Urquell Yeast WY2001

dannyboy58 2019-03-29 15:13:08 UTC #1

I've used Wyeast 2001 Urquell Lager yeast many times in the past with great results. Over the last year or two it's gotten more difficult to find and I lost my slurry collection when my freezer failed a while back so I had to start over.

Wy2001 became available for a short time, or so I'm told, in January so I had my LHBS get me a smack pack to culture up. I made a vitality starter and pitched it to 10 gallons of pilsner last month and had a verry slow start to fermentation as described above in this thread. Took 4 days to get signs of fermentation...

Last week I brewed a bushwick pre pro pilsner, racked 5 gals of my other pils off the urquell cake and just pitched the whole cake to the new pre pro pils. Very lackluster beginning to fermentation even with that seemingly massive overpitch...almost 5 full days before I saw signs of krauesen...

Anyone used the noew limited availability wy2001? Were your results similar to mine?

brew_cat 2019-03-29 15:18:02 UTC #2

Sounds like its spent. When I pitch on the Bavarian lager cake it's off and running in a couple hours

dannyboy58 2019-03-29 15:20:30 UTC #3

Same with my other lager yeasts. I'd agree with that assessment except it's just the second generation and the first acted the same way...

It was a decent sized yeast cake so 1st gen reproduced well and the first pils tasted great right out of the fermenter...

brew_cat 2019-03-29 15:31:35 UTC #4

Sounds temperamental

voltron 2019-03-29 15:50:31 UTC #5

Wyeast discontinued 2001 two years ago. Omega OYL101 is allegedly the same strain.

ETA: It was made available at the beginning of the year as a limited release, but I didn't snag any.

dannyboy58 2019-03-29 18:52:51 UTC #6

Yea that's why I grabbed one but it doesn't seem the same. I used it for years and never had this kind of lag time for fermentation. That's why I was curious about what others are seeing.

loopie_beer 2019-03-29 19:52:26 UTC #7

Wow 4-5 days? That had to be excruciating! And it shouldn’t lag like that, especially with a healthy repitch.

I wonder how old the true yeast (not packaging date) since it is now a Wyeast Private Collection strain. I would imagine that regular offerings are more ‘fresh.’

dannyboy58 2019-03-30 13:28:20 UTC #8

It is a little stressful. Maybe you're right. I would think if it's a limited offer it would be cultured up fresh but it sure doesn't act like it. Still you'd think the 2nd gen would improve...

sneezles61 2019-03-30 14:08:31 UTC #9

My finger nails would've been chewed off! My hair would've been all pulled out...
Just going to throw this out there.... Have you tried to grow any from some bottles of Urquell? If your yeast could be that old, it would be really hard to get it healthy again... Sneezles61

dannyboy58 2019-03-30 16:51:52 UTC #10

I have not tried mainly because I've heard that they pasteurise their beer, so I figured there wouldn't be any viable yeast in the bottle.

I'm about to keg another 5 gallons so I'm going to try making a big starter with some of that yeast and see how it reacts. If I don't get a good response I'll dump it all and go back to the bavarian lager yeast I've been using since 2001 became scarce.

sneezles61 2019-03-30 17:39:56 UTC #11

I've seen a you tube vid that shows how to acid wash the yeast.. That kills the unwanted bugs... Maybe, if you really want to try save your yeast... Sneezles61

dannyboy58 2019-04-05 19:46:18 UTC #12

The second beer, a Bushwick style pilsner, was at 1.010 today so I kegged it. Tasted and smelled great, very clear. So the urquell yeast didn't fail me...just wanted to make me sweat a little I guess.

Left a big healthy looking cake of yeast that I decided to save even in light of its' lazy start.

sneezles61 2019-04-06 14:51:49 UTC #13

You can never have enough yeast... I wish I remembered to label some of mine... Sneezles61

dannyboy58 2019-04-06 15:31:24 UTC #14

I have a pretty fancy labeling system. A roll of athletic tape and an ink pen.