Wyeast 1056 vs WLP 001

[MFigz]

I'm getting ready to brew a Pliny the Younger Triple IPA and I have a question regarding the yeast. This recipe is 1.090 OG and about 10.8% ABV and calls for WLP 001 California Ale yeast. My home brew store only carries 1056 Wyeast. After plugging 1056 into Beersmith, I realized that 1056 would only get my FG down to about 1.014. After a little bit of research I see that White labs website says that 001 has an alcohol tolerance of 10-15% and Beersmith uses 13% and Wyeast website claims 11% alchol tolerance on their website.

I've looked online at a few home brew stores and with shipping I'm looking at about $17 including shipping for 001. The closest homebrew shop that carries it is over 45 minutes away.

Is 1056 going to be ok in a beer this big or should I decide if I want to either spend the $17 or lower the grain bill to hit a lower abv?

I am planning on making a 4L starter on a stir plate and adding oxygen for 90 seconds before pitching and another 60 seconds after 12 hours if that makes a difference.

Thanks!
Mike

 

[couchsending]

Do you know the FG of actual PTY? I doubt it’s much lower than 1.014.

1056 will be just fine.


What’s your mash schedule and how much sugar are you adding?

 

[MFigz]

Mash schedule is 145 for 75 min, and 155 for 10min although I'm considering 148 for the whole time. I'm adding 1.5 lbs of sugar, the FG is actually supposed to get down to about 1.006 - 1.008 ideally.

Thanks
Mike

 

[kh54s10]

Both are the same strain. Some prefer the WL and others prefer the WY. They should perform about the same. I would say either will do the job.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Both are the same strain.

No they're not - genome sequencing has confirmed that they're closely related, but not the same. See here for some differences when brewing - not huge, but not identical either :
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/ex...ast-comparison-same-strain-wyeast-1056-wlp001

@MFigz - don't sweat it. Don't take quoted attenuations too literally - the ones quoted by yeast manufacturers are based on standard worts and fermentation conditions that may be very different to the ones you want to use - and they vary between manufacturers so you can't really compare them directly.

 

[kh54s10]

I would still say that they ARE, at least, from the same strain. With 2 labs producing the yeast separately I would expect small differences. Hence the statement "Some prefer the WL and others prefer the WY." Also the statement from the experiment "Even though it appears that we can tell a difference between the yeasts, I will freely substitute one for the other."

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Unfortunately microbiologists get really picky about that sort of thing, they define strains much more tightly than other biologists as it's so easy to grow up a population that are (effectively) genetically identical. So "descended from the same strain" is not the same as what you said "Both are the same strain". Humans and chimps are descended from the same "strain" - but that doesn't mean that it's terribly meaningful to say humans and chimps are the same.

 

[Vale71]

With 2 labs producing the yeast separately I would expect small differences.

They are just propagating the yeast, not actually manufacturing them from scratch. Any differences at all in the genome mean that they're actually different strains, literally.

 

[kh54s10]

They are just propagating the yeast, not actually manufacturing them from scratch. Any differences at all in the genome mean that they're actually different strains, literally.

So you are saying that propagating in one lab will never have differences from propagating in another lab over time. Then the idea that you will eventually get mutation is false?

I agree that their controlled environment will keep mutations to a minimum, but....

Aren't they both Chico strain yeasts?

Maybe over time there was mutation and now they need to be considered different strains.

For most home brewers, unless you did a side by side experiment, I doubt they would notice a big difference. A difference - maybe that is why I said some would prefer WL and others WY. How much of that is brand loyalty.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Aren't they both Chico strain yeasts?

That's a bit like saying humans and chimps are both primates, they both share a common ancestor but are no longer the same. It's best to think of Chico, Conan etc as family names rather than referring to a single specific yeast.

Maybe over time there was mutation and now they need to be considered different strains.

You're getting the idea....

 

[kh54s10]

That's a bit like saying humans and chimps are both primates, they both share a common ancestor but are no longer the same. It's best to think of Chico, Conan etc as family names rather than referring to a single specific yeast.



You're getting the idea....

I was under the impression that Chico was Chico and Conan was Conan. If two labs started out yeast from one place I could see differences developing over time, then the need for new classification.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I was under the impression that Chico was Chico and Conan was Conan. If two labs started out yeast from one place I could see differences developing over time, then the need for new classification.

Brewers are much sloppier than microbiologists about yeast classification, a brewer would call humans and chimps the same strain.

