Author: Marshall Schott
I picked up my first vial of WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast nearly 3 years ago on a whim, hadn’t read/heard much about it, just saw a fairly fresh vial in the local shop and figured I’d give it a shot. The first time I used it was in the first batch of Tiny Bottom Pale Ale, in fact I designed that beer to be of moderate gravity in order to build up a yeast cake to pitch fresh wort onto (a practice I never do these days). I attributed the deliciousness of that ale to the yeast, started using it in nearly all of my American ales, and began encouraging others to try it out. Cut to the present and I’ve easily fermented more beer with 090 than any other strain, I even took a single vial out 17 generations by harvesting from starters, and it still performed fantastically!
I became curious what the origins of this yeast were. Information and even opinions on 090 were tough to find back then, as it wasn’t nearly as popular as it is today. Given the descriptive name, many folks initially speculated it was Stone Brewing Company’s house yeast, which seemed reasonable since it had been rumored they used something similar to WLP007 Dry English Ale yeast– both strains are known to ferment fast, flocc well, drop clear, and leave some residual malt character while hanging onto hop flavor and aroma. This theory quickly lost steam as homebrewers began receiving convincing confirmation from brewers at Stone that 090 is certainly not their house yeast. Then at some point, White Labs explained they named the strain San Diego Super Yeast because that’s where White Labs is located, it apparently had nothing to do with the source being a brewery from the same region.
Yeah, right.
Chatter among regular users of this strain began to arise, most of us unwilling to ditch the idea that it did likely come from a local brewery. People began comparing their 090 fermented beers with certain beers produced in San Diego and one particular brewery seemed to be getting the most focus: Port Brewing Company. I immediately ran out to buy a bomber each of Wipeout IPA and Mongo IPA, which I compared to an IPA I had on tap. For the first time, I was tasting beers that had an incredibly similar yeast character to the beers I’d been making with 090. I privately convinced myself Port was the source… then left it alone for a couple years.
While perusing the shelves of my local big box liquor store a few months back, I noticed a fresh bottle of Wipeout IPA in the cooler, which I purchased and enjoyed that evening.
It wasn’t until the final pour that I noticed a layer of yeast at the bottom of the bottle– this beer is bottle conditioned? This beer is bottle conditioned! That means I can propagate the yeast, split a batch, and compare Port’s yeast to WLP090, woohoo!!!
Inspired by all the stories I’ve read about people building up Conan yeast from cans of Heady Topper, I got to propin’ that evening by making a small starter and pitching the Wipeout dregs. I know some folks start with a much smaller volume when propagating from bottle dregs, I chose to use ~900mL of 1.025 wort. There was noticeable action within 18 hours.
Fermentation seemed to be complete after a couple days, so I turned the stirplate off and let whatever yeast had built up settle out. I was rather pleased with the results.
I decanted the beer and pitched the yeast slurry into about 1700mL of fresh 1.040 SG wort to step it up.
This time, things looked very familiar, with the starter showing signs of fermentation within 12 hours and developing a more milky appearance.
I let this starter spin for a few days then turned the stir plate off to let the yeast settle out.
I was curious about attenuation and decided to take a hydrometer reading.
1.040 to 1.010, 75% apparent attenuation, not too shabby! This was looking more and more promising. I decanted the spent starter beer and poured the yeast into a mason jar for use in an upcoming batch.
The jar of yeast remained refrigerated for almost 2 weeks until I got back to it. I made starters for both the Port yeast and WLP090, adding an extra quart to each for harvesting. The 090 starter was huge because I used it for an unrelated batch as well.
The jars I pulled off for future use looked slightly different after about 15 minutes.
I split a batch of Tiny Bottom Pale Ale using EKG in place of Fuggles (I’ll never do that again), I thought it only fitting since it was the first beer I ever fermented with 090. The wort was produced using my typical batch sparge process, chilled quickly with my King Cobra IC, racked into 3 gallon Better Bottles, then placed in my ferm chamber.
