Is S-05 really WLP001?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It's reportedly the Chico strain. Which is actually WY1056 not WLP001
 
Yep, as far as I know, all three are the same strain.

Personally (and I have used all three), I just don't get the same results with dry yeast. It's probably something in my process, but it's there. I know lots and lots of people routinely use dry yeast with no problems whatsoever, but I always seem to get a "yeasty" flavor when I use dry yeast.

I've been washing yeast just about every time I brew a batch, so I always have 1056 available...so I just don't use dry yeast anymore, barring emergencies.
 
Never had a problem with dry yeast. I like the idea of more yeasties available without a starter :).
 
If it resulted in the same taste as liquid with my brewing process, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. It's cheaper, after all.

Probably something I'm doing, like I said.
 
Personally (and I have used all three), I just don't get the same results with dry yeast.

This is what I've been wondering. I think all of my beers w/ S-05 have been fantastic, but since I haven't tried out the other liquid strains I can't really comment. I've just always assumed they were the same based on what I've read in the forums and wanted to test that theory.
 
I'm in the same boat as Rick. I'm not knocking people who use dry yeast at all, so please don't take offense or start heating the thread up. But I gave US-05 a try very recently on two beers and it was very different from Wyeast 1056. I made 6 beers in a row from 1056, then 2 from US-05. The US-05 seems to be more temperature sensitive to me. I fermented at 65 with an IPA and a Barley Wine and got much more of an ester profile. Yeah, I know those are high gravity, but I've also made high gravity with 1056 many times and never had pronounced esters. To me, the US-05 just wasn't as clean.

The behavior wasn't the same as Wyeast 1056 and the flavor wasn't the same either.

Now, not saying you can't make a perfectly good beer with it. I'd need to make a few more beers using it and see what I have to adjust. But I've used Wyeast 1056 a lot in my life and US-05 just didn't seem the same to me at all. Maybe they both started off from the same point and then inhouse variations occurred at the yeast lab and they've now become two different strains. Or maybe it's just the difference between using dry and liquid. But whatever the case, to me, these two yeasts don't act or taste the same.
 
I believe WLP001 is same as US-05 or Wyeast 1056. There maybe differences in the pitching rates and so on, but essentially it's the same yeast.
I like to use US-05 a lot because I don't have to make a starter with it.
 
I agree when I use the dry it is a different beer. I prefer the liquid to the dry. I just think the profile is cleaner on the liquid and I can tell a difference in my beers.
 
I use 05 because of the price and ease of use. Its probably my favorite yeast. I ferment at 58-63. It is very clean.
 
Don't forget that pitching rates have a lot to do with the outcome of the beer, including phenol and ester production. If you're pitching a large starter, be it from a liquid or a dry starter, the chances of getting unwanted phenol and ester production go down. So, if you're making a starter with your liquid yeasts and not with your dry yeasts, it could be affecting your outcome.
 
Don't forget that pitching rates have a lot to do with the outcome of the beer, including phenol and ester production. If you're pitching a large starter, be it from a liquid or a dry starter, the chances of getting unwanted phenol and ester production go down. So, if you're making a starter with your liquid yeasts and not with your dry yeasts, it could be affecting your outcome.

There was a recent article in BYO that cast doubt on this. I know that a connection between pitching rates and phenol/ester production has been accepted as fact for a long time, but their results didn't support any connection. They pitched at 1/4, 1, and 4x the recomended cell counts with insignificant differences.

FWIW I've had great results with dry yeast, but I've never really brewed the same beer with liquid and dry to compare head-to-head.
 
There was a recent article in BYO that cast doubt on this. I know that a connection between pitching rates and phenol/ester production has been accepted as fact for a long time, but their results didn't support any connection. They pitched at 1/4, 1, and 4x the recomended cell counts with insignificant differences.

FWIW I've had great results with dry yeast, but I've never really brewed the same beer with liquid and dry to compare head-to-head.

/shrug No idea. I haven't seen their article.

I've never disliked dry yeast, either. I can say, from experience, if you overpitch a wheat, you lose some of the esters and phenols you are after as it finishes fermenting so fast. I guess it could have been temperature, though. I'm not the expert, just an observer. I've never tried it with a dry yeast, though...
 
I agree when I use the dry it is a different beer. I prefer the liquid to the dry. I just think the profile is cleaner on the liquid and I can tell a difference in my beers.

I know a very experienced homebrewer that has done split batches with these yeasts and he told me that US-05 is more estery than its liquid counterparts.
 
I believe it's the same strain. That said, the drying process can (and probably will) have an effect on the yeast, giving you different results.
 
Back
Top