Taking Conan as an example. Let's assume that when Greg Noonan originally brought it over from the UK, he ended up picking a single colony to become VPB-1188. As far as you can, that single genotype is "Conan". However, just repitching it at Vermont Pub & Brewery will have seen the strain start to mutate away from that original "Conan" genotype. Then when John Kimmich took some mutated VPB-1188 to the Alchemist, his yeast will have mutated in different ways again. Then one lab harvests some Heady Topper, then it mutates some more, then another lab harvests it. Maybe by now it's mutated into a double strain, and by chance one lab gets one strain and the other lab gets the other. Maybe by now the Alchemist are banking it and going back to their original 1990s strain whilst other people are using versions from the 2000s.

In all of this - what is "Conan"? The original VPB-1188 clone that not even Noonan has any more thanks to mutation? All you can say is that all the descendants are part of the Conan family, but none of these strains are identical to that original VPB-1188. Certainly the likes of WLP095 and WLP4000 brew rather differently, it seems to be quite a mutable strain. So no, "Conan" is not Conan.

You could have a similar story with the likes of Pacman and WLP090 being part of the wider Chico family. Names like Chico and Conan are useful as family names, but if you're talking about specific genotypes then you have to use strain names.

 

[kh54s10]

Eloquently worded but I don't see where what you said is much different than what I said.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It's a world away from "Both are the same strain". The point is "If two labs started out yeast from one place I could see differences developing over time, then the need for new classification." is pretty much invariably true, there's no "if" about the new classification, whereas you seem to default the other way, if in doubt they're the same.

 

[kh54s10]

It's a world away from "Both are the same strain". The point is "If two labs started out yeast from one place I could see differences developing over time, then the need for new classification." is pretty much invariably true, there's no "if" about the new classification, whereas you seem to default the other way, if in doubt they're the same.

Well for most home brewers, WLP001 and WY1056 are close enough to the same to be interchangeable. I didn't say that they weren't slightly different.

 

[Cavpilot2000]

Well for most home brewers, WLP001 and WY1056 are close enough to the same to be interchangeable. I didn't say that they weren't slightly different.

Agree.
If you did a split batch of most beers, and fermented the them one with each yeast, very few brewers, if any, would be able to tell a difference in the finished product. There may be measurable differences using tools and instruments, but with a blind drinking test: I'd put a paycheck on it that you couldn't tell a difference.

 

[lump42]

That's a bit like saying humans and chimps are both primates, they both share a common ancestor but are no longer the same. It's best to think of Chico, Conan etc as family names rather than referring to a single specific yeast.

Bit of an exaggerated example, it would be more like a brother and sister are closely related, but they're a bit different. It's not unreasonable to think that over the many years the chico strain was kept at sierra that there were mutations. Breweries are not going to have the same facilities and procedures to minimize mutations. Quite the opposite beer production is stressful on the yeast. The two labs happened to isolate different mutations from the same culture. They would be the different strains in a lab just by the nature the genetic codes are different, but from a practical standpoint there'd be interchangeable, especially in the first iteration of a recipe.

 

[bierhaus15]

Feel like this is beating a dead horse, but both WLP001 and WY1056 are diploid yeasts, which has the effect of making them prone to mutations.

I think we all understand that yeast mutate when stored/used in different breweries under different applications. That does not make them entirely dissimilar. Thousands of brewers using these two yeasts interchangeably tells us something about how similar their character (phenotype) really is....

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Well for most home brewers, WLP001 and WY1056 are close enough to the same to be interchangeable. I didn't say that they weren't slightly different.

"Both are the same strain" means they are identical. Anyway, we're agreeing on that now (I think?).

Agree.
If you did a split batch of most beers, and fermented the them one with each yeast, very few brewers, if any, would be able to tell a difference in the finished product. There may be measurable differences using tools and instruments, but with a blind drinking test: I'd put a paycheck on it that you couldn't tell a difference.

See that Experimental Brewing test : https://www.experimentalbrew.com/ex...ast-comparison-same-strain-wyeast-1056-wlp001

How big is your paycheque?

In general we're quite bad at recognising differences on their own, our brains are highly attuned to detecting differences side-by-side, so you only really pick up the differences in that kind of side-by-side experiment.

 

[ProblemChild]

No they're not - genome sequencing has confirmed that they're closely related, but not the same. See here for some differences when brewing - not huge, but not identical either :
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/ex...ast-comparison-same-strain-wyeast-1056-wlp001

@MFigz - don't sweat it. Don't take quoted attenuations too literally - the ones quoted by yeast manufacturers are based on standard worts and fermentation conditions that may be very different to the ones you want to use - and they vary between manufacturers so you can't really compare them directly.

