White Labs substitute?

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.
Z

Zoltan

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2023
Messages
11
Reaction score
3
Location
California
I've been using White Labs California Ale Yeast WLP001 for my IPA. I'm happy with it, but they've repackaged it in a plastic-ridden "Pure Pitch" pouch and doubled the price. Since I use two pouches for my recipe, the price increase is significant. The new pouch doesn't offer anything that I can see--more plastic waste, and since I use the entire contents, no advantage to having something reclosable. So I'm mad about this. Can anyone suggest something similar from another manufacturer?
 
I guess you're not making (yeast) starters? Well, you should, for more than one reason.
Buy one pack and overbuild your starters. You use some in a batch, and save out the rest for a next starter, etc.

There are different ways to propagate and save out yeast for longer times.
That way you can use the same yeast for many batches/years to come.

Another approach is repitching. Yeast typically grows 4-5 fold in a batch, so one batch can supply yeast for 4-5 new batches, etc. As long as you keep good sanitation you can repitch many times.

There are plenty of threads and posts here on this topic.
 

YEAST SUBSTITUTION LIST​

White LabsWyeastOmegaImperialLallemandFermentis
WLP001 California Ale1056 American AleOYL-004 West Coast Ale IA07 FlagshipBRY-97 American West Coast
US-05

fwiw, I have used all but the Omega product - including BRY-97 for the first time - and would use any of those again.
I usually keep overbuilds in the fridge but with the Lallemand I top-cropped to a mason jar and will try farming that...

Cheers!
 
If you’re happy with it, why not buy it and make an over sized starter? Pitch part into your beer and save some for the fridge. You could do this for a longtime from one pack. I get it, too expensive and I also don’t care for the packaging. I’d say US-05 or WY1056. I also think there are other yeast companies that make an 001 variant.
 
The LBS where I work said WL is moving out of the retail market, and so we are going to Wyeast Smack packs almost entirely. Is that true? Bummer, as I always liked their yeast. I had a full complement of slants from them and many others, before I sold everything off.

Side query, but on occasion I bought from Brewlabs in the UK. Can't tell from their site if they're still selling directly, and if that, overseas. Anyone know?
 
Gadjobrinus said:
The LBS where I work said WL is moving out of the retail market, and so we are going to Wyeast Smack packs almost entirely. Is that true? Bummer, as I always liked their yeast. I had a full complement of slants from them and many others, before I sold everything off.

Side query, but on occasion I bought from Brewlabs in the UK. Can't tell from their site if they're still selling directly, and if that, overseas. Anyone know?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anything like that. Why would WL go all through that effort to roll out new packaging only to drop it within a year?
 
Bobby_M said:
Why would WL go all through that effort to roll out new packaging only to drop it within a year?
Click to expand...

This could be a top-level decision to exit a market with a shrinking retail base, despite the previous expenditure in re-packaging. If a market segment is no longer profitable, better to cut one's losses and get out, rather than keep spending good money after bad.

Or, this could all be just a rumor, spread by some LHBS.
 
I’m disappointed with white labs “new” move too. I think the economics of it will start to show soon for their accounting department. I only have a few styles where I prefer liquid yeast and their strains to boot, but I only brew them once or rarely twice a year. I understand the the process of overbuilding starters or saving slurry, but it’s hard for me to store it for months at a time or more. I, personally, will be exploring some different options.
 
How does one interpret the "Not" lines - like this one?

Danstar-LallemandFermentisMangrove JackWhite LabsWyeastSourcesAttributes & CommentsOther Manufacturers
(NOT New England)(NOT S-04)(NOT WLP002)1968 London ESBsuregork, DMT, NB, Bruolosophyclose to Conan, prolly not Fullers, 69% atten(NOT A09 Pub)

Yikes!
 
@day_trippr, that line is dedicated to the Wyeast 1968. The point there is basically that nothing is equivalent to the 1968, at least not out of the manufacturers that are listed next to it. Sorry for the confusion; however, sometimes I find that an important part of the truth is knowing what is NOT true. Ever play the game Clue? Think of my sheet as something like that. It's been a long journey to get the list to this point, and perhaps as a result, the list doesn't change very often anymore. But it is still a Living list.

EDIT: By the way, thanks for pointing out the spelling error. Fixed.
 
