Author: Marshall Schott
I got on a WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast kick a few years back after I heard it was basically a more flocculant version of WLP001 California Ale Yeast. Over the last few months, I’ve received numerous emails/private messages asking about my experience using this strain and figured this old experiment of mine might be sort of helpful to some. I apologize for the old Instagram photos, this was over 2 years ago…
Back in August 2012, I split 10 gallons of 1.068 OG IPA then pitched 001 into half and 090 into the other half. Both yeasts were built up appropriately in starters, crashed, and decanted prior to being thrown into the beers. The following are observations I made and some tasting notes from some friends I shared it with and myself.
I pitched and fermented the beers at 67˚F, they took off and completed in the same amount of time with FG being reached for both within 5 days. While airlock activity was similar (a very rudimentary gauge of fermentation vigor), the 001 batch had a much larger kraeusen that stuck around much longer compared to the half pitched with 090. Despite reported differences in attenuation rates (WLP001 73-80%, WLP090 76-83%), both beers ended with the same exact FG. I’ve read and heard (from friends) about WLP090 stalling on them, but this has never happened to me in many uses (70+).
I took a final FG sample at 10 days from pitch, the FG was the same as it was on day 5, so kegging commenced. The beers appeared to be similar in clarity at this point, which made me think what I’d heard about 090 being more flocculant may be mere marketing.
After about a week in the cold keezer, the 090 batch definitely seemed to be clearing up better than the 001 beer, an observation that was much more pronounced a few days later when the beers were ready to drink.
Upon first comparative sip, I had some difficulty coming up with differences, it became easier as the beers warmed up a bit. Both were good, just obviously not the same. Here’s what my friends and I came up with:
WLP001 California Ale Yeast
This beer has a slightly sharper bitterness with a more “punch you in the face” late hop character, very much what you might expect from the Chico strain. The malt character was very subdued, definitely taking a backseat to the hops. The body was somewhat thin, but certainly not water. Overall, it was a good beer.
WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast
The beer fermented with 090 gave us much more to talk about, if that makes any sense. Hoppy as all get out, sort of like the 001 beer, but balanced by a nice malt character that we all found to be much more pleasant. This beer seemed to have more of a medium body, which suited all of our tastes well, and the mouthfeel was slightly more creamy, another plus. For the 6 guys who tasted these beers blind (without even knowing the nature of the experiment), all but one said they preferred the 090 beer, with one explaining it as being “way more interesting without getting odd.”
Since performing this yeast comparison, I’ve developed a strong infautation with it and no longer have any interest in 001, which I find to be rather boring. WLP090 is the yeast I use the most, pitching it into anything I want to have a clean and balanced character. If you haven’t used this, I highly recommend you try it out in your next IPA, Pale, Brown, or Amber.
| CONCLUSIONS |
Over the couple years I’ve been using WLP090, I’ve discovered a couple tricks that may help explain why it’s always worked so well for me. Make sure you make a proper sized starter, pitch cool at 65˚F then set your regulator to 66˚F, let it rock for 3 days, then raise the temp to 70˚F for a couple days to encourage complete attenuation and reabsorption of fermentation byproducts. At this point, I usually crash the beer to 32˚F for a couple days then keg per my typical method, pouring the first pint a couple days later.
There are a few hypotheses I’ve heard as to the source of this yeast, though the one it seems many folks are buying is that it comes from San Diego’s Port Brewing Company house strain. I’ve consumed a few Port beers and must agree that the yeast character does seem awfully similar. Thankfully Port is a brewery that still bottle conditions… and I can get pretty fresh bottles where I live… stay tuned 😉
If you’ve been stuck on 001 and you’re ready for a little more pizzazz in your life, give this yeast a shot and let me know how it turns out! If you have any questions or comments, don’t hesitate to leave them below. Cheers!
Support Brülosophy In Style!
All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!
Follow Brülosophy on:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
| Read More |
18 Ideas to Help Simplify Your Brew Day
7 Considerations for Making Better Homebrew
List of completed exBEERiments
How-to: Harvest yeast from starters
How-to: Make a lager in less than a month
| Good Deals |
Brand New 5 gallon ball lock kegs discounted to $75 at Adventures in Homebrewing
ThermoWorks Super-Fast Pocket Thermometer On Sale for $19 – $10 discount
Sale and Clearance Items at MoreBeer.com
If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!
45 thoughts on “exBEERiment | Yeast Comparison: WLP001 California Ale Yeast vs. WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast In An American IPA”
I saw it at my LHBS the other day, and I’ve been thinking about trying it ever since. You’ve convinced me!