I frequently (roughly 40% of the time) exceed attenuation values. Sometimes to my dismay. I have dried a few things out way too much. With 1056, I have a greater rate of over-attenuation. More like 60%. I have to adjust my mash temps to compensate. 1056 Seldom finishes as high as 1.014 and never for an IPA where my mash temp is at 148°F

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Bit of an exaggerated example, it would be more like a brother and sister are closely related, but they're a bit different.

Exaggerated to make a point, but a)humans and chimps are way closer genetically than most people realise b) mostly asexual organisms like yeast accumulate deleterious mutations faster than sexual ones (Muller's ratchet and all that) c)they have less efficient DNA repair mechanisms d)brewing yeast spend a lot of time in a reall stressful environment that increases their mutation rate (this is starting to be studied, don't quote me but it's like 20x higher in beer than in the lab) e)yeast are getting through huge numbers of generations compared to chimps and humans - if you repitch weekly and only get 3 generations a week, the 40 years that Sierra Nevada have been brewing equates to 150,000 years in human generations.

It's obviously not quite comparable, but the amount of DNA variation you're seeing is in the same ballpark.

Feel like this is beating a dead horse, but both WLP001 and WY1056 are diploid yeasts, which has the effect of making them prone to mutations.

No - WLP001 and 1056 are both tetraploid. The diploid thing seems to be a common meme, which I think stems from a misreading of an ambiguous sentence in Dunn & Sherlock 2008 https://genome.cshlp.org/content/18/10/1610.full.pdf+html where they used three ale strains to compare to lager genomes and "we additionally sequenced the same gene regions from three different ale strains (which are diploid)". People read that as the whole genome being diploid rather than just the particular regions they studied, despite 1056 in particular showing lots of heterozygosity at that point!

But trust me, they're tetraploid. You do get some strains that seem more prone to mutation than others - Pinot Noir is an example in grapes, and Conan is probably the most obvious one in the brewing yeast world. I suspect in the case of the Chico family it's just their widespread use that's seen so many variants isolated like Pacman, San Diego etc.

 

[kh54s10]

"Both are the same strain" means they are identical. Anyway, we're agreeing on that now (I think?).

I didn't think that being the same strain meant "Identical". Unless I am wrong. WLP001, WY1056 and US-05 are all Chico strain yeasts. They are close but not "Identical" I didn't think the term "Strain" even meant that yeasts of the same strain from different labs was identical. Or that they had to be.

Unless I have been misinformed for 7 3/4 years.

These are all of the same "strain" : German Shepherd....

 

[bierhaus15]

But trust me, they're tetraploid.

Not doubting you, but the Chico's being diploids has been touted as such going back a long time and by some very yeast-involved people. Can you provide the source that definitively shows these are tetraploids?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I didn't think that being the same strain meant "Identical"...

Unless I have been misinformed for 7 3/4 years.

You've been misinformed, certainly when it comes to yeast and bacteria. As I say, microbiologists are tighter in their definitions compared to the multicellular guys (in general - although they're pretty tight when it comes to eg asexually reproducing plants ).

Unless I am wrong. WLP001, WY1056 and US-05 are all Chico strain yeasts. They are close but not "Identical"

They're not "Chico strain". If you'll allow me to fluff the history a little, the Chico strain arrived in California maybe 40+ years ago and has been mutating ever since. If you are a microbiologist then the only thing that should be called a Chico strain is that original single cell and its unmutated descendants (in which interpretation the "Chico strain" no longer exists), a brewer would say that only the yeast that has stayed at Sierra Nevada mutating away in a particular way should be called the Chico strain.

Descendants of the original Chico strain that have since mutated in different ways (ie WLP001, 1056, US-05 etc) are no longer identifcal, so are different strains. That means they are no longer the Chico strain (which can only apply to a single genotype) but you can say that these new strains are part of the Chico family.

Is that clear enough?

These are all of the same "strain" : German Shepherd....

Scientists use words far more precisely than the general public, microbiologists even more so. If you have to put a word in quotes, then it's not a thing. German shepherds are defined by looking like a breed standard, which allows a lot of genetic variability within the breed - not at all like a yeast strain. In fact, there's so much genetic variability between different breeds that some are pretty much incapable of producing fertile offspring, which is part of most definitions of them being separate species. In fact, some biologists are a bit flexible about even that - a lot of bird species are in fact capable of having hybrid young that are fertile. By that definition breeds such as beagles and Irish setters should be regarded as separate species, they seem to have particular genetic incompatibilities that pretty much prevent them having puppies together.

So no - dog breeds are nothing like yeast strains.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Not doubting you, but the Chico's being diploids has been touted as such going back a long time and by some very yeast-involved people. Can you provide the source that definitively shows these are tetraploids?

