Author Topic: Fullers - WLP 002  (Read 3152 times)

Offline BrodyR

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
  • Philadelphia, PA
    • View Profile
Fullers - WLP 002
« on: July 23, 2015, 03:04:37 PM »
I brewed my first batch with this strain (an ordinary bitter - Muntons MO, Thomas Fawcett C45, Boadicea Hops) and good lord everyone wasn't kidding about how flocculant it is! I'm 10 days from brewery and just pulled a sample and it was clearer than any beer I've made even after a cold crash. 

I did detect a bit of diacytel, while it doesn't seem out of place for this strain/style I was hoping to tone it down a bit. Should I just rouse the fermentor and bump the temp to 70f or something for a few days? I fermented at 65f.

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3420
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
    • Manty Malters - Meet the Malters! - Dave Taylor
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2015, 03:20:14 PM »
Give it 2-3 weeks in the 60s or 70 F, the exact temperature doesn't much matter.  With a little age, the diacetyl will die down a bit, maybe even completely, as the yeast continues to eat it.
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.

Offline goschman

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3512
    • View Profile
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2015, 03:20:37 PM »
Yeah bump the temp up for a few days and you should be good. I tried to hurry a beer and keg after FG was reached (about 10 days) without a diacetyl rest. It was a butter bomb. That was quite a learning experience for me.
On Tap/Bottled: Kurbis Marzen, Red Rye, Vienna Lager, Dry Hopped Peach Cider       

Fermenting: Imperial Porter, Hopfenbier
Up Next: Maibock, Braunbier

Offline BrodyR

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
  • Philadelphia, PA
    • View Profile
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2015, 07:51:14 PM »
Sounds good - I'll pull another sample at the 2 week mark and debate if I want to give it a 3rd.

Really low gravity - it went from 1.034 to the Final of 1.010 pretty quick. Sample didn't taste too wimpy though with all the malt and yeast character in it.

Another anecdote about the strain. During an AHA rally at Yards Brewing Co in Philly last week I got to chat with the brewer for a bit and found out Fullers is their house strain (They tend to brew hybrid American-British styles). They ferment at 68f and have significantly less esters than Fullers and no real trace of Diacytel so it works well in their IPA/APA. The brewer said he thought Fullers may actually ferment warmer than WLP002's suggest max of 68f.

Offline goschman

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3512
    • View Profile
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2015, 08:31:14 PM »
I use S04 quite often which I thought was Fuller's equivalent for a while but am not sure anymore...somebody chime in?

S04 has always caused problems for me above 68F
On Tap/Bottled: Kurbis Marzen, Red Rye, Vienna Lager, Dry Hopped Peach Cider       

Fermenting: Imperial Porter, Hopfenbier
Up Next: Maibock, Braunbier

Offline Frankenbrew

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • South Shore Brew Club, SE Massachusetts
    • View Profile
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2015, 09:52:27 PM »
I think S04 is the Whitbread strain, another famous London brewery.
Frank C.

And thereof comes the proverb: 'Blessing of your
heart, you brew good ale.'

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3420
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
    • Manty Malters - Meet the Malters! - Dave Taylor
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2015, 01:47:53 AM »
S-04 = 1098 = WLP007 = Whitbread dry

WLP002 = 1968 = Fullers
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.

Offline erockrph

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 6229
  • Chepachet, RI
    • View Profile
    • The Hop WHisperer
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2015, 03:07:22 AM »
I brewed my first batch with this strain (an ordinary bitter - Muntons MO, Thomas Fawcett C45, Boadicea Hops) and good lord everyone wasn't kidding about how flocculant it is! I'm 10 days from brewery and just pulled a sample and it was clearer than any beer I've made even after a cold crash. 

I did detect a bit of diacytel, while it doesn't seem out of place for this strain/style I was hoping to tone it down a bit. Should I just rouse the fermentor and bump the temp to 70f or something for a few days? I fermented at 65f.

If you rouse and bump the temp I doubt it will take more than 2-3 days to clear out the diacetyl. Then taste and go by what your palate tells you.
Eric B.

Finally got around to starting a homebrewing blog: The Hop Whisperer

Offline case thrower

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
  • NE Ohio
    • View Profile
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2015, 11:23:02 AM »
S-04 = 1098 = WLP007 = Whitbread dry

WLP002 = 1968 = Fullers

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, really.  But, I use mostly dry yeasts and I was curious about which yeasts are the equivalents of the others.  Am I right that US-05 is the equivalent of WLP001 and that is the 'Chico' strain?
Does anyone have that kind of info for Nottingham or Windsor?  Or can someone point me to a source that would have that information?
Dave C.

Woke up this mornin' and I got myself a beer.
The future's uncertain and the end is alway near.

