I have always used liquid yeast, the last 2 batches US-05

Brewer's Friend 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.
J

jetmac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
38
Location
Mcdonough
I have always used liquid yeast. The last 2 batches I used US-05. Maybe it's my technique with the liquid yeast but the krausen has always been moderate, making it's way about halfway between the wort and the neck of the bottle.
Using dry yeast (granted the last batch was OG 1.082 but,) the krausen blew out of the neck. This second batch the krausen is right at the base of the neck.
Given the preparation I have to do of the liquid yeast(making a starter or stepping up a starter) vs the dry(rehydration) and having to time the liquid yeast hours or days ahead of time. The dry yeast is so much easier to work with and the results are outstanding. I think going foward I will use dry yeast when I don't have a need for a specific flavor profile from a liquid yeast.
 
I use US-05 for all my brews that do not need a yeast for flavor. IPAs for example.

US-05 is a rockstar. I just aerate my wort and then sprinkle the yeast on top. Always ferments fast, always, gets good attenuation.

of course it is cheaper too.
 
beergolf said:
I use US-05 for all my brews that do not need a yeast for flavor. IPAs for example.

US-05 is a rockstar. I just aerate my wort and then sprinkle the yeast on top. Always ferments fast, always, gets good attenuation.

of course it is cheaper too.
Click to expand...

You don't rehydrate?
 
nope. just get a good amount of foam on the top by aerating and sprinkle the yeast in. I do use buckets so I can spread it out all over the top of the wort.
 
I use 04 for my IPAs and have outstanding results. I'm pretty close to making an APA using the yeast by modifying my IPA recipe. I love 05 as well for all of my clean ale needs. Both are great yeasts. Use them with confidence.
 
I agree, in beers that need clean profiles S-05 works like a champ. I've had some bad luck with WY1056, not sure if I got a bad pack or what, but all three beers I used it in had the same funky off flavor. Of those three the IPA I entered in a comp got completely slammed. So I'm back onto S-05.
 
yankeehillbrewer said:
i agree, in beers that need clean profiles s-05 works like a champ. I've had some bad luck with wy1056, not sure if i got a bad pack or what, but all three beers i used it in had the same funky off flavor. Of those three the ipa i entered in a comp got completely slammed. So i'm back onto s-05.
Click to expand...

o
 
Yankeehillbrewer said:
I agree, in beers that need clean profiles S-05 works like a champ. I've had some bad luck with WY1056, not sure if I got a bad pack or what, but all three beers I used it in had the same funky off flavor. Of those three the IPA I entered in a comp got completely slammed. So I'm back onto S-05.
Click to expand...

I get exactly the opposite results with WY1056. I absolutely think that it is a great yeast. Do you get the propagator or activator packs?
 
i use us-05 and nottingham as my yeasts of choice. 80% or so are made with these yeasts. us-05 is a beast, and will go in foaming at the mouth for the yeast :D
 
Us-05 is a power. The only drawback is a lower fg. Everytime I use it I finish under 1.010. If that is to your style, it is the bomb.
 
Never used S05. Have a 2-year old pack in the fridge in case of emergency. I use and re-use liquid yeasts all the time, and most of the time I do not use a starter when re-using. Works out cheap. Much more variety; Belgians, Brett, Sours, etc.

.... For the most part, I prefer to be below 1.010. depends on the beer.
 
I have brewed about 80 batches or so with liquid yeast. On my last pale ale batch I split a 10 gal into to 5s at fermentation and used WLP California in one and Safale 05 in the other. I can not taste any difference and both reached the same final gravity. I am intrigued... As stated above for beers that don't need a yeast "flavor" I may be going dry. Does anybody have any thoughts on 05 vs. Nottingham for standard pale ales (the main reason is 05 is $4 and Nottingham is $2). I typically do 10gal batches so I will pitch two packets into a conical fermentator. Another point is with using two dry packets I can skip a starter for a typical 10 gallon batch saving time. Any thoughts...
 
k2ainslie said:
I have brewed about 80 batches or so with liquid yeast. On my last pale ale batch I split a 10 gal into to 5s at fermentation and used WLP California in one and Safale 05 in the other. I can not taste any difference and both reached the same final gravity. I am intrigued... As stated above for beers that don't need a yeast "flavor" I may be going dry. Does anybody have any thoughts on 05 vs. Nottingham for standard pale ales (the main reason is 05 is $4 and Nottingham is $2). I typically do 10gal batches so I will pitch two packets into a conical fermentator. Another point is with using two dry packets I can skip a starter for a typical 10 gallon batch saving time. Any thoughts...
Click to expand...

Flavor-wise, I find both 05 and Notty to be pretty clean and neutral when fermented low (most of my beers with either ferment in the 60-64 range). I haven't been all that particular about checking attenuation as a general rule, but my last two batches of each showed about 86% AA for 05 and the expected 75% for Notty. This was for an IPA with some crystal using 05 and a Blonde that was *purely* base malt (pils & pale) for the Notty.