As I say, it seems to have been one of those memes based on a misunderstanding of that one paper. For 1056 and 001 I can certainly quote pers comm from people working on yeast genomes, I can't be bothered to do all the digging through the literature but eg Table S16 of the 1002 genomes paper explicitly says that strain code CFD (ie "1.3_Safale_US05" per the key in Table S1) and CFM ("5.5_WLP090") are 4n. I'm sure you can find something similar for 1056 and 001 if you look for it, I trust my pers comm.

I could equally ask what's your evidence for diploidy, it's the more extraordinary claim?

 

[Cavpilot2000]

See that Experimental Brewing test : https://www.experimentalbrew.com/ex...ast-comparison-same-strain-wyeast-1056-wlp001

How big is your paycheque?

In general we're quite bad at recognising differences on their own, our brains are highly attuned to detecting differences side-by-side, so you only really pick up the differences in that kind of side-by-side experiment.

Fair point, but while this experiment has some value, I still don't see it as remotely definitive because of the wildly varying end results. Look at the comments- you had at least one group say the 1056 dropped clearer, but another say the 1056 was hazier. One (the dropped result) showed 001 to be phenolic, but another data set showed 001 to be cleaner, crisper, and more lager-like. Clearly there is not even consistency in the end results' basic characteristics.
I'm not saying their science is bad, but given the wildly inconsistent results, you'd really need far more data points that the 64 or so samples they had.

Who knows, maybe you CAN tell a difference and I'm full of it, but I stand by the assertion that they are effectively interchangeable or that the difference would be so slight that it really doesn't matter which you would choose.

But that's one of the beauties of home brewing - we all pick and choose which battles of nuance, ingredient, and process we wish to hang our hat on as important, when in reality most of them singly don't make that much difference.

 

[kh54s10]

So it seems to me that microbiologists describe things differently than the average homebrewer. And it is the homebrewer that counts.

If microbiologists want to truly differentiate the 3 strains that homebrewers mostly consider interchangeable - so be it.

Way to technical and totally unimportant the most homebrewers.

 

[Vale71]

How magnanimous of you, sir.

 

[Gozie Boy]

Reminds me of the old story of the Mathematician and the Engineer (of which I am both):
Mathematician: You know if every five minutes I got halfway closer to that beautiful woman, I would never reach her.
Engineer: Yeah, but I could get close enough.

 

[rtstrider]

Both are the same strain. Some prefer the WL and others prefer the WY. They should perform about the same. I would say either will do the job.

They are not even close to the same strain imo. 1056 and us-05 have a mineral/dough flavor I don’t care for. I don’t get that at all from wlp001. Also 1056 and us-05 aren’t even in the same ballpark as the real Chico. Ive cultured that up a few times from Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. That’s a very good yeast! I’m actually going to bank some for the freezer! It’s a tad fruity fermented around 67f. Reminds me of fruity pebbles a little bit but it fades and cleans up with cold conditioning. It’s also a very slow yeast on first pitch (haven’t taken it farther than that). I’ve grown to really not like those two strains. They also have a mouthfeel to them wlp001 doesn’t. Wlp001 is much crisper and cleaner than 1056/us-05 also.

side note I rebrewed a cascade 2 row smash with 1056 and hate it. I just hate that yeast lol The real Chico version was awesome though

 

[couchsending]

They are not even close to the same strain imo. 1056 and us-05 have a mineral/dough flavor I don’t care for. I don’t get that at all from wlp001. Also 1056 and us-05 aren’t even in the same ballpark as the real Chico. Ive cultured that up a few times from Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. That’s a very good yeast! I’m actually going to bank some for the freezer! It’s a tad fruity fermented around 67f. Reminds me of fruity pebbles a little bit but it fades and cleans up with cold conditioning. It’s also a very slow yeast on first pitch (haven’t taken it farther than that). I’ve grown to really not like those two strains. They also have a mouthfeel to them wlp001 doesn’t. Wlp001 is much crisper and cleaner than 1056/us-05 also.

side note I rebrewed a cascade 2 row smash with 1056 and hate it. I just hate that yeast lol The real Chico version was awesome though

Pretty sure SN switched to a bottling strain around 2015 or so.

 

[eric19312]

I'd add this experiment to the fire
https://brulosophy.com/2017/04/03/y...afale-us-05-american-ale-exbeeriment-results/
I found this and the related one from experimental brewing actually stunning. We see so many Brulosophy experiments come back showing inability of the panel to reliably tell clearly different beers apart...beers with different final gravities, warm fermented vs cold fermented lagers, the list goes on and on to point where many just assume they must be totally inept at running what should be a simple comparison test...

