Wyeast 1056 American Ale Smackpack vs. US-05 Dry Ale Yeast

Yakima 728
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.
B

brewinginct

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
183
Reaction score
3
I'm getting ready to brew a dark IPA recipe that was included in a recent issue of zymurgy and the recipe calls for Wyeast 1056 American Yeast, which apparently comes in a smack pack.

I made a yeast starter for my last beer that worked like gangbusters so I was all set to make one for this yeast.

The thing is that when I went to my LHBS the owner tells me that US-05 is the exact same strain of yeast as the 1056, except that it is dry and made by a different company. He said that the US-05 is less of a hassel, works better and that I can just pitch two dry packets and will get the same results as a starter with 1056.

So what's the verdict? I want to follow the exact recipe but if US-05 is the same yeast as Wyeast 1056 then why bother with a smack pack and a starter? Is it true that they are the same, that this is the type of yeast Sierra Nevada uses?

If there will be a difference in the final product then I'll definitely go with the Wyeast 1056.
 
Yes it IS the same strain....

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 more reading for you.

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

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

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/dry-yeast-vs-liquid-yeast-45174/
 
Revvy - Thanks for all of that great information, you definitely gave me a lot to read/think about.

I'd fall into that category of relatively new brewers who were under the impression that liquid is the way to go. The fact that it's liquid just makes it appear as though it'd be fresher, plus you figure if it costs 3 times as much then there has to be some advantage. But like you said, that advantage only seems to be germane to yeast driven beer styles or just more unique beers that necessitate a specific yeast.

I'm sure this will help a lot of of other new brewers who could save some extra time/cash going the dry yeast route instead of spending the money and going through the process of making a starter for liquid yeast.
 
Revvy said:
Yes it IS the same strain....

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 more reading for you.

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

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

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

Revvy, you are my hero.

:mug:
 
Tobyone said:
so Revvy, when you use these dry yeast do you just open the packs and pitch it in the wort?
Click to expand...

It's really a matter of preference. I used to rehydrate in warm water, now I just sprinkle the yeast on the surface of the wort, let it sit for 15 minutes then give my bucket a bit of a shake as I move it into my brew closet. That "rehydrate on wort" method was on the fermentis website.
 
+1 on Revvy's comments. (Gee, with all the +1s his comments get, I wonder what score he's up to by now?)

For:
o Cost
o Simplicity
o Cell count
it's hard to beat dry for most beers.
 
With regards to making a yeast starter, how do you know if that's even necessary? I used the Wyeast 1056 on an APA with no starter, and it was the fastest fermentation I've ever seen. Started fermenting within 5-6 hours, and the airlock had slowed to almost no activity within a few days. I always see people mention starters as a drawback of liquid yeast, but I've never done a starter and I have yet to have a stuck fermentation.
 
drycreek said:
With regards to making a yeast starter, how do you know if that's even necessary? I used the Wyeast 1056 on an APA with no starter, and it was the fastest fermentation I've ever seen. Started fermenting within 5-6 hours, and the airlock had slowed to almost no activity within a few days. I always see people mention starters as a drawback of liquid yeast, but I've never done a starter and I have yet to have a stuck fermentation.
Click to expand...

I've answered this question about 1,000 times or more..

Read the answer here https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/how-make-starter-my-wyeast-smack-pack-194370/#post2258968
 
Revvy said:
...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.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything The Rev said, particularly since he qualified it with this statement. I personally use liquid 90% of the time, but it is only because I am looking for a specific profile. Sure the cost can get up there a little bit, but I reduce the cost by using Bernie Brewer's Yeast Washing technique (does add a bit more work). Also doing starters for every beer drives up the cost and time a little, but I won't use a liquid anymore without it(btw if you use a liquid and don't make a starter, then start a "my yeast is dead" thread.....the good Rev gets medieval! :D)
 

Similar threads

H
Yeast starter not starting
Replies
16
Views
1K
HB2112
H
L
Krausen left on top?
Replies
5
Views
425
Lawlesslevie
L
L
Yeast Suggestion for this Red Ale Clone Recipe
Replies
9
Views
708
beren
beren
D
Stuck fermentation on an imperial stout
Replies
25
Views
953
dwick
D
Yesfan
US-05 Feedback and Some Other Questions/Suggestions
Replies
20
Views
2K
day_trippr
day_trippr
BrewSwag 300

Latest posts

Back
Top