Dry yeast strains just as good as their liquid counter parts?

So i just made a blond ale, which is a pretty easy going brew. I used White Labs 001 California Ale and it had a very clean taste, i've been told by others that SAF ALE US-05 American Ale (Chico Strain) is literally the same strain of yeast. I've never tried it but plan on it, sometimes I feel like saving time not making a starter and $$$. So could i use SAF ALE US-05 American Ale on most pale ale type brews and not notice a loss of quality and flavor?
This also made me wonder which dry yeast strains work just as well as their liquid counter parts? Why spend up to $7.00 on liquid yeast + DME (on a starter) when a $3.00 (at most) packet of dry yeast can do the same..very efficiently.

I've used US-05 and been pleased with result - clean when fermented in the mid 60s, high attenuation. For a comparison between dry and liquid yeast, see this thread and scroll down https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/vs-pro-con-analysis-109318/

This question has been answered to death here....there's plenty of info for you.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/dry-yeast-vs-liquid-75697/

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/dry-yeast-vs-liquid-yeast-45174/

It's a personal preference, they both make beer....I tend ot use more dry than anything else...it's way more cost effective....but there are more wet strains and you can wash an reuse or store..It's not really a vs question...they both work..It's NOT a superority thing at all....they all are excellent.

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.

Here's some info here, https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/dry-yeast-profiles-descriptions-131810/

Some including me get an apple/pear note from S-05 that I don't get from WLP001 or WY1056. I have no other explanation for it than it's the yeast. But you may like that apple/pear note (if you even get/notice it). For the most part I don't like it but I keep thinking there's got to be a place for it.

Regarding the cost, I save a little there by reserving any leftover wort from batches and freezing it and using that for starters so I almost never have to use DME/LME. I always make my batches about 1 qt over my target volume into the fermenter both so I can save the extra wort and avoid getting too much break material in the fermenter, plus I have a little fudge factor built-in. Then I wash the yeast and reuse for a few batches so for each smackpack/vial I usually get several batches from just one pack/vial and one starter (of course you could always wash/reuse dry yeast too).

Another option is to go to a local brewery and ask them for yeast. (probably not an option for you in Nome, AK).

the brewmaster at my local craftbrewery is very cool about this. i stop by the brewery around his lunchtime at the pub, hand him a sanitized mason jar and a 22 bottle of the last thing i brewed. i come back later that night and the jar is waiting for me in the pub.

it's a huge cell count and i never need to make a starter. and it's free!

and the yeast i get is always 1056, although they have the 1007 used for alts and dunkelweizens as well.

For me, Safale-05 makes the most sense. I decided early this year (on the advice of a local brewer) to stick to a single strain and then experiment with it continuously for a year. That's what I've been doing with Safale-05 -- and I've learned a *lot* from not only watching the fermentations, but tasting the experiments.

I'll agree with the post above that Safale-05 has some interesting fruity flavors at low temperatures (56F-58F). I've posted about these over the past few weeks -- and my interesting results -- so I won't post again, but I've been very happy with 05 for nearly everything. I say *nearly* because I cheated and use Wyeast's 'Kolsch ii' a couple weeks ago and started off my brewing season with a hef using Wyeast 3068 (both turned out great at my usual cool temps -- 56F for the Kolsch and 60F for the hef.) I also used Pacman for one brew, but my understanding (and I might be wrong) is that Pacman is a variation of 05 anyway. (I got around 88% attenuation with it when I fermented it at 60F in NB's 'Twelth Night Stout.' It certainly has a similar overamp'd quality to it that I see with 05.)

I've brewed a variety of beers over the past several months -- ranging from 1.040 to 1.075ish -- and for each one I've pitched two packets of 05. More than I need I know, but so far the results of the overpitching -- especially with the low grav beers -- have been superb. Mainly, I didn't want to go the 1.5 11gram packets because then I'd be wasting a half packet -- so I figured what the hell and standardized the pitching for every beer. I'm sure those with more experience will say this is not a good idea, but these might be the same folks who warned me against pitching 05 in the mid- to high-50's.

