WY1099 Experiences

[thethirstyweasel]

Trying WY1099 never used it I'm going through the wyeast catalog.
My favorite UK strains are WY1318, WLP013, WY1469. Looking for any
input on what to expect. I usually make a golden,bitter,brown,mild,porter,
and a stout,using subsequent pitches. I was curious of what other peoples
experiences are with this yeast I understand it is the sweet Whitbread,as opposed to the dry WLP007/WY1098/S04. I have never used S04 or the WLP007, I did use WY1098 but it was long ago. My usual motif for English style is to pitch cool 60-62F raise up to 64F-67F for 3 or 4 days and slowly raise to 70-72F and bottle on day 10 or so. This strain isn't as popular it seems as a lot of others so I look forward to hearing any comments.

weez

 

[dmtaylor]

42% attenuation. I'll never use the 1099 ever again.

 

[thethirstyweasel]

42% attenuation. I'll never use the 1099 ever again.

42% wow! What was the mash temp, grist, fermentation profile? The lowest attenuation I have ever gotten with any yeast is like 60%

weez

 

[dmtaylor]

It was a historical style porter inspired by some of Ron Pattinson's work, aiming for something they would have been brewing 200 years ago. Recipe:

6 lb brown malt
3.25 lb Maris Otter
1.25 lb amber malt
2.6 oz EKG (70)

Mashed at 155 F for 45 minutes. Sparged hot at 180 F. OG=1.057, efficiency=81%. Fermented at 67 F for a week then warmed up to 68 F with swirling 1-2 times daily in an attempt to keep the yeast active. It didn't work. SG stalled at 1.033 for over a week. Pitched a lot more yeast including US-05 and Notty and THEN it took off again and finished at 1.017. But I know for sure that was NOT the 1099 yeast. The 1099 could only take it to 1.033 from 1.057. Pretty pathetic. To be fair, I did mash brief, and sparged extra hot (this was on purpose). So maybe, just maybe, it would have attenuated to the mid-50s percentage-wise under more standard conditions like 148 F for 60 minutes. Maybe.

 

[thethirstyweasel]

Wow I would have said that looks like a pretty dextrin rich recipe/regime but 1.033 is indeed very high. Did you ever try this recipe again with another strain? I love a good porter and I've read a bit about 17th century porters with similar grist as to what you describe. I'm a bit concerned now about the 1099 and I'll definitely be considering a low/long mash profile based on what you said. Thanks.

weez

It was a historical style porter inspired by some of Ron Pattinson's work, aiming for something they would have been brewing 200 years ago. Recipe:

6 lb brown malt
3.25 lb Maris Otter
1.25 lb amber malt
2.6 oz EKG (70)

Mashed at 155 F for 45 minutes. Sparged hot at 180 F. OG=1.057, efficiency=81%. Fermented at 67 F for a week then warmed up to 68 F with swirling 1-2 times daily in an attempt to keep the yeast active. It didn't work. SG stalled at 1.033 for over a week. Pitched a lot more yeast including US-05 and Notty and THEN it took off again and finished at 1.017. But I know for sure that was NOT the 1099 yeast. The 1099 could only take it to 1.033 from 1.057. Pretty pathetic. To be fair, I did mash brief, and sparged extra hot (this was on purpose). So maybe, just maybe, it would have attenuated to the mid-50s percentage-wise under more standard conditions like 148 F for 60 minutes. Maybe.

 

[guldalian]

I love that yeast. Used it in an ESB, a smoked Porter, and a brown ale recently. 81%, 75%, and 77% attenuation respectively.

 

[thethirstyweasel]

Now this is interesting. I'm assuming you harvest your yeast, do you think the lower attenuation on successive pitches was yeast related or do you think it was a result of the grist/mash profile on those subsequent brews? Thanks. Oh and how would you describe the flavor profile?
Thanks,

Weez

I love that yeast. Used it in an ESB, a smoked Porter, and a brown ale recently. 81%, 75%, and 77% attenuation respectively.

 

[JKaranka]

If you can hit attenuations around 50-60% consistently you'll be able to recreate early 20th century Scottish beers!

 

[thethirstyweasel]

If you can hit attenuations around 50-60% consistently you'll be able to recreate early 20th century Scottish beers!

OK so this off topic because I made this with WY1469 but this my 80/

 

[guldalian]

Now this is interesting. I'm assuming you harvest your yeast, do you think the lower attenuation on successive pitches was yeast related or do you think it was a result of the grist/mash profile on those subsequent brews? Thanks. Oh and how would you describe the flavor profile?

Thanks,



Weez

I did harvest the yeast, but those weren't in order actually. It was:
Smoked Porter, 75%
ESB, 81%
American brown, 77%

The differences in attenuation were due to grist profile and mash temps. In fact I typically get better attenuation from 2nd and 3rd generation yeast than I do from a fresh pack, both dry and liquid.

 

[thethirstyweasel]

I did harvest the yeast, but those weren't in order actually. It was:
Smoked Porter, 75%
ESB, 81%
American brown, 77%

The differences in attenuation were due to grist profile and mash temps. In fact I typically get better attenuation from 2nd and 3rd generation yeast than I do from a fresh pack, both dry and liquid.

