Wy1099 Whitbread Ale

I've never used it, personally. Just looking through a few things it sounds like it's underwhelmingly fruity and malty. Maybe ferment warm on an English ale/stout?

https://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_yeaststrain_detail.cfm?ID=8
https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast/wlp017-whitbread-ale-yeast
http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/safale-ale-s-04-whitbread-strain.98168/

 

It ruined one of my beers. Only got like 40% attenuation even after giving it warmth and several more weeks to condition. I won't be trying it again.

 

I brewed a milk stout with it a while back... Hands down worst beer I ever made. However, the yeast choice was not my biggest mistake. So it might not be all bad.

 

I have never used Wyeast 1099, but by all accounts I've seen it's the same strain as Fermentis S-04 and I use that all the time. I generally ferment on the cool side with it and have always had good results w/ porters, brown ales, milds etc. It makes a decent stout, too (though it's usually not my first choice for that).

 

I'd be willing to bet money that the yeast *strain* was not to blame for 40% attenuation. Old package? Under-pitched? Unfermentable wort? Maybe. But I've used the dry equivalent dozens of times and never once had a stalled fermentation. Quite the opposite, actually. In worts of low to moderate gravity, it's not uncommon for primary to be complete in 72 hrs (and that's fermenting at the low end, temperature wise). I can't pull up all of my recipes & notes right now, but I don't think I've had a single batch that didn't hit ~ 75-77% AA in short order.

 

S-04 is equivalent to Wyeast 1098, not 1099. Totally totally different beasts. Whitbread had two strains, the regular and the dry. The one that people like is the dry 1098, which by the way is also supposedly the same as WLP007. The 1099, on the other hand, has no commercially available equivalent. (Probably because it sucks.)

 

Ignore this. I was using the dry yeast. Didn't realize they weren't the same strain. Sounds like there are two yeasts I can add to my "do not use" list.

 

Interesting info. Thanks for the clarification. I'd always thought 'whitbread = whitbread'. Never considered that 1098 was also from Whitbread.

 

Here is a good explanation of how s-04 is 1098 and why they can produce different results on the first pitch.

http://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=66396&start=0

1099 definitely attenuates a lot better than 40% and sucks a lot less than dmtaylor says it does.

 

wy1099=wlp017

http://www.whitelabs.com/yeast/wlp017-whitbread-ale-yeast

 

Thanks for that info, that's a new nugget for me to add to my internal database.

Yep... checked my notes.... for a standard run of the mill porter, I got exactly 42% attenuation with 1099. OG=1.057, FG=1.033. No thanks. Is it possible I had a bad pack? Sure, yeah, maybe. Did I make a starter? Yes I did. Fermentation temperature was about 67-68 F. I don't know how to explain this one. I've never experienced attenuation so low in my life with any other yeast.

 

What size was your starter? Did you notice the amount of yeast 'sediment' that you were expecting?

Cheers!

 

Unfortunately I don't recall. This happened a couple of years ago. I don't recall anything unusual though. Seemed like a normal starter, nothing noteworthy. (Special note to those in the know: Unlike my average small 1.7-gallon batches these days, this actually happened to be a full 5-gallon batch.)

 

I don't doubt you had 42% attenuation. I'm just saying it's far from normal for the strain. It produced 76% attenuation in Wyeast's forced ferment test.

You clearly botched something. Don't blame the strain.

 

I wonder if I should try it again just in case. But to be safe, I probably won't. I'm pretty sure I've read elsewhere on the 'uge expanse of interwebs of many others not liking this strain for the same reasons. Might be worth Googling by anyone who's concerned (I'm really not).

 

Yeah, I just Googled it and 241 references to 1099 not attenuating well came from you.

 

I think you're probably right.

Actually my memory was a bit distorted... everyone whines about Windsor, not 1099. Probably because not very many people try 1099, and if they do, they don't try it again.

 

Not me. That yeast is my preferred yeast for my Robust Porter since I desire that beer to be 'chewy'.

My last Robust Porter was:

• OG = 1.089
• FG = 1.037
• AA = 57%

Cheers!

 

It's a yeast that has been used by professionals for more than 60 years. But since it isn't popular with homebrewers, it isn't worth using.

I have used it and can say there isn't anything really great or really bad about it. It makes a decent British style beer. It finishes sweeter than 1098.