Bobby_M said:
I haven't heard anything like that. Why would WL go all through that effort to roll out new packaging only to drop it within a year?
Click to expand...
I think I owe an apology as reading the above now, I am likely misinterpreting what he said. Playing catchup after a years' long hiatus so I should be more careful with what I say. It may be that he is finding WL's decision to sell in this new packaging at a higher price wasn't moving, and so he's going to Wyeast solely. Just an early dig around the web seems to be mirroring this at other places (just found this one here, actually).
 
Gadjobrinus said:
I think I owe an apology as reading the above now, I am likely misinterpreting what he said. Playing catchup after a years' long hiatus so I should be more careful with what I say. It may be that he is finding WL's decision to sell in this new packaging at a higher price wasn't moving, and so he's going to Wyeast solely. Just an early dig around the web seems to be mirroring this at other places (just found this one here, actually).
Click to expand...
Well in that case I agree. I was on a WL retailer roundtable zoom call this year and asked them for help in understanding the angle in selling 145B cells for a premium over Omega and Imperial (who put 200B cells in each pack) and I was told the product is just better and they stand behind it. Then two other homebrew shop owners/ WL fanboys basically said no one price compares liquid yeast and they just buy the strain they need. I'd be checking if those guys are still in business come Spring 2024. In any case, I did the analysis with various wort makeups/batch sizes and there is rarely a case where WL wins. I still carry it because I JUST started carrying it right before the big packs were forced into the market and I put a lot of effort into the project. I know, sunk costs and all but that and the fact that WL really is the "incumbent" player in the market and some people just want it. I sell 3-4 packs of Omega for every WL.
 
I suspect "inertia" wrt yeast preferences may be a thing. I've always leaned towards Wyeast because that's what the lhbs "I brew up with" carried as their primary line, and so it's what I'm most familiar with and most confident using. I have a similar comfort level with Fermentis at least wrt S04 and US-05, and some of Imperial's offerings. I recently used my very first Lallemand product (BRY-97) which appeared to run almost exactly as US-05, but it's not quite "done" yet (which, come to think of it, is also similar to US-05 and it's protracted fermentation ;))

Cheers!
 
Dog House Brew said:
Everyone beat me to it. I believe Omega makes an actual 001, where the others are similar.
Click to expand...
The Omega one is not "the actual" WLP001, but it is part of the same subgroup as 001 along with Escarpment, formerly Giga and others, distinguished by a chromosome recombination that fixes the BAT1 mutation found in the 1056/US-05 subgroup which affects amnio acid metabolism and has all sorts of knock-on effects. See this for more :

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/thread...f-white-labs-yeast.642831/page-2#post-8916547
 
Zoltan said:
I use two pouches for my recipe, the price increase is significant. The new pouch doesn't offer anything that I can see--more plastic waste, and since I use the entire contents, no advantage to having something reclosable.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if it was pointed out, but the new packs for twice the price also have about twice the yeast. If you used to use 2 packs of the older White Labs packs, you should be able to switch to using 1 pack of the new packaging. You could also use 1 pack of yeast from Imperial, Omega or some other yeast labs that package 200B or more cells per pack.

I have been a While Labs fan for many years, but Chris White dragged his feet for years about increasing cell counts. Now that they did increase cell counts, they jacked the price above the competitors and have not been fully honest about the cell counts. I thought they used to claim the old packs were 100B cells, and the new packs are "double", but the specs put them closer to 150B cells. At my local shop, White Labs packs are $2 more than Imperial and Omega. So it is not a large enough price that I would never purchase White Labs, but I will reach for Imperial or Omega first.

Well, I mostly use dry yeast these days. If I do pick up a liquid pack, I try to harvest and repitch to get at least a few batches out of one pack.
 
Well....my ambition runneth over. My wife will surely kill me for even broaching the subject again, but I'm hoping to re-establish the home lab, with plates, slants/yeast banks, etc. With a body count in their time of a 4-tap kegerator, cask, cheese making gear and aging caves (2 in home, full aging cellar in basement), 20 gal 3-vessel spike system, an assortment of 20+ different flours, grains, and cracked grains, massive flour mill, dozens of bread-proofing bannetons and related, racks of leftover cookware from our restaurant, a reloading room and hunting weapons, wilderness hunting bags, tents and all related, way too many books and bookshelves,

-please wish me well in my attempt to build not only the home lab, but brewery and cellar back again.🙏😇
 
I have used S05 and Bry97. Both have done well for me, but I am no expert. I have also use Cali yeast and that has done well also. I am very interested in the harvesting of yeast and am going to give that a try soon. Need to do a bit more research. The easiest way seems to be just leave a bit of beer in your fermenter and swirl it around and split the remains in two or three mason jars. refridge and use on the next batch. Long term it would be fun to do tubes and freeze, but that is going to be a long ways out as I do not have freezer space for anything right now. Anyway, not much to add, but interesting topic
 