Thanks I also usually get better attenuation on subsequent pitches all things being equal. How would you define the flavor profile from the yeast?

weez

 

[thethirstyweasel]

So we are 50/50 one person hates 1099 and will never use it again and somebody else loves it, but its certainly not popular with only two folks chiming in. I should receive it tomorrow with a bit a grain. I probably won't brew with it for a bit. I decided to one more round with the 1469 (7th pitch) going to do a golden when the stout is done. Anyway I will post my results here.

weez

 

[dmtaylor]

I think if you mash low and slow (148 F for 90 minutes), it might turn out alright.

Regarding flavor profile... it was like your standard English ester profile, nothing too exciting IMHO, nothing better or worse than any other English yeast besides the low attenuation.

 

[thethirstyweasel]

I think if you mash low and slow (148 F for 90 minutes), it might turn out alright.

Regarding flavor profile... it was like your standard English ester profile, nothing too exciting IMHO, nothing better or worse than any other English yeast besides the low attenuation.

Hey Thanks I'll probably start with a bitter and mash low/long. I'm pretty sensitive to British yeast character I haven't used 2 that I thought were very much like but that just may be me and to be fair I haven't used them all either (that's the plan:rockin Some of them I haven't used in a really long time and I want to revisit some of them.

weez

 

[thethirstyweasel]

Brewed my version of Orfy's mild yesterday with the WY1099, the yeast from the smack pack smelled like sour yougart and bread.I made a starter a couple of days before and it tasted like Newcastle. I had a Krausen in 5 hrs and she's bubbling away @ 62F. I mashed high 158F, missed my gravity by 2 points coming in at 1.037 as I was shooting for 1.039, still pretty excited to see what happens.

weez

 

[thethirstyweasel]

Ok So bottled today final gravity 1.014 61% attenuation, reasonable since it was mashed @ 158F. Sample is very clean not really a lot of English character
I think was a result of my low fermentation temp of 62-64F, hops subdued some.I made this mild with WY1469 last time and it was very fruity and very malty yet with a definite hop presence that this one seems to lack, will report back after carbonation.

weez

 

[dmtaylor]

I'd always wondered if 1099 might be the same yeast as the dry Windsor ale yeast. With Windsor, I get 62% attenuation on average. If that's what you got, now I really wonder.......... we could be saving money, and there's the convenience, if we switch any applicable recipes to Windsor ale yeast instead. I'm taking note of it! There are other recipes I have specifying 1099 where I might just go ahead and try Windsor instead. Should be "close enough" anyway. Hmm.

 

[thethirstyweasel]

I'd always wondered if 1099 might be the same yeast as the dry Windsor ale yeast. With Windsor, I get 62% attenuation on average. If that's what you got, now I really wonder.......... we could be saving money, and there's the convenience, if we switch any applicable recipes to Windsor ale yeast instead. I'm taking note of it! There are other recipes I have specifying 1099 where I might just go ahead and try Windsor instead. Should be "close enough" anyway. Hmm.

I haven't used Windsor in a real long time, I remember thinking I didn't like it but we are talking probably 1996/7. Probably not good temperature control etc etc. It didn't floc well either IIRC. The 1099 flocced out pretty good. My starter fermented about 68F and it tasted like a newcastle used to pretty bready/nutty, but the sample today from the mild was very clean not too English at all. I'm going to do a bitter Monday and maybe try fermenting around 66-68F and see if I get a bit more flavor.

weez

 

[bierhaus15]

WY1099 is the Whitbread A strain. It is a dry, relatively high flocculator and is pretty clean overall. Think a fruitier WY1098. It will ferment down to 63F as well, but best to keep around 67F, IMO.

The low attenuation noted by the previous poster is due to the high amount of brown malt in that recipe. Most historical brown malts would have decent diastatic potential, whereas modern brown malt is basically just roasted malt, ie... little to none.

 

[thethirstyweasel]

WY1099 is the Whitbread A strain. It is a dry, relatively high flocculator and is pretty clean overall. Think a fruitier WY1098. It will ferment down to 63F as well, but best to keep around 67F, IMO.

The low attenuation noted by the previous poster is due to the high amount of brown malt in that recipe. Most historical brown malts would have decent diastatic potential, whereas modern brown malt is basically just roasted malt, ie... little to none.

How would you compare WY1099 to WY1335? I was thinking of going with it next round, but I've got lots of brews left with the 1099.

I am going to try to go warmer next round, starter tasted fantastic, the sample from the beer tasted like I had used cal Ale, well other than the muted hops. A bit boring really, I mean it still tastes fantastic just not a lot of yeast character.

Somewhere I read that if you want to go with those original 17th century porter recipes with a lot of brown malt in the grist that you have to make your own brown malt from 2 row, the brown malt available today is not the same thing at all. I'll make a confession while we're on the subject, and I know I'll be set on fire for this but, I don't care for brown malt in my porters, I love it in brown ale though.

weez

 

[bierhaus15]

I really like 1335. I've never done a direct comparison between the two, but 1335 is a bit drier and less fruity at the top of the range. Supposedly Surly Brewing uses 1335.

Per brown malt, I'm one of those crazy people who built a malt kiln and used hornbeam wood to make my own diastatic brown malt.