What I've learned is that I like the simplicity of dry yeast. No starters, very cheap, and easy to pitch. I've also learned that the two times I've forgotten to inject O2 into the wort has resulted in an over-the-top sweet flavor with 05 that does not go away as the beer ages. It minimizes, but it's there -- and it's not pleasant. I take it the flavor was essentially yeast stress exacerbated by the low temps. I've been doing 90 seconds of O2 in the fermenter immediately after brewing -- and then another 60 secs 12-14 hours into the fermentation.

I have used both over the years. But now I pretty much always use dry unless it's a strain only available in liquid.

cheaper, easier, no starter. quick lag time, no worries about shipping in summertime. Just sprinkle on top after aerating and done.

I can't tell the difference in results between WLP001 and S-05, so when I making a brew that needs something like that, I use the S-05.
But I notice a great difference between WLP002 and S-04. (Not surprising as they are different yeasts). I love the 002, but not the S-04, so in that case I use the liquid.

-a.

I have used both and for me I like the liquid Much better. This is my opinion and after 100's of gallons brewed I just prefer the liquid.

the only real good advice I can offer is that free advice on the Internet is worth every cent you paid for it. Best way is to play with your beer. Experiment, and make up your own damn mind. Everyone's got their own tastes.

For my money, though, dry yeasts are only suitable for dry, clean ales. None of them have an ester profile that agrees with me (whether that's an innate problem with drying, or just a function of poor selection, I can't say). If you brew a lot of dry, clean, american-style beers, then they're the bees knees (or cat's pyjamas, even). If you like more characterful yeasts (even for american beers), they they're kind of, well, ass. There's just no equivalent to WY1272 in the dry yeasts, or to WY1028, or 1084, or 1968, or 3724.

Revvy said:

This question has been answered to death here....there's plenty of info for you.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/dry-yeast-vs-liquid-75697/

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/dry-yeast-vs-liquid-yeast-45174/

It's a personal preference, they both make beer....I tend ot use more dry than anything else...it's way more cost effective....but there are more wet strains and you can wash an reuse or store..It's not really a vs question...they both work..It's NOT a superority thing at all....they all are excellent.

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.

Here's some info here, https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/dry-yeast-profiles-descriptions-131810/

Click to expand...

This may have changed my entire yeast outlook forever!!

I've split batches up and pitched different yeasts to compare strains many many times. I've compared S-05, WLP001, and 1056 head to head in two separate beers, and neither myself or any of my large group of beer snob friends could tell any difference. I should note that many people report S-05 having a slightly fruity flavor (often peach or pear) at the very low end of the temp range, and both of my tests were fermented at 65F.

I do use several liquid yeasts, but none that have a suitable dry counterpart. Dry yeast contains twice as many cells in a longer lasting, easier to store, easier to use form, and it usually costs about half as much as liquid. For my money I'll use dry yeast whenever possible.

FWIW here are the dry yeasts I've used. I've compared all of them to the liquid counterparts, and while not all of them are identical, none of them tasted inferior in any way.

S-05 is a Chico strain, and (comparable to WLP001 or Wyeast 1056)
S-04 is a Whitbread strain (comparable to WLP007 or Wyeast 1099)
I think Danstar Windsor is a Fullers strain (comparable to WLP002 or Wyeast 1968)
S-33 is the Edme strain
Danstar Nottingham is the same as WLP039
Even though I don't know of any liquid counterparts, T-58 is another great dry yeast (makes a great saison-esque beer IMO)
Never used S-23, but I know others have had success with it

ajf said:

I can't tell the difference in results between WLP001 and S-05, so when I making a brew that needs something like that, I use the S-05.
But I notice a great difference between WLP002 and S-04. (Not surprising as they are different yeasts). I love the 002, but not the S-04, so in that case I use the liquid.

