change the thermostat) for three weeks, I decided to open one to check the carbonation, it pushed solid foam for three minutes and I was left with 1/2 beer, what was left tasted great. I assume chilling will tame this but obviously I'm probably somewhere over 3 vols already and risking some glass bombs; I didn't think to measure gravity on that one because I was so torqued.

As I've read through the 4 pages of this thread it occurred to me that maybe this strain just isn't suited for what we as home brewers attempt to do with it. Maybe it prefers open fermentation or a Burton Union System but I am not a yeast expert so I don't know. Like others on here, I have driven myself mad thinking the cause was infection, I wouldn't know how as I've brewed with some downright pigs and they don't have some of the problems that I have had. I recently brewed with a guy that swore StarSan works better if you rinse the foam off...I was just like "wut..."

Anyway, I definitely think this is related to this strain but have no idea how to fix it at this point.

Are there any decent alternatives to this strain? How about WLP007 or does it attenuate too much? Or what about an oatmeal stout with Cali ale, 1056/WLP001? Too dry?

 

[lowtones84]

I've been having good luck with WLP013 recently, but I've just started experimenting with it. I've also found that good aeration and a gentle rousing a couple of times during fermentation can help with WLP002, but one can still get those results.

 

[BrewSavage]

I'm done with wyeast 1968. I made 6 batches with it last year and I had too many of same problems mentioned in this thread. I'm sticking with 1098 and/or 1028 for english styles.

 

[Ryat66]

I'm done with wyeast 1968. I made 6 batches with it last year and I had too many of same problems mentioned in this thread. I'm sticking with 1098 and/or 1028 for english styles.

Do these strains compare flavor-wise to 1968? Also, I'm guessing you haven't had any bottle conditioning issues with them?

 

[BrewSavage]

Do these strains compare flavor-wise to 1968? Also, I'm guessing you haven't had any bottle conditioning issues with them?

If you can conquer wyeast 1968, it can't be beat. But my success rate was only 2 of 6 batches. 1098 and 1028 otoh, I've never had problems in the bottle and the beer has always been on target with the flavor and body. But I wanted to experiment, so that's why tried 1968.

 

[cwhouston]

Hi, I wasted several batches of ESB which tasted great post primary only to take on this metallic tasting gusher thing, as described by others. So I quit beating my head on 1968 and spent some time trialling other strains. I maintain a yeast library, so being a yeast nerd is kind of like a sub hobby for me.

1469 can be muddy and far too fruity, even when fermented cool (I have temp control). Not a keeper for me.

1028 and 1275 attenuate well and floc OK. 1275 is less mineral tasting and great for English IPA - a strong preference over 1028 for me

Thames Valley II, 1882?, is very good for a malty profile but with reasonable attenuation. It is a Private collections n one though so seasonal. Recommended if you find it.

1026 cask ale was OK. I only did one bitter with it and it lived up to its rap of being a good attenuator and on the tart and fruity side. Not my thing but better than 1469.

1768, the seasonal ESB worked great in an old ale and I am really enjoying the heavily EKG focussed ESB on tap right now. It is like a restrained 1968 but without the trouble or the need to rouse. Mashing low (64.5C) is an easy way to avoid high terminal gravities with English strains.

1167 Ringwood has a great flavour profile but throws a ton of diaceyl that requires a heat ramp and prolonged ferment on the cake to clean up after itself. I like it but it probably isn't a good choice for those without temp control.

1318 has made me two fabulous bitters, medium attenuation, great flocculation with some esters. I did an oatmeal stout too, which was a tipper but I think that was a crap recipe poorly executed rather than the yeast.

After reading the perfect pint blog http://perfectpint.blogspot.co.nz. , I went on a mission to get WLP Bedford Ale and can happily report me and my friend who made batches of best with it on the same day both concluded it has an awesome flavour profile and habits, medium to high (for English) attenuation. Sadly it's also a seasonal offering.

After making a stout with the Guiness strain, I was massively underwhelmed by it although others reckon it makes a fine English pale ale. Nottingham is too dry and flavourless for bitters and milds, whereas good old S04 can make a solid beer if you dig the slightly yeasty edge it can leave on things (I do).

In summary, and sorry for long post, if 1968 is your thing flavour wise but it simply won't work for you then I suggest you try 1768, 1882, or 1318 in that order of preference, and keep the mash temp down.

 

[Ryat66]

This is a wonderful dissertation on finding an alternative to WLP002/WY1968! I will need to make more of an effort to find these Wyeast strains, my LHBS is White Labs only shop. I tried to x-reference your suggestions to White Labs strains but came up empty, I was using Mr. Malty's material as a reference. http://www.mrmalty.com/wyeast.php

Also, the timing on this latest post is impeccable as I just put a WLP005 (WY1187) starter on the plate last night in preparation for an oatmeal stout that I am planning to brew this coming weekend. I used this strain for my first ever all-grain brew and ended up with a diacetyl bomb and blamed it on the strain. Fast forward a few years and I have temp control now and much more temperature awareness in general. We'll see how it turns out.

Like others, I have given up on WLP002/WY1968.

 

[cwhouston]

Thanks for the kind words, it suddenly occurred to me that after five years meddling with English yeasts that perhaps my opinion may be considered informed, if no expert! Good luck with the stout really hope it comes out great

I edited the post above to give the link to one of the best blogs I've seen about brewing English styles. He isn't posting regularly anymore but it is a wealth of information and in my experience what he writes stacks up in practice.

http://perfectpint.blogspot.co.nz/

 

[gbx]

After making a stout with the Guiness strain, I was massively underwhelmed by it although others reckon it makes a fine English pale ale. Nottingham is too dry and flavourless for bitters and milds, whereas good old S04 can make a solid beer if you dig the slightly yeasty edge it can leave on things (I do).

I mostly agree with your assessment but would add that 1318 top crops extremely well and can easily be repitched over and over again with very little change between generations. All of the british yeasts have the potential to make great beer but they all are a little bit fussy. I'd suggest picking one that you have initial success and stick with it until you figure out how it works in your setup.

I recently have been revisiting the dry yeasts after 6+ years of nothing but wyeast. Nottingham and windsor are crap but S04 is decent. It responds really well to gelatin if you want to lose the yeasty edge. I've never bottle conditioned with it but I have done a few casks and been happy with the results. I've done 5 batches with it but I'm starting to figure it out.

 

[mikitz]

Heard all these horror stories of bottling a beer done with WLP002 and scared me off. However just did my first beer with WLP002m it has been 3 weeks bottled and it is fantastic, excellent mouthfeel, nice subtle orange marmalade flavour. I carbonated at 2.0 volumes CO2 and it has stayed that way (so far). I'll report back if anything changes, but I've had 10 bottles so far over the past week and they are all really consistent. The bottles are being kept at 65-68F (basement temps)

OG was 1.050 and FG was 1.010. I roused the carboy once a day for the first 6 days of fermentation and bottled after 3 weeks in primary. Kept it at about 63-64F for 1st 4-5 days of fermentation (ambient temp) and raised it to 68-70F for remainder of the 3 weeks.

Hope this helps those who might be scared off, it is a great yeast, can't wait to try it in an IPA.