Chatting with the folks in the White Labs tasting room on numerous occasions, they’ve categorically denied that WLP090 is from any brewery in San Diego. Rather, it’s called San Diego Super Yeast because White Labs is from San Diego and this is a strain they’ve personally bred and cultured.
Of course, if it was a strain from a well known San Diego brewery that’s exactly what I’d expect them to say 🙂
I’ve heard the same thing… and agree with you 😉
Is it possible a San Diego brewery bought the strain from them?
You might ask the brewery whether they condition with a different yeast, some breweries throw some champagne yeast in there.
I emailed them asking if they ‘created’ this yeast and if so, was it originally WLP001? Their response was “We do not have any genetically modified yeast, so all our yeast is sourced from some where. I’m not sure where it came from, but I’m doubting it’s the same yeast as the WLP001.” Doesn’t shed much light at all, but for what it’s worth…
I never assumed 090 was GMO, but their response to me was similar. I do. It believe it’s a derivative of 001.
Sounds like they’re trying to dodge the question 🙂
I guess a better question would’ve been “did you cultivate this yeast yourself, or is it ‘donated’ from a brewery?”
Awww, man!! Where were you before I pitched 001 into my DIPA last week?? 🙂
Is there any Wyeast equivalent? Guessing not based on the previous comment…
Not that I’m aware of. Some
People thought it was Pacman at first, but I guess they’re pretty different.
I just pitched this last night for the first time in my house ipa recipe (usually 001) I’ll give you my thoughts in a couple of weeks.
I’ve found Wyeasts 1450 Denny’s Favorite to be as you’ve described wlp090. I use it now for most of my beers. It still allows hops to shine but lets the malt character really come through. Worked out great in a blonde ale I did early this past summer. Worked fantastic for a dipa I did 2 months ago. I’d like to see you try out a comparison on these two strains… I got to pick up some 090 and try it out as well.
I’ve got to get my hands on some 1450, unfortunately my HBS doesn’t sell Wyeast :/
What??? The whole reason why I am researching a new yeast strain right now is because I pitched (a healthy amount with starter) 1450 and it is slow as hell! 14 days and FG still dropping. 64 F for 4 days 68 F for 2 and 70 for 8.
Marshall, good article again! Coincidentally, I just used SD Super on a hoppy brown ale, and repitched the yeast into a big IPA this past Sunday. Aggressive fermentation on the repitch running close to your ferm schedule. Looking forward to the IPA for sure. Trying to figure if it is cleaner than Chico – or not. Hard to tell in the brown… the hops seem a bit muted. perhaps from floccuation.
090 will reduce some of the hoppiness slightly when compared to 001, likely due to the higher flocc rate, but I’ve never experienced this as being very drastic.
Yeah, seems subtle. Pulled yeast today from the IPA. Will save it, but prolly not repitch. Went fairly dry – which is a plus. Started at 1.067 and ended at 1.011 ! much drier than it took the Brown. Cold crashing to clear the IPA right now – will see in a few days.
I think the muting effect is due to the hops being a bit old… whole hops from 2012, and I didn’t account for the age. So I should have used a lot more. Not sure now I can blame it on the yeast. The IPA is crisp, sharp and solid in bitterness as expected.
im a huge fan of WLP090. i find it to contribute the exact same as you mention-great hop accentuation while keeping the malt contributions strong. I use it in a pale of mine with floor malted MO, some melanoiden and centennial, cascade and citra hops. its my house pale ale and a favorite amongst my family and friends. great fast fermentation that drops clear on its own. never an issue with finishing or as some have said with diacetyl.
I’ve never noticed any diacetyl in my 090 beers, I didn’t even know that was an issue! I just started serving a Galaxy/Mosaic/Simcoe hopped IPA fermented with 090, it’s pretty damn tasty. I find it enhances mouthfeel when compared to the Chico strain. Such a great yeast.
people on the forum say they have gotten diacetyl from wlp090 when i brought up i was using it and got clear beer with just cold conditioning. me either though-clean as far as my experience goes.
I too am a huge fan of SD Super over 001. One thing I have noticed with it though is that I can never seem to get it to go much further than 1.010FG. Have you had any experience with this or any pointers on possibly getting it to drop lower than that?
Huh. I’ve definitely had 090 attenuate below 1.010, it’s never been an issue for me.
I think the SDSY just stalled on me. I used homebrew dad calculator and it took me down from 1.055 to 1.016, 70% AA. I would have expected down to at least 1.009 with US-05 based on tons of uses. I fermented it out at 65F and then raised the temp up to 70F at the end. The beer has a nice flavor though. I’ll have to see how sweet it is once carbonated. I’ll leave it a few more days at 70F too.