So I'd make your selection based on the desired attenuation, as you'll get a nice clean neutral flavor profile either way.
 
Are you guys putting more than one packet in? I have used 05 on the last two batches I made and had less than stellar results. It fermented out fine, but definite acetaldehyde character. I have now just moved on to brewing clones of beers I can cultivate the yeast for. And will be using liquid, or cultures I have been ranching.
 
jetmac said:
I have always used liquid yeast. The last 2 batches I used US-05. Maybe it's my technique with the liquid yeast but the krausen has always been moderate, making it's way about halfway between the wort and the neck of the bottle.
Using dry yeast (granted the last batch was OG 1.082 but,) the krausen blew out of the neck. This second batch the krausen is right at the base of the neck.
Given the preparation I have to do of the liquid yeast(making a starter or stepping up a starter) vs the dry(rehydration) and having to time the liquid yeast hours or days ahead of time. The dry yeast is so much easier to work with and the results are outstanding. I think going foward I will use dry yeast when I don't have a need for a specific flavor profile from a liquid yeast.
Click to expand...

What size starters do you use? Could it just be you're pitching higher cell counts with dry yeast?

One thing I don't understand is people's use of the visible intensity of fermentation as some sort of way to gauge quality, or even just treating it as desirable.

In fact, ever since I started using pure O2 to oxygenate my beers, I've noticed a dramatic reduction in intensity, and yet a noticeable improvement in quality.

Not saying that the reduction is somehow responsible for the improvement, but rather that there's no good reason to think there's any sort of link between the visible intensity of fermentation and quality. I sure as heck would NEVER factor it in when trying to decide on which yeast to use.
 
Ive only use dried, and have been rehydrating and aerating.Never used liquid but heard it can be better but have also seen problems,probably due to storage fragility and vitality.Seems dry is more consistant but liquid may be better but in my opinion, i have no complaints as i would like to try liquid also, but doing small batches makes it costly.
 
suprchunk said:
Are you guys putting more than one packet in? I have used 05 on the last two batches I made and had less than stellar results. It fermented out fine, but definite acetaldehyde character. I have now just moved on to brewing clones of beers I can cultivate the yeast for. And will be using liquid, or cultures I have been ranching.
Click to expand...

What about your pitching/fermenting temps,theyre are alot of factors besides blaming it on yeast. In general its hard to blame anything when you have so many factors like mash temp fermenting temp,recipe,ph, water..........................
 
emjay said:
What size starters do you use? Could it just be you're pitching higher cell counts with dry yeast?

One thing I don't understand is people's use of the visible intensity of fermentation as some sort of way to gauge quality, or even just treating it as desirable.

In fact, ever since I started using pure O2 to oxygenate my beers, I've noticed a dramatic reduction in intensity, and yet a noticeable improvement in quality.

Not saying that the reduction is somehow responsible for the improvement, but rather that there's no good reason to think there's any sort of link between the visible intensity of fermentation and quality. I sure as heck would NEVER factor it in when trying to decide on which yeast to use.
Click to expand...

I agree, in fact I would go as far to say that the more intense your fermentation is, the less stellar your beer will be. I've only had a couple of beers go crazy during primary, and they both tasted like ass.
 
Crazy ferments from my early brewing were usually too hot. It's part of the theory that if something is good, then 10 times something must be better.
 
Yankeehillbrewer said:
I agree, in fact I would go as far to say that the more intense your fermentation is, the less stellar your beer will be. I've only had a couple of beers go crazy during primary, and they both tasted like ass.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on the intensity of fermentation equal's less than stellar beer...yeast all have individual characteristics...some explode, some don't...in general dry yeast explode a lot, also beer's with a lot of fermentable sugars explode a lot, beers that are not properly cooled explode....but my point, is that yeast kind of do what they want, so explosive fermentations won't equate to a good or bad beer....but sound techniques and sanitation will make an excellent beer! And the only reason why I say something, is that there are still people who have been brewing for years that swear a beer is only fermenting if there are bubbles in the air lock...most of us know that isn't the most accurate way to judge the fermentation process but it still gets posted and carried on to new brewers...so I hope nobody reads your post and craps there pants thinking there beer will taste like ass because they had an explosive start to the fermentation process...because it just sometimes happens, do everything you can to prevent it, but it just sometimes happens and if you used sound techniques your beer will turn out great!
 
I will never understand why someone would waste $$ and time making starters with WLP001 or WY1056 with S-05 so easy, cheap, and readily available.
 
SD-SLIM said:
I have to disagree on the intensity of fermentation equal's less than stellar beer...yeast all have individual characteristics...some explode, some don't...in general dry yeast explode a lot, also beer's with a lot of fermentable sugars explode a lot, beers that are not properly cooled explode....but my point, is that yeast kind of do what they want, so explosive fermentations won't equate to a good or bad beer....but sound techniques and sanitation will make an excellent beer! And the only reason why I say something, is that there are still people who have been brewing for years that swear a beer is only fermenting if there are bubbles in the air lock...most of us know that isn't the most accurate way to judge the fermentation process but it still gets posted and carried on to new brewers...so I hope nobody reads your post and craps there pants thinking there beer will taste like ass because they had an explosive start to the fermentation process...because it just sometimes happens, do everything you can to prevent it, but it just sometimes happens and if you used sound techniques your beer will turn out great!
Click to expand...

