White Labs San Diego Superyeast!

[firststatebrewer2 (FirstStateBrewer)]

@davidgzach

[quote]I guess I’m brand-loyal.

Funny how that goes, isn’t it? I used a Wyeast pack once, had a bad experience with it that likely had nothing to do with the quality of the product, yet now I never use anything that doesn’t start with WLP.

I had a bad experience with some WL830 and have used only Wyeast since.  I do however think the smack pack is easier to handle.

Dave

[/quote]
I just used the Wyeast Kölsch on Monday, but the smack pack wouldn’t smack!  No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t get that inner pouch of wort to burst.  But, it didn’t matter.  The starter worked fine and my batch of Kölsch bubbling away in the fermenter right now.  But, that stupid smack pack put me in a bad mood!

Given the choice, I think I will always buy White Labs yeast.

[jmcamerlengo]

Don’t get cornered into buying one brand of yeast.  I have found that the same strains from different companies perform very differently and taste quite different.  I did a Kolsch recently and split the batch between both companies Kolsch strains. They performed different in fermentation and tasted quite different as well. You may find you prefer one companies strain opposed to another in a lot of cases.

[erockrph]

I’ll be honest, I usually use White Labs only because their numbering system is a hell of a lot easier for me to remember (at least for most of the yeasts I use or am interested in). Even though I haven’t used 570 or 500 or 090 yet, I know what they are. I have no clue what their Wyeast equivalents are without looking them up (other than there is no Wyeast equivalent for 090). I love the one Wyeast strain I’ve used (3638), so I’m sure I’ll dabble in the future, but I just naturally gravitate to the White Labs versions because I know what they are.

[skyler]

I often find that for a “family” of yeasts, like the “American Ale” family, for example, there is one strain that I far prefer over all others 90% of the time. Of all the American Ale strains - WLP001/Wyeast 1056/US-05, WLP051/Wyeast 1272, Wyeast 1450, WLP090, Wyeast 1332 (which isn’t really in the same category, IMO), ECY10, and Pacman, I quite liked ECY10, but since it is an insane hassle to get that on the west coast, I just don’t bother. Otherwise, I like Pacman 90% of the time, because it is VERY clean, flocculant, consistent, and it lets me ferment VERY cold. But since it can be somewhat difficult for me to obtain Pacman in the bay area (needing to drive 30 min to get some for $3 more than I pay for other yeast strains), I prefer good ol’ WLP001/Wyeast 1056 over all the others 90% of the time. And since I can always get fresh slurry of it for free from nearby brewpubs, I just really think WLP001 is the bee’s knees. It is fast, consistent, alcohol tolerant, fairly temperature tolerant (I am pretty happy with its performance anywhere from 58F to 68F), and my only real problem with it is that it can be a pain to get the yeast to fall out of suspension, even with a cold crash and gelatin (no yeast has ever given me as much trouble as US-05 in this arena).

I used WLP090 3 times from the same vial. The first beer I made, a hoppy red session ale, came out fine, though it fermented no faster than WLP001 and it was far less flocculant than Pacman. It also finished a little higher than expected. I then tried it in a porter that I have brewed several times before, usually with English ale strains - it came out as expected. The attenuation was notably less aggressive than with other American Ale strains (70% - which is the same as that recipe will give me with Wyeast 1318). And finally I  brewed a big red rye ale with WLP090 - this one oddly fermented quite dry (83% attenuation) and tasted fine. What I gather is that WLP090 is an acceptable, if tempermental strain. It will ferment very dry or very sweet, depending on wort fermentability, and it is fairly neutral, but doesn’t help the hops “shine” the way that Pacman, Chico, and ECY10 do. All in all, I would consider it a decent strain, but its speed didn’t really outperform WLP001, though it was more flocculant. If I wanted a flocculant, turbo-speed yeast, I would just use WLP002/Wyeast 1968 and ferment at about 62F.

[stevewurfel (TrippleRippleBrewer)]

I threw 5oz of pellets into each carboy last week Sunday. 2oz Centennial, 1oz Citra, 1oz Chinook, 1oz Columbus. Letting them sit two weeks or so. Three weeks total on the yeast and hopefully plenty of time to let them clear. S05 was quite turbid compared to WLP090 last week when I added pellets to primary. I’m away on vacation out of state. When I get home I will rack to kegs. I wonder if the fast fermenting 090 would be more predisposed to autolysis sooner than S05, WLP001, or Wyeast 1056? Looking forward to taste testing!

[erockrph]

The head brewer from Union Station Brewery in Providence just told me that they use this yeast for their house ale strain. I noticed a distinct yeasty note in their ales - definitely not as clean as I assumed this strain would be. In fact, I was expecting him to say that they used a British strain. It could be from his fermentation schedule, though. He starts at 70 for the first day, then drops to 65 to finish out. I generally go the other direction with Cal Ale strains. I liked the character it gave to their brown ale and porter, but not so much for their APA’s.

He said they repitch for about 10 generations, by the way.

[stevewurfel (TrippleRippleBrewer)]

@erockrph

The head brewer from Union Station Brewery in Providence just told me that they use this yeast for their house ale strain. I noticed a distinct yeasty note in their ales - definitely not as clean as I assumed this strain would be. In fact, I was expecting him to say that they used a British strain. It could be from his fermentation schedule, though. He starts at 70 for the first day, then drops to 65 to finish out. I generally go the other direction with Cal Ale strains. I liked the character it gave to their brown ale and porter, but not so much for their APA’s.

He said they repitch for about 10 generations, by the way.

Gee 10 seems like more than I’ve heard most brewers go for…I recall 5 is a safer number but I’m sure they’ve sorted that out. I think you get mutations and other problems past a certain point. Might explain your yeasty tasting experience but so would over pitching.

I have yet to taste my IPA made with this yeast. It’s been kegged for over a week now. Sat on dry hops for two weeks. The S05 version tastes great.

I can see how this would make a good house yeast since it’s so damn fast fermenting. So long as it’s clean, this would be a helpful aspect in some situations. It also cleared a lot better / faster than S05 but S05 isn’t exactly known for it’s floc performance! Happens eventually but takes weeks in the keg.

My brother in law is opening a new brewery. I’m going to have him try it and see what he thinks for a few pilot beers early in the game. He’s brewing almost exclusively American ales using WLP001 or 1056 and I convinced him to try S05 which he uses mostly now. If my IPA turns out, he might be interested in switching to the 090.