Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * Brews and Views Archive 2006 * Archive through October 11, 2006 * WL001 < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
 

ChriSto
Junior Member
Username: Christo

Post Number: 89
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 216.176.226.154
Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 01:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've typically used WY1056 in the past for pale ales and such, and once or twice the Safale56.

I presently have 3 batches of beer going (one bottled 3 wks ago, 1 bottled 1 wk ago, and one in secondary) all made with WL001 (I pitched on top of the 1st's primary for the second batch and collected the secondary yeast from the 1st batch for use in the 3rd batch).

Each have been very slow to clear during fermentation (68-70f for primary, 65f for secondary) and then to carbonate in the bottle. The 3 wk old, a blonde, kept at room temp, barely has any carbonation at this point and the 2nd, a B52 recipe, is taking the same path to date, though only a week in the bottle. Racked the 3rd, a Rye PA, to secondary and extremely cloudy still after 11 days and only about 80% done. The other batches have taken an additional 2-3 weeks in secondary to condition and clear. Initially I was going to crash cool the blonde to attempt to clear but decided against it - now I'm thinking it would have taken even more yeast out and inhibited carbonation even more so glad I did not. I went ahead and roused the yeast in the blonde to see if that helps.

In your experiences, does WL001 act like this every time? I know others have had clearing problems with the Safale56 (I have not). My 1056 rye PA last year was clear & done in 7 days (though probably was a little warmer ferment IIRC). Used similar fermenting and priming technique as in the past - just very slow these times.

Think I'm going to force carbonate the Rye PA next weekend instead of bottling to have something ready for consumption quicker.

I typically take the RDWHAHB approach, but as stated in an earlier post where I was down to 1 case of milk stout (now 14 bottles as of last night) so the "HAHB" part is rapidly disappearing - and giving a talk on blonde ales at our next club meeting, just wondering should I typically plan on the extra time with WL001.
 

Little Dipper
Member
Username: Littledipper

Post Number: 115
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 206.114.61.199
Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 01:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I use WLP001 quite often and don't have the same results you seem to be having. I've always thought of 001 to be more floculant in relation to 1056. So I guess I'm just one data point, but my experience is quite different from what you're seeing. I typically ferment that yeast around 65 to 67 or so.
 

Richard Nye
Senior Member
Username: Yeasty_boy

Post Number: 1628
Registered: 01-2004
Posted From: 68.4.202.69
Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 02:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Here's another data point. I've used US56, WLP001, and WY1056 and I like the 1056 best. I get clear beers, nice clean flavors and healthy ferments. I've had clouding issues with US56 and slow ferments with WLP001. Here's my theory....

I've had some problems with slow finishes and cloudy beers at times. I've got an IPA right now that I pitched S-04 into (the LAST time I use that yeast!) and after 6 weeks of conditioning at 40F it's STILL cloudy. The FG was a couple points higher than expected, and it tastes yeasty/bready. I can't drink more than one. OK, back to the theory...I think if the yeast isn't healthy and you don't get a strong ferment the yeast just kinda of linger trying to finish up the last little bit of fermentables and it takes a LONG time to drop out. That explains why the FG is higher than expected, the flavor is off, and the beer is cloudy (in my mind anyway).

I grow my 1056 from a small vial up to a large starter, so I know that yeast is fresh and healthy. Those ferments are fast, clean and clear. I might have the same success with WLP001 if I grew it up the same way.
 

ChriSto
Junior Member
Username: Christo

Post Number: 90
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 216.176.226.154
Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 03:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

For the first batch, I used a "fresh" vial of the WL001 and made a 1L starter. After noting the slowness of that batch I just dumped right on top of the primary cake for my second but it was similarly slow. Also, while it was bubbling within 2 hours after, it was never extremely vigorous as I was expecting on top of entire primary cake (usually I have to insert blow-off tube if I do this). The third batch using the secondary yeast I was expecting a little longer settling, expecially based on what was seen on the first two batches.

I guess the original vial could have been heat damaged or something with only less flocculant yeast cells surviving??

Either way, the beers taste excellent, just not finishing very quickly.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 3388
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 216.23.59.245
Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 04:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Opps! Wrong thread.

Dan

(Message edited by listermann on September 25, 2006)

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Jason Bentley
Junior Member
Username: Pacoustic

Post Number: 66
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 69.26.195.172
Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 10:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've used WL001 as one of my regular yeasts for quite some time. I haven't had a problem with slow starts, or bottle priming, but I have had problems getting it to clear in a short period of time. I always just take the wait and see aproach.
 

ChriSto
Junior Member
Username: Christo

Post Number: 94
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 216.176.226.154
Posted on Friday, September 29, 2006 - 04:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Impatience was all it was! At four weeks, the blonde is now carbonating nicely - just in time as stout is almost all gone. I think the rousing seemed to help. Thanks for the data points all.