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3420
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
    • Manty Malters - Meet the Malters! - Dave Taylor
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2015, 12:02:01 PM »
Nottingham and Windsor have no exact equivalents as far as I know.  Nottingham comes closest to US-05 but it's different.  I've heard that Nottingham was actually the origin of US-05/WLP001/1056 (yes those 3 are considered equivalent) or at least a distant grandparent, but I also have no proof of that.  Windsor comes pretty close to 1099 in my experience, but Windsor also outperforms the 1099.

I'll give you this link, but be warned: the author (not me) inserts guesses that in some instances are not correct.  However this is also the table that appears to come the closest to accuracy -- there are several other tables out there on the web that are grossly inaccurate.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0093/2142/files/Yeast_Substitutions.pdf
« Last Edit: July 24, 2015, 12:05:32 PM by dmtaylor »
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.

Offline case thrower

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
  • NE Ohio
    • View Profile
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2015, 12:14:38 PM »
Nottingham and Windsor have no exact equivalents as far as I know.  Nottingham comes closest to US-05 but it's different.  I've heard that Nottingham was actually the origin of US-05/WLP001/1056 (yes those 3 are considered equivalent) or at least a distant grandparent, but I also have no proof of that.  Windsor comes pretty close to 1099 in my experience, but Windsor also outperforms the 1099.

I'll give you this link, but be warned: the author (not me) inserts guesses that in some instances are not correct.  However this is also the table that appears to come the closest to accuracy -- there are several other tables out there on the web that are grossly inaccurate.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0093/2142/files/Yeast_Substitutions.pdf

Cool! And thanks.  When I've got some some time I will have to study that.  (Gotta go get the youngest grandson so that takes priority right now!)  And even if there are a few errors, it's a place to start.  Thanks again.
Dave C.

Woke up this mornin' and I got myself a beer.
The future's uncertain and the end is alway near.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2015, 01:35:15 PM »
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, really.  But, I use mostly dry yeasts and I was curious about which yeasts are the equivalents of the others.  Am I right that US-05 is the equivalent of WLP001 and that is the 'Chico' strain?
Does anyone have that kind of info for Nottingham or Windsor?  Or can someone point me to a source that would have that information?

The actual name for Whitbread Dry is Whitbread "B."   Whitbread "B" was selected in the fifties for use in A.P.V. tower fermentation vessels, which are bioreactors for continuous beer production.   The strain can be had in its original form as NCYC 1026 from the National Collection for Yeast Cultures in the UK.

You are correct. US-05 is from the same parent strain as "Chico," Wyeast 1056, and White Labs WLP001; namely, Siebel Bry 96.  Bry 96 is from the old Ballantine complex in New Jersey. Siebel Bry 97 is also a strain from the old Ballantine complex (Lallemand owns the Siebel Institute).  Bry 97 is used commercially by Anchor, Bear Republic, and a few other breweries.  It is available in liquid form as Wyeast 1272 and White Labs WLP051.   

Our British brethren seem to believe that Nottingham was isolated from a mixed culture used at the Everards Brewery.   Windsor plays so well with Nottingham that the two strains may have been isolated from the same culture; however, that is pure speculation.  The thing about Windsor that leads me to believe that it was not used as a pure culture commercially is that it is maltotriose challenged.  That's why Windsor leaves such a high terminal gravity.

A few other strains that I know of are WB-06.  That stain is Weihenstephan W-68, which is sold in liquid form as Wyeast 3068 and White Labs WLP300.  S-189 is from the Hürlimann brewery.  It also known as the Samiclaus strain.  It is available in liquid form as White Labs WLP885.   Fermentis W-34/70 is the most popular lager yeast strain in the world (not to mention being the prototypical tetraploid yeast strain).  It is available in liquid form as Wyeast 2124 and White Labs WLP830.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2015, 05:23:41 PM by S. cerevisiae »

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3420
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
    • Manty Malters - Meet the Malters! - Dave Taylor
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2015, 02:09:12 PM »
...WLP820.

FYI, there's something very wrong with WLP820.  I would not advise using it interchangeably with the others... or at all.  Sure you didn't mean to say WLP830?  That's what's listed against 2124 at:

http://www.mrmalty.com/yeast.htm

We are now officially derailed.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2015, 02:11:08 PM by dmtaylor »
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.

Offline BrodyR

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
  • Philadelphia, PA
    • View Profile
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2015, 02:19:07 PM »
I've heard of the Ballantine - Chico link before but never new if it was the same strain or just derived from it. Is it public knowledge where Ballantine got the strain from themselves?

Shook up the fermentor and will check back in at the 2 week mark on Monday.

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3420
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
    • Manty Malters - Meet the Malters! - Dave Taylor
Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2015, 04:49:09 PM »
Is it public knowledge where Ballantine got the strain from themselves?

I'm only guessing, but I imagine it's originally English in nature.  Might be wrong.
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.