WLP002 vs. WLP005

[Buttwidget]

I've been working on an ESB recipe for a while now and really have it dialed in. I was about to confirm my process with a validation brew, but the LHBS didn't have the WLP002 that I normally use in stock. I picked up WLP005 instead as it seemed to have a similar profile, although needs a higher fermentation temp (?)

Looking for the following:

1. Thoughts on the difference in flavor to expect from WLP005 and WLP002
2. Understanding the differences I should undertake in my fermentation regimen to achieve similar results to WLP002
3. What temp should I ferment at to maximize the similarities between WLP002 flavors with WLP005

I know it will be different, but I can't break my brewing schedule otherwise I will be forced to purchase beer.

Thanks,

~widget

[Buttwidget]

No one?

[10 SEC COMMUTER]

It depends on the results you are getting from WLP002. What temp. are you fermenting the WLP002 at? I would go to the White Labs site and listen to Chris talk about WLP005. It sound like it produces more esters compared to WLP002 at 68 but you can ferment it a little lower. I don't know how close you can get to WLP002 but if you ferment it well you are still going to make good beer. Who knows you might like it better. I used WLP005 about 2 years ago and had good results. I personally don't use WLP002, I have switched to Wyeast 1968. I know they are supposed to be the same but I like the results I get using the Wyeast. It is the only yeast that I would rather use Wyeast over White Labs.

[Afterlab]

http://www.whitelabs.com/beer/audio/wlp005.mp3

Yeah Chris White is definitely going to be your best source for this. From what I've gathered you will be perfectly fine with WLP005. Depending on how high you ferment, you will get a decent amount of esters and some fusel alcohols that are balanced out by residual sweetness. Pull up a chair, grab some paper towels and watch those yeast have sex.

[NCBluesman]

I've brewed many beers with WLP005 and WLP002 this year. I've heard it said that WLP005 might throw off more diacetyl but when I fermented (starting at 65 and letting it free rise to 68) I didn't pick up any. The beers brewed with 005 that I submitted to competitions did extremely well with no mention of diacetyl. It's rumored that WLP005 is the Ringwood yeast, but I seriously doubt that.

My beers fermented with WLP002 started out fruitier and bready. I fermented them at 68 as I thought that was the optimum temp. After listening to the Deschutes Mirror Pond and Black Butte Porter episodes of the Jamil Show, I moved my starting temps down to 64 and have been very pleased with the cleanliness of the fermentation character.

I think both yeasts make excellent beers, especially suited to maltier beers. I plan to go back to WLP005, however, because I felt it floculated better and produced a more brilliant beer. WLP002 is a high flocculating yeast, but the WLP005 had an almost cottage cheese consistency when I cleaned out the yeastcake. I don't know if fermenter geometry has anything to do with my experience, but in case it matters to you, I ferment in a blichmann 14.5 gal fermenator.

I hope this helps.

[Buttwidget]

Thank you all, great information. I'll let you know what I find after brewing with it.

[weiht]

Please do... I'm still trying to determine what the differences are between 002 005 and 007. I've used 002 alot, but have never used 005 and I'm thinking of trying. It pretty funny that on cybi, they recommend 007 as a 002 that attenuates better, but from what I've heard on the british forums, 007 is actually very neutral whereas 002 is fruity and has that residual sweetness and it also does mask the hops