When the wort reached 64°F, I pitched the yeast and engaged my ale fermentation profile on The Black Box temperature controller.
While both beers were demonstrably active within 12 hours, the 090 batch seemed to be going a tad stronger than the Port batch.
By the following day, all seemed equal between the 2 beers, even the krausen looked pretty similar, which I guess isn’t necessarily all that meaningful.
A few days later, fermentation activity on both beers appeared to have slowed considerably, so I took a hydrometer sample.
As expected based on prior experience, the WLP090 beer was sitting at the target FG of 1.010 while, disappointingly, the beer fermented with the Port Brewing yeast was at 1.017. They also tasted different…
…whatever, I’d tasted beer a bit too early before that ended up getting better with a few more days on the yeast cake. I let it sit another week before giving it another sample.
What in the world had I created? Frankly, the beer fermented with yeast I’d built up from Port Brewing bottle dregs tasted like chode slathered in fart drippings (I’m only guessing). It was terrible! The bitterness was nearly unpalatable, it smelled like a faulty catalytic converter, it was murky. Everything about this beer was bad. In nearly 300 batches over years of homebrewing, I’ve never made a batch bad enough to dump. Alas:
I always thought I’d feel terrible if ever it came to this, like I was pouring money drenched in blood, sweat, and tears down the drain. I didn’t. I felt like I was doing myself and the pals I share my beer with a favor. A huge favor. Eww barely begins to describe my experience tasting this stuff.
So then, how does Port Brewing make such tasty beer using this yeast? Well…
This fuck-up was totally my fault, I kind of knew it would result in failure. You see, I left something out earlier, something that could have, perhaps should have, put the kabosh on this whole experiment. I actually emailed Port Brewing Company in-between propagating the yeast and pitching it into the Tiny Bottom wort. The conversation was simple:
Me: I’m curious if Port uses separate yeasts for bottle conditioning and fermentation?
Port Rep: We do use different yeasts for fermentation and for bottling conditioning.
I asked about the source of both strains, we engaged in a very brief back-and-forth that ultimately left me with nothing of value. I am super curious where this bottle conditioning strain comes from, as Port’s carbonation is spot on and their beers taste nothing like the beer I dumped. Regardless, I’m not yet convinced WLP090 doesn’t originate from Port Brewing, their beers do share a very similar yeast character as those I’ve made and tasted that were fermented with 090. What I am absolutely certain of is that the yeast at the bottom of Port Bottles is definitely not my beloved San Diego Super Yeast.
So there you have, an xBmt failed, likely the first of many. If you know something I don’t about this delicious yeast strain, please do share!
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!
23 thoughts on “Seeking The Source Of WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast”
I’ve noticed you’re not using airlocks on your fermenters, only foil. Any reason?
I usually keep the foil on for the first 24-48 hours then switch to airlocks, mainly because it’s simple and it works. I’m not even sure airlocks are all that necessary and have fermented with just foil plenty of times with no infections.
Don’t almost all breweries bottle condition with a different yeast?
I don’t know. I was inspired by all the people who have harvested Conan from Heady Topper cans. I was shootin’ from the hip on this one, for fun.
Maybe it’s a German thing, I know they all bottle condition with something else.
Coopers use the same strain for bottling as fermenting iirc
Not sure exactly what they do for the Port beers, but while on a tour there over the summer they mentioned that they bottle all of their beers with champagne yeast. I assumed this was only relevant for the Lost Abbey beers, but maybe it is for the Port ones as well? I would imagine it would attenuate more than this though…
After exchanging emails with Port, I sort of figured they bottled with champagne yeast. I’ve heard it actually doesn’t attenuate all that well in beer, or that it takes a long time, something like that.
Since Champagne yeast is a wine strain I’d wager it doesn’t have the same capability to ferment maltose and maltotriose like beer yeast does.
