Wyeast vs. Safale vs. .....

Hi All,

I am considering my yeastie options and looking for some input.

I shop with 2 different HBS's. One has safale (US-05 dry) and the other has wyeast (specifically I was looking at American Ale 1056 Activator).

Now, the safale is just over $5 NZD (which is like 50c US I am sure ) and the wyeast is $20 for a packet.

Is wyeast worth the extra cost?

My preferred style of beer is pale ale and the hoppier the better.

Cheers in advance.

Nope, it's essentially the exact same strain of yeast. Just make sure to rehydrate properly and pitch the right amount based off of any of the online calculators and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I love S-05. It's crisp and clean, and i see no reason to spend the extra dough on liquid for pales and IPAs.

They are supposed to be the same exact strain, however, in my experience the safale-5 doesn't flocculate quite as well. Safale-05 is great and I use it all the time but I always cold crash and use gelatin with it. If it were me, I'd definitely go with the 05 for those prices and spend a few cents on gelatin.

Rockfish is right, when it comes to clean neutral ale yeast of the Us-05 variety, you don't need to use liquid, it is the same strain

I have found that a lot of new brewers especially, THINK they HAVE to use liquid yeast, but in reality most ales can be made with Notty, Windsor, Us-05, Us-04 and many lagers with basic Saflager.....7-8 bucks a pop for liquid as opposed to $1.50-2.50 for dry, with more cell count, is imho just a waste of money for the majority of a brewer's recipe bank...most commercial ales us a limited range of strains, and those liquid strains are really the same strains that the afore mentioned dry strains cover, for example Us-05 is the famed "Chico strain", so if you are paying 7-8 bucks for Wyeast 1056 American/Chico Ale Yeast, and you STILL have to make a starter to have enough viable cells, then you are ripping yourself off, in terms of time and money....

I use dry yeast for 99% of my beers, for basic ales I use safale 05, for more british styles I us safale 04 and for basic lagers I use saflager..

The only time I use liquid yeast is if I am making a beer where the yeast drives the style, where certain flavor characteristics are derived from the yeast, such as phenols. Like Belgian beers, where you get spicy/peppery flavors from the yeast and higher temp fermentation. Or let's say a wheat beer (needing a lowly flocculant yest) or a Kholsch, where the style of the beer uses a specific yeast strain that is un available in dry form.

But if you are looking for a "clean" yeast profile, meaning about 90% of american ales, the 05, or nottingham is the way to go. Need "Bready" or yeasty for English ales, then 04 or windsor. Want a clean, low profile lager yeast- saflager usually does the trick.

Frankly, I don't even rehydrate and every batch that I use US-05 in is in full-krausen within twelve or eighteen hours. Simple, clean, and cheap. Save the liquid yeasts for Belgian ales and hefes and lagers and other times when the yeast characteristics are particularly critical.

With you having to pay 4x the price I think the decision is clearer for you. They are essentially the same.

Honestly I enjoy making a starter, but dry yeast is cheaper and a lot less effort.

Cool, thanks for that advise, safale will remain in my brew cupboard

The wyeast is MUCH cheaper when you split the pack up and make starter from each split part. Then you can push 1056 to a second generation no problems so you can get 12 brews at least out of a wyeast pack. Much cheaper and better brewing imo to make a starter and pitch active yeast.

jaja said:

The wyeast is MUCH cheaper when you split the pack up and make starter from each split part. Then you can push 1056 to a second generation no problems so you can get 12 brews at least out of a wyeast pack. Much cheaper and better brewing imo to make a starter and pitch active yeast.

Click to expand...

Not as cheap as you make it sound. Starters require DME which = $$.

By far the cheapest way is to sparge through spent grains to capture unused sugars, then store that wort for starters (i.e, replace DME with saved wort). Storing at very cold temps is fine, but at room temp you need to pressure can the wort.

Next best is to use the pack in a beer, then wash the yeast from the cake and store it in jars.

If you're using dry yeast, can you get Danstar (Nottingham, Winsor, or Munich...). Around here, it is cheaper than Safale and it is always a fast starter for me (fast, like noticable activitiy in 6-8 hours).

jaja said:

The wyeast is MUCH cheaper when you split the pack up and make starter from each split part. Then you can push 1056 to a second generation no problems so you can get 12 brews at least out of a wyeast pack. Much cheaper and better brewing imo to make a starter and pitch active yeast.

Click to expand...

... you can save/wash/reuse the US-05 just as easily...

I realize I'm reviving a dead post, but I've found that the performance of US-05 and WYeast 1056 are very similar for the end product. (sorry i don't use white labs [nothing against it though])

I have noticed that WYeast is a little cleaner though. I have observed that two identical amber ales have slightly different clarity. US-05 takes off better and fermentation is slightly faster.

Just an FYI...

So which one is more clear for you? One of them is clearer for me as well.

How different are WL001 (California ale) and WL006 (American Ale) from Wyeast 1056 and US-05?