I don't grasp the gripe about the packaging and it being plastic, aren't all liquid yeasts packed in some sort of plastic? Also as mentioned above the new packs have more cells and 1 pack will replace 2 of previous version. I could be wrong but I feel like I read somewhere that the new packs are supposed to keep the yeast count viability better.
 
bailey mountain brewer said:
I don't grasp the gripe about the packaging and it being plastic, aren't all liquid yeasts packed in some sort of plastic? Also as mentioned above the new packs have more cells and 1 pack will replace 2 of previous version. I could be wrong but I feel like I read somewhere that the new packs are supposed to keep the yeast count viability better.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the issue is that some feel WL's viable count indications might have been a bit uneven in the past, that other producers came out with single packs that exceeded the WL counts, WL acted after the fact by introducing a pack that is after all, less than the counts of the other companies, and yet they are charging more for the (lesser) counts. I could be wrong.
 
Correct and I understand that, but if you buy a pack of omega that's 3 months old with 200b cells originally it may have have less viable cells then a 3 month old pure pitch from white labs. I could be wrong but I believe that was in something I read, on the always true and honest interwebs. I am not a WL only brewer I'll use whatever best suits me at the time, there are a lot of beers I make with WL but I also love Pub from imperial over wlp002 in any case I overbuild my starters and keep a bank of the ones I use on the regular.
 
bailey mountain brewer said:
I don't grasp the gripe about the packaging and it being plastic, aren't all liquid yeasts packed in some sort of plastic? Also as mentioned above the new packs have more cells and 1 pack will replace 2 of previous version. I could be wrong but I feel like I read somewhere that the new packs are supposed to keep the yeast count viability better.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure there is less plastic in the new packages. The immediately previous had a hard plastic vial inside another plastic sleeve while the new packaging is just a (larger) plastic sleeve with a screw on lid.

I use white labs mostly because I'm in San Diego and I either get it straight from white labs or from a homebrew store where the packaging date is usually < 5 days prior.
 
bailey mountain brewer said:
Correct and I understand that, but if you buy a pack of omega that's 3 months old with 200b cells originally it may have have less viable cells then a 3 month old pure pitch from white labs. I could be wrong but I believe that was in something I read, on the always true and honest interwebs. I am not a WL only brewer I'll use whatever best suits me at the time, there are a lot of beers I make with WL but I also love Pub from imperial over wlp002 in any case I overbuild my starters and keep a bank of the ones I use on the regular.
Click to expand...
I think it's just an apples-to-apples thing - nominally they are offering less yeast for more money, and that's even after playing catch up. I used WL almost entirely, having moved off of Wyeast at some point - always loved WL. Personally I just think this was a strategically poor decision. I am really grateful to Chris White for what he's done and hope WL continues to do well, but I suspect this might be a problem down the road.

I actually never pitched directly from either Wyeast or WL. All my files were lost on a computer transfer some time ago, and I'm sure you guys know the spreadsheet, but I ramped up using parsed figures for viability and so forth, on a 12-gallon brewlength. So it was less about how many viable cells were in the pack, and more, the brewing and organoleptic qualities I enjoyed from the final pitch.
 
They’ve all changed over the years. I remember when White Labs was using the test tube looking containers that were actually 2L soda bottle blanks before they were heated and inflated. For a time, Wyeast used gold colored squeeze tubes that were supposed to be “pitchable” before they went back to smack packs.

I prefer liquid yeast, yeah, I know, get off my lawn. I’ve been a Wyeast guy for 25 years. I’ve tried White Labs here and there, always came back to Wyeast. I’ve tried Omega once or twice with decent results. Was never a fan of dry yeast, but Fermentis 34/70 impressed me.

Most of the yeast companies have a style to strain chart to tell you what styles they recommend which yeasts for. I’ve referred to those often but after 25 years you kind of know and you also have history to go on - what you made with which yeast and how much you liked it. IPA is one of the styles you probably have 30 yeast strains from different manufacturers you could use.

I either make a starter or make a weaker beer of the same general style first to build yeast. Like make a pale ale and then use that yeast cake to make a barleywine, for example.
 