Yo Marshall-Here’s a relevant thread. Last post is saying California lager yeast, but not clear it’s the bottle condition or fermenting yeast. If California lager is the BC yeast, then it would make sense that your brew fermented at ale temp. might be awful. However, several posters claim they have made very good ales with the BC yeast. So go figure.German wheat beers use the del Bruucki wheat yeast strain for fermentation, then bottle condition with lager yeast. So if you harvest yeast from the bottom of a hefeweizen bottle you will get a nice lager beer yeast.Oh well….http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/port-brewing-mongo-yeast-289803/ From: |Brülosophy| To: popeman99@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:02 PM Subject: [New post] Seeking The Source | exBEERiment Results! #yiv7332833438 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv7332833438 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv7332833438 a.yiv7332833438primaryactionlink:link, #yiv7332833438 a.yiv7332833438primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv7332833438 a.yiv7332833438primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv7332833438 a.yiv7332833438primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv7332833438 WordPress.com | brulosopher posted: “I picked up my first vial of WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast nearly 3 years ago on a whim, hadn’t read/heard much about it, just saw a fairly fresh vial in the local shop and figured I’d give it a shot. The first time I used it was in the first batch of Tiny” | |
I’ve heard the Port Brewing origin theory before, but also another one that sounds much more plausible- Ballast Point.
Ballast Point and White Labs go waaaay back: http://beergraphs.com/bg/157-white-labs-chris-white-talks-about-yeast-bubbles-a/
Heh, sounds totally plausible.
I actually learned to brew from Yuseff — he and Chris White evidently knew each other from student days at USCD (my wife works there) and Yuseff has taught and probably still does teach a home-brew and an “advanced” all-grain class there for years. He definitely talked about the “ancient” BP/WL connection during the classes — it goes back like 20 years. So it might indeed be a good guess (no inside info obviously, just conjecture).
My interest is beyind piqued.
Well, I should ask someone there and report back 🙂
i was curious about this so went back and listened to the episode of can you brew it where the cloned calico amber. Yuseff wouldn’t give the proprietary strain they use but said it is white labs banked and seemed to indicate an english heritage that was fruity and flocculent and attenuated well.
Just find a yeast geneticist who can run a set of restriction enzyme tests or FISH tests. Idk how much that would run the researcher though.
They may be bottle conditioning with Champagne yeast, but if they’re not filtering before packaging it would still be possible for an intrepid microbiologist to isolate both yeasts from a fresh bottle. I work with Champagne yeast (EC1118) all the time and would have no problem telling it apart from another yeast. Drop me a line if you want to repeat this experiment!
It’s that line of thinking that kept me with the xBmt– I figured perhaps the house ale yeast might be represented in the prop’d sample, perhaps even “overpower” the conditioning yeast. I was wrong. I’m not sure I’ll repeat this exact experiment, though I have no plans to end my search for the source of 090. Thanks!
I’ve never tried propagating yeast from a bottle, but I have read that it can be a hit or miss affair. The yeast in the bottle was most likely stressed to a degree, and even though you built up a population, it may not be quite as it was originally. When I have read of success, it was usually done from multiple bottles. Course, if it was a wine yeast strain (like EC-1118), it is not accustomed to utilizing maltose/maltotriose and typically has a fairly neutral (and boring compared to other wine yeasts) profile in wine.
I have propagated yeast from Allagash White. I make a starter, pour myself a beer, add the dregs to the starter. I do this 2 or 3 days in a row (each time adding the dregs to the original starter.) It works great. I live near Allagash (and try to buy from a store that sells lot of beer so in my mind I get a fresh batch) and have read where they openly admit their bottle conditioning yeast is the same as the initial pitch. Plus I spend $10 on yummy beer instead of Wyeast from the LHBS !
Sorry…forgot to “subscribe”
If I recall correctly, white labs at one point acknowledged that WLP090 is a derivative of WLP001. Essentially a strain that was found after passaging/ propagating/ growing WLP001 over time. I wish I could remember the interview where this was discussed, but it likely was either on the BN or BBR.