Shit! I’ve heard of this happening but have apparently been lucky enough to not have it happen to me. 1.016 is respectable but not ideal. You might try rousing the the yeast a bit by swirling the fermentor gently, that plus the warmer temp (I always go to 72°F) might help. Good luck!
Hi,
I just pick up a vial of San Diego. I will brew a brown ale. In your opinion is a good idea use the slurry for a russian imperial stout OG 1085 or it’s better use 22 gr of Nottingham?
Thanks a lot
I’d use the slurry, personally… I’m not a fan of Nottingham.
I knew you’d have the info I was looking for, Marshall. 🙂 Brewing up a Pliny clone and decided on a whim to use 090 I just picked up. The starter sure did go quick, that’s for sure.
You better save some for me!
You got it, man. This will also be my first kegged brew as well. 🙂 Next step: all grain, baby.
Woohoo!
Just brewed a batch of double IPA (pretty much a pliny clone) with WLP090, it seems stuck at 1.030, I usually get the same recipe down to 1.008 with WLP001, not sure what happened… Kept the temp at 66 for 5 days or so then raised it to 72, gravity hasn’t budged. Might need to repitch a starter to finish it up. Any ideas? Only thing I can think is that WLP090 wimped out after eating the corn sugar and cleared up too soon. Not sure though.
Fuck! This is exactly the experience I’ve heard from a couple others, it seems few and far between, but definitely a pattern. It’s never happened to me. If I were in your shoes, I’d be inclined to pitch a pack of US-05 in hopes it’d finish things up.
I added some yeast energizer and swirled the yeast back into suspension. I’ll see if this helps, going to pick up some yeast tomorrow, I’ll let you know how it goes, thanks!
As a new homebrewer, let me say I really enjoy reading your posts and Exbeeriments. Learning a lot via your site, so I wasn’t surprised when I ran across a reference to WLP090 here when searching for an answer to a potential problem. I have an APA that went into the fermenter last Monday (Jan. 18) @ 1.055, 70 F. Fermentation didn’t really pick up for 48 hours, then went like mad for three days – so vigorous that the wort was swirling. It slowed down for a couple days, then when it was burping less than once/min, I pulled a sample expecting pretty good conversion. Unfortunately, it only tested at 1.020 (63% AA). Temp has been sitting around 62 F , which I realize is a little below optimum for the strain. Could/should it have affected it that much? Yesterday (Jan. 24), I swirled it 5 or 6 times to hopefully pull some yeast back into suspension, and moved it to a bit warmer spot, which has it burping about every 25 seconds now. Thoughts?
I’ve heard from a few people who have experienced stalls with WLP090, but I never have. I’d think a gentle swirl and warmer temps would help, but worst case, maybe you pitch a pack of US-05.
Thanks for the kind words, cheers!
We are systematically getting very high post-fermentation pH with San diego.
Anybody else get that problem? It routinely ends north of 4.7 … like 4.87, then 4.93 ..
It is causing a lot of doubt on the microbial stability here…
I’ve not measured post-ferment pH in my 090 beers, but I will in the future out of curiosity. Since I’ve not experienced issues with contamination in my 090 beers, and I do my best to maintain sanitary practices, I suppose I’m not terribly concerned about the microbial stability stuff. But I can understand why some might be. Thanks for the interesting data.
Has anyone used this for a non-beer. Maybe in a mead? I was just thinking that it might be interesting to try and thought I would see if anyone has done that.
I made a braggot with the wlp090. Fermented down pretty dry.
Infatuation is spelled wrong
I’ve used WLP090 4-5 times and I’ve always had good end results with the beer. However, each time I make a starter with it, I get nervous that the yeast is dead…there are no signs of life in the starter…zero krausen…no visible activity. All of the other yeasts I’ve used show some degree of vitality in the starter.
Has anyone else had this experience with WLP090?
I don’t have a fermentation chamber yet, so whenever need to ferment below ambient temperature I use the FermZilla and it’s helped reduce any off flavors in my beers. How do you think 090 will perform fermenting under pressure? What pressure should I I ferment at?
I’d guess it’d be fine around 5 psi
Made a starter with WLP090 the other day. I was a bit confused as to whether it worked or not, but then realised it must have worked so quickly I blinked and missed the action!
Just brewed an IPA and pitched 9L of starter with this yeast. Like someone earlier mentioned, there was little krausen in the starter flasks, and once I pitched it took a good 5 days to hit 1.010.
I’ll be cold crashing it tonight. So far the samples I’ve been pulling have much more character and balance than what I used to get from US05, so I’m excited to see how this turns out.
Thanks for the great article!