But there is no reason to be overly happy that you needed a blow off tube. There has been no study of that to my knowledge.

But, in my observations, blow offs have been positive in my yeasty beers (hefe), and not so much in my clean beers
 
g-star said:
I will never understand why someone would waste $$ and time making starters with WLP001 or WY1056 with S-05 so easy, cheap, and readily available.
Click to expand...

+1,000
All three are the same strain (Chico), but the S-05 has twice as many cells per package, is much easier to store/care for, and usually costs half as much.
 
Is there anywhere out there a chart or something like that, that shows each of the major dry yeasts and the flavors or lack of flavors that they provide? Perhaps even a reference to the type of beer that a particular yeast is good for.
 
C-Rider said:
Is there anywhere out there a chart or something like that, that shows each of the major dry yeasts and the flavors or lack of flavors that they provide? Perhaps even a reference to the type of beer that a particular yeast is good for.
Click to expand...

I always use this yeast chart for general reference... http://byo.com/resources/yeast ....note that when you go to this page, where it says "American Amber & Pale Ale" is a drop down menu for various beer styles.
 
SD-SLIM said:
I have to disagree on the intensity of fermentation equal's less than stellar beer...yeast all have individual characteristics...some explode, some don't...in general dry yeast explode a lot, also beer's with a lot of fermentable sugars explode a lot, beers that are not properly cooled explode....but my point, is that yeast kind of do what they want, so explosive fermentations won't equate to a good or bad beer....but sound techniques and sanitation will make an excellent beer! And the only reason why I say something, is that there are still people who have been brewing for years that swear a beer is only fermenting if there are bubbles in the air lock...most of us know that isn't the most accurate way to judge the fermentation process but it still gets posted and carried on to new brewers...so I hope nobody reads your post and craps there pants thinking there beer will taste like ass because they had an explosive start to the fermentation process...because it just sometimes happens, do everything you can to prevent it, but it just sometimes happens and if you used sound techniques your beer will turn out great!
Click to expand...


You make some good points,especially about airlock activity. But IMO if you pitch a proper amount of yeast at the proper temperature, and in the correct size fermenter then you shouldn't have beer hitting the ceiling. That's been my experience anyway. Neither of these opinions equates to good or bad beer, and maybe choice of words wasn't the best.
 
I used liquid yeast for quite a while before trying any of the dry yeasts. Now I use US-05 for any brew where I would have previously used WLP001 or 1056. Great yeast.
 
SD-SLIM said:
I always use this yeast chart for general reference... http://byo.com/resources/yeast ....note that when you go to this page, where it says "American Amber & Pale Ale" is a drop down menu for various beer styles.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about that chart is the different info regarding 1056, WLP001 & 05, which everyone claims to be basically the same yeast. Different attenuation, temp range, etc.
 
samc said:
Funny thing about that chart is the different info regarding 1056, WLP001 & 05, which everyone claims to be basically the same yeast. Different attenuation, temp range, etc.
Click to expand...

The info on that chart is all taken from the manufacturers. Each of them uses a different method to estimate attenuation. Ideal temp range and flavor descriptions are both extremely subjective. When I first started brewing I split most of my batches into several fermenters and pitched different yeasts to compare them. Myself, 7 beer snobs, and a few other people couldn't tell any difference at all between S-05, WLP001, and Wyeast 1056 in an APA. I also did a porter comparing S-05 and WLP001, and nobody could tell which was which on that one either. The attenuation was also identical between the yeasts both times. As long as the pitching rates, ferm temps, and other conditions are the same, I think any of the three will produce the same flavor profile and attenuation.

I know that the same yeast strain will evolve differently over time given different conditions, but all three of those yeasts are directly decsended from the Chico strain, and any differences between them are so subtle that I see no reason to spend more time and money on the liquid versions. As always, YMMV.
 
I used to use dry yeast all the time, but then switched to liquid. Every beer I have made with liquid has been better than when I brewed the same beer with dry yeast. there could have been some other factors going into it, but it would be hard for me to go back to dry. The nice thing about dry though is the cost and ease of use.
 

Similar threads

Tony B
My babies are growing up
Replies
0
Views
160
Tony B
Tony B
F
Liquid yeast - am I missing something?
2 3
Replies
98
Views
3K
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
Clint Yeastwood
Estery Ale Yeast Low on Bananas?
Replies
6
Views
536
dmtaylor
dmtaylor
Yesfan
US-05 Feedback and Some Other Questions/Suggestions
Replies
20
Views
2K
day_trippr
day_trippr
D
Stuck fermentation on an imperial stout
Replies
25
Views
1K
dwick
D
Brewer's Friend 300

Latest posts

Back
Top