I used to brew exclusively with wyeast, but when I restored after a few years, I couldn't find any local and used imperial a couple of time, then I tried dry when store had no liquid ale yeast I needed. Good result. Used dry Nottingham from lallemad(sp) for a number of brews and zero issue and good beer. I found crossmyloof (from the UK) and for the past 3 beers, their dry has been performing well. The do have a Cali ale dry and I'll use it soon enough after the stout I'm brewing today with their ale yeast. Try dry at about $2 a brew
 
the new packs for twice the price also have about twice the yeast. If you used to use 2 packs of the older White Labs packs, you should be able to switch to using 1 pack of the new packaging.
Click to expand...
According to the White Labs website, I still need 2 pouches for my original gravity of 1.078, so I guess I don't believe the new pouches are twice as big as the old.
 
Zoltan said:
According to the White Labs website, I still need 2 pouches for my original gravity of 1.078, so I guess I don't believe the new pouches are twice as big as the old.
Click to expand...
Well, you would likely have needed 3 or 4 of the older packs for a correct pitch rate for that gravity of beer. Even a fresh 200B cell pack from Imperial or Omega would be an underpitch. It is pretty well accepted that White Labs doubled the cell counts in the newer packs. Or at least increased the cell count. White Labs was always a bit closed lip on the actual cell counts in the older packs.
 
CascadesBrewer said:
I am not sure if it was pointed out, but the new packs for twice the price also have about twice the yeast.
Click to expand...

No. About 52% more yeast.

CascadesBrewer said:
I thought they used to claim the old packs were 100B cells, and the new packs are "double", but the specs put them closer to 150B cells.
Click to expand...

Yep.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to open up my $5.99 9.25 oz bag of Doritos.

8673ti.jpg


ETA: I still primarily use White Labs strains, because I know what to expect from each. But I am a bit annoyed.
 
Last edited:
bailey mountain brewer said:
I don't grasp the gripe about the packaging and it being plastic, aren't all liquid yeasts packed in some sort of plastic? Also as mentioned above the new packs have more cells and 1 pack will replace 2 of previous version. I could be wrong but I feel like I read somewhere that the new packs are supposed to keep the yeast count viability better.
Click to expand...

If you open up any pitch calculator like the one in Brewfather or even the one on Yeastman.com (whitelabs site), and toy around with a couple fake batches, such as 5.5 gallons of 1.065 wort, you'll find that neither a single old style WL pouch (80B cells), nor the new pouch (150B cells) is enough yeast. It is true that if you are the type to just throw money at the situation, it would be 3 of the older packs ($8 x 3) or two of the newer packs ($14 x 2) but my math says the new packs lose. If you chose to make a 1 liter starter as a cost savings (or if the shop only had one pack left), you could get away with just ONE of the older packs at $8 and now you're forced to by the $14 pack for no gain.

On the other hand, 200B cell packs of Omega remain about $9. You can build a starter from there. Hell if you had to buy two because they are a month old, you're still at $18. The only way WL wins is if they have an exclusive strain you want or if you have WL and Omega packs in your hand at the store and the Omega pack is like 4-5 months older than WL.
 
VikeMan said:
No. About 52% more yeast.
Click to expand...
I wonder. I recall some statements from Chris White or White Labs that the new packs had "double" the cell count. With the new packs, instead of sticking a big label on the pack stating "200 Billion Cells", they instead throw out pitch rate values, cells per ml counts, a rather confusing pitch rate calculator, and a QR code lookup. I have not purchased one of the new packs, but as I recall even the quality page says something like "manufactured to contain x cells per ml" vs an actual lab measured value. When you dig through the data, it points at a pack with around 150B cells. (They do also claim "94.9% cell viability after 6 months" which seems impressive if true.)

Does that mean that the older packs actually had 75B cells? Even if it was commonly said that a pack contained 100B cells, I don't recall much information from White Labs about the cell counts per pack.

This is a marketing page with info on the new homebrew packs: White Labs

1700143265886.png
 

Similar threads

Brooothru
Is Imperial L26 "Pilgrimage" blended yeast an Andechs strain?
Replies
31
Views
4K
Brooothru
Brooothru
rtstrider
Building Frozen yeast bank straight from Pure Pitch/Yeast vendor pouch
Replies
4
Views
1K
Dynachrome
Dynachrome
Hop
Ongoing Review: BrewHardware Premium Recirculating BIAB Package
Replies
4
Views
771
Bobby_M
Bobby_M
CallMeKiupid
Kiupid's Mead Guide for Beginners (like me)
Replies
3
Views
1K
Barzahl
B
Brooothru
Wyeast 1217-PC
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dog House Brew
Dog House Brew
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top