Click to expand...

s-04 is WLP007 (apparently). and I can't tell them apart, too bad I don't like it that much, if only they'd make a dry version of Thames Valley/Burton Ale.

JuanMoore said:

I think Danstar Windsor is a Fullers strain (comparable to WLP002 or Wyeast 1968)

Click to expand...

Windsor is its own freakish thing and nothing like Fuller's. They have speed and low attenuation in common but the flocculation and flavor profiles couldn't be more different. They actually recommend Windsor for "hefe weizen" ...>shudder<.

Apparently 007 is Whitbread "Dry" (like 1098, unlike S-04 and 1099).

I am about to try S-05 for the first time for a honey blonde ale. Up to this point all of my 6 batches have used wyeast or white labs.

What dry yeast would anyone reccomend for a hef or american wheat beer (something simple - about 1.045 or so)?

Patirck said:

I am about to try S-05 for the first time for a honey blonde ale. Up to this point all of my 6 batches have used wyeast or white labs.

What dry yeast would anyone reccomend for a hef or american wheat beer (something simple - about 1.045 or so)?

Click to expand...

I'd use S-05 for an American wheat, but there are several dry options that would work. I don't know of any dry yeasts for a true hefeweizen, but you can use T-58 for a peppery phenolic flavor without the banana esters. IMO T-58 is a good choice for a Belgian wit. I personally like the Weihenstephan hefe strain a lot (WLP300 or 3068).

944play said:

Windsor is its own freakish thing and nothing like Fuller's. They have speed and low attenuation in common but the flocculation and flavor profiles couldn't be more different. They actually recommend Windsor for "hefe weizen" ...>shudder<.

Apparently 007 is Whitbread "Dry" (like 1098, unlike S-04 and 1099).

Click to expand...

You're right, 007 = 1098, and S-04 = 1099. I wasn't sure about the Windsor, but IMO the flavor profile is similar to the Fullers strain, although certainly not exact. I've only used it twice though, so I don't have much eperience with it.

JuanMoore said:

S-05 is a Chico strain, and (comparable to WLP001 or Wyeast 1056)
S-04 is a Whitbread strain (comparable to WLP007 or Wyeast 1099)
I think Danstar Windsor is a Fullers strain (comparable to WLP002 or Wyeast 1968)
S-33 is the Edme strain
Danstar Nottingham is the same as WLP039
Even though I don't know of any liquid counterparts, T-58 is another great dry yeast (makes a great saison-esque beer IMO)
Never used S-23, but I know others have had success with it

Click to expand...

We need more post like this one. Very insightful and side by side comparrison.

tenchu_11 said:

We need more post like this one. Very insightful and side by side comparrison.

Click to expand...

Oh you mean like this thread I posted earlier?

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/dry-yeast-profiles-descriptions-131810/

Revvy said:

Oh you mean like this thread I posted earlier?

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/dry-yeast-profiles-descriptions-131810/

Click to expand...

Problem with that thread and most others is they never lay out the strains with equivalents. I followed the thread you mentioned above but the guy just stopped working on it. I have used Notty, S04 and S05 and love them all. But after 10 batches with Notty, I would like to know where it came from? After all of the "I Love Notty" threads, I haven't seen a discussion about its origins. Did it come from the Nottingham brewery? What commercial beers did it make? Someone mentioned Bass. Really?? Just curious.

Originally Posted by JuanMoore View Post

S-05 is a Chico strain, and (comparable to WLP001 or Wyeast 1056)
S-04 is a Whitbread strain (comparable to WLP007 or Wyeast 1099)
I think Danstar Windsor is a Fullers strain (comparable to WLP002 or Wyeast 1968)
S-33 is the Edme strain
Danstar Nottingham is the same as WLP039
Even though I don't know of any liquid counterparts, T-58 is another great dry yeast (makes a great saison-esque beer IMO)
Never used S-23, but I know others have had success with it

re post from Reevy on his attached forum, the most and single best piece of information on his link.

