Review of WLP090 Super San Diego Yeast

[Mills]

Diacetyl? Interesting. I never sample out of my carboy, cause I hate opening it. My beers always go 8-9 days and have been clean. Something to look out for however, I really appreciate the feedback. Anyone else get the butter out of this yeast?

By the way, what does pommy or pom mean?

Mills

[Dirk McLargeHuge]

"Pommy" is Aussie slang for something or someone from England.

[Kodos]

It came from the acronym "Prisoner Of Mother England" - my interpretation has always been that we Australians may have been the convicts, but the people stuck in England were the real prisoners!

"Pommy" is Aussie slang for something or someone from England.

[Charlie]

I tried a couple of brews with 090 back in '11. At the time I was using a top-mount fridge as a fermentation chamber (FC) and it would only hold two 5-gal fermentors. This was my weak link, particularly with dry hopped brews, and I wanted to shave a few days off my time so I could cycle brews through it quicker.

Start time with 090 was not remarkably faster than any other yeast I've used, but at +1-2 days it was a good deal more intense such that I had to drop the FC to the low 60s to keep it under control. It did ferment to finish more quickly than other yeasts, and the finished product was indistinguishable from 001.

I made three ales (American pale and IPA) with 090, then my top-mount FC died. I built an FC that would hold four fermentors which obviated the need for 090, so I went back to 001 and 007 and haven't used it again.

Charlie

[TimmyR]

I've two side-by-sides with 090 and 001 on my APA and an IPA I just brewed.

The two APAs were about the same but since I altered dry-hop slightly I cannot compare flavor profiles. The 001 went from 1.058-1.011 and 090 on that batch finished at 1.013. Mash temp was about 153.

The IPA I just did was almost 100% Maris Otter mashed at 149-151 (manual control of direct-fire mash tun) and both went from 1.065 to 1.008 in 2-weeks. Same flavor profile from what I can tell so far.

I've never detected any diacetyl in the beers I brewed with WLP090. All my fermentations have run 4-weeks on the original pitch and were pitched slightly in excess of 0.75 million cells per milliliter per degree plato as estimated by the Mr. Malty Yeast Pitching Rate Calculator.

The 090 works faster and flocs quicker than the 001 from what I've seen. I like it and will probably keep comparing it. YMMV.

[Deathrider]

After reading some of these, I went back to look at my recipes and two of my beers that had diacetyl were fermented with the WLP090! One was an Imperial Red and the other a cream ale. I did not connect the two until re-reading this post.

[ACESFULL]

In drinking others beers along with mine this yeast drys the shit outta beers. Not really fan of this strain. I even tried to bump mash temp to compensate with no luck. I will stick with WLP001 or 1056 for my American strain.

[Bad Goat Brewing]

I know this is an old thread, but I had looked at before trying wlp090. I thought i would add my anecdotal evidence.

I've fermented 6 batches with wlp090, a few of those were split batches with different yeast. I have not had better attenuation than with s-05, Nottingham (dried), or 1056(never have used 001), but it was way faster and more flocculant. I also think it's closer to nottingham or maybe wlp007 in flavor than 1056 or s-05. Using 100% O2 doesn't seem to improvement attenuation vs the shake method. Also I can't taste any Diacetyl.

Over all I really like this yeast, but I'm don't think it deserves the higher attenuation numbers White Labs gives it. Next IPA i'll try it aginst wlp001 just to be sure. If anyone is ever interested i can post my split batch notes for comparison.