Here is an incomplete list of dry yeast strains and their characteristics:

Cooper's Ale (Cooper's)
All-purpose dry ale yeast. It produces a complex woody, fruity beer at warm temperatures. More heat tolerant than other strains, 65-75¡F; recommended for summer brewing. Medium attenuation and flocculation.

Edme Ale (Edme Ltd.)
One of the original dry yeast strains, this produces a soft, bready finish. Medium flocculation and medium-high attenuation. Fermentation range of 62-70°F.

London Ale (Lallemand)
Moderate fruitiness suitable for all pale ale styles. Medium-high attenuation and flocculation. Fermentation range of 64-70°F.

Nottingham Ale (Lallemand)
A more neutral ale yeast with lower levels of esters and a crisp, malty finish. Can be used for lager-type beers at low temperatures. High attenuation and medium-high flocculation. Fermentation range of 57-70°F.

Munton and Fison Ale (Munton and Fison)
An all purpose ale yeast selected for a long shelf life. A vigorous starter, with neutral flavors. Medium attenuation and high flocculation. Fermentation range of 64-70°F.

Windsor Ale (Lallemand)
Produces a full bodied, fruity English ale, but suitable for wheat beers also, including hefe-weizen. Attenuation and flocculation are medium-low. Fermentation range of 64-70°F.

Whitbread Ale (Yeast Lab)
An excellent pale ale yeast with a smooth crisp flavor and fruity aroma. Medium attenuation and high flocculation. Fermentation range of 65-70¡F.

Safale S-04 (DCL Yeast)
A well-known commercial English ale yeast selected for its vigorous character and high flocculation. This yeast is recommended for a large range of ale styles and is especially well adapted to cask-conditioned ales.
Recommended temperature range of 64-75°F.

Saflager S-23 (DCL Yeast)
This lager strain is used by several European commercial breweries. This yeast develops soft estery notes at the recommended temperature range of 48-59°F and more ale-like characteristics at warmer temperatures. From what I have read, I am speculating that this is a Kolsch or Alt-type yeast. This strain of yeast will produce a lager character at 54°F, and homebrewers have reported good results with this yeast. Given the recommended fermentation temperature range, these yeasts may not respond well to lagering (extended secondary fermentation at low temperatures) as described in Chapter 10, and probably should be maintained at 54°F for the duration of the time in the fermenter, approximately 2-3 weeks. I have not used this yeast myself and cannot say for certain.




some one should make a sticky of dry yeast and their liquid counter parts. Hard for most noobies like me when they get a kit with standard dry Notty yeast and feel confident using it (flavor wise). When liquid strains seem to come in every color/flavor of the rainbow.

Don't forget this strain:
Safale - K-97
A German ale strain selected for its ability to form a large, firm head when fermenting. This top-cropping ale yeast is suitable for top fermented beers with low ester levels.

I used this on an Alt. Worked great. I heard that it is a Kolsch yeast. Not certain though. I would like to know as the Wyeast Kolsch that I use is $7.

And S-33 too:

British strain.
A general purpose, widely-used ale yeast with low sedimentation properties. This strain is extremely consistent, with excellent wort attenuation and a superb flavor profile. Optimum temp: 59°-75° F

I haven't used this one yet. It is only $2.

tenchu_11 said:

We need more post like this one. Very insightful and side by side comparrison.

Click to expand...

Except that - as 944play pointed out - some of the information is not correct (especially in regard to Winsor being Fullers strain, Wy1969, nothing flocculates like Wy1969).

If you're going to compare things that broadly let's say:
US05 is comparable to Wy1056, WLP001, Wy1272, WLP051, Pacman, Wy1450, Brewtek CL-50
Because it is probably the best dry yeast comparison for each of those alternates, and a bunch of others. But that's the thing ... you are just comparing best-alternates and not identical characteristics in most cases.

yeah, well not necesserily side by side comparisson. But what each yeast strain would be appropriate for. Like is nottingham good for everything from Pale Ales to Stouts?