And then you have two yeasts I've been told for years are more or less the same thing and bam...P=0.002...the tasters were able to reliably tell the beers apart.

 

[Vale71]

That test is just as worthless as any other Brülosophy test. They compared a liquid yeast with a dry yeast. Even if WLP001 and US-05 were the exact same strain (which we don't know) the drying process puts lots of strain on yeast and this results in a dramatically different fermentation profile. The profile will change noticeably if you harvest and reuse the (originally) dry yeast especially starting from the second/third harvest until it will become identical to the same strain delivered in liquid form. But of course one shouldn't expect this guy to know anything about that...

So basically they got the result they weren't expecting but anybody else who has the foggiest idea about brewing and yeast management would have expected. Oh well, at least their panel of tasters didn't fail in detecting what must have been quite a dramatic difference in taste profile, one has to give them that...

So to sum up, WLP001 might or might not be the same strain as US-05, Brülosophy's worthless experiment has neither proven not disproven that and we're none the wiser.

 

[rtstrider]

Pretty sure SN switched to a bottling strain around 2015 or so.

Direct from the source. They bottle with the same strain they ferment with.

I can tell a pretty significant difference but someone else may not be able to pick that up. Believe or not us-05 used to be the only strain I used lol Then I branched out a bit, to work on developing the palate, and came back around to it. My first time using 1056 was actually 3 months ago. Tastes so close to us-05 I don’t think I could reliably tell them apart in a blind taste test. I also brewed a lite blonde ale with wlp001 for comparison sake right after and yep! Much better/cleaner!

 

[eric19312]

Mash schedule is 145 for 75 min, and 155 for 10min although I'm considering 148 for the whole time. I'm adding 1.5 lbs of sugar, the FG is actually supposed to get down to about 1.006 - 1.008 ideally.

Thanks
Mike

Thats seems to be an unreasonable level of attenuation to expect for any of these yeasts. Can you link the recipe you are planning to follow?

I'm thinking you want extra large yeast pitch to avoid any chance of under attenuation. Maybe lager pitch rate. I'm less of a fan of repeating oxygenation x-hours after pitching yeast. Too much opportunity for the oxygen to mess with your hops.

 

[eric19312]

That test is just as worthless as any other Brülosophy test. They compared a liquid yeast with a dry yeast. Even if WLP001 and US-05 were the exact same strain (which we don't know) the drying process puts lots of strain on yeast and this results in a dramatically different fermentation profile. The profile will change noticeably if you harvest and reuse the (originally) dry yeast especially starting from the second/third harvest until it will become identical to the same strain delivered in liquid form. But of course one shouldn't expect this guy to know anything about that...

So basically they got the result they weren't expecting but anybody else who has the foggiest idea about brewing and yeast management would have expected. Oh well, at least their panel of tasters didn't fail in detecting what must have been quite a dramatic difference in taste profile, one has to give them that...

So to sum up, WLP001 might or might not be the same strain as US-05, Brülosophy's worthless experiment has neither proven not disproven that and we're none the wiser.

I follow your argument and agree I think I can tell the difference between my repitched US-05 and fresh packs. Never tried side by side let alone tried blind testing but I do expect to see getting airlock activity faster with harvested yeast.

I've been attributing the different to likely differences in pitching rates (I expect I underestimate the cell count of my harvested yeast) but I suppose the drying process could be contributor too.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

That test is just as worthless as any other Brülosophy test. They compared a liquid yeast with a dry yeast. Even if WLP001 and US-05 were the exact same strain (which we don't know)

Which we do know - they're not. As discussed in this thread following the Dunham lab's sequencing of many of the Chico family. 1056 and US-05 are in a subfamily that has a mutation in the BAT1 gene compared to the original BRY-96 group, which is repaired in the WLP001 subfamily. 1056 and WLP001 have both lost a copy of chromosome V as well compared to the BRY-96 group.

 

[dmtaylor]

I's just going to say the same thing @Northern_Brewer . These yeasts, 1056 vs WLP001 vs US-05 are all cousins at best, not really as similar as some once thought. Close, yeah, kind of. But not really the same at all.

Cheers.

 

[rtstrider]

Which we do know - they're not. As discussed in this thread following the Dunham lab's sequencing of many of the Chico family. 1056 and US-05 are in a subfamily that has a mutation in the BAT1 gene compared to the original BRY-96 group, which is repaired in the WLP001 subfamily. 1056 and WLP001 have both lost a copy of chromosome V as well compared to the BRY-96 group.
View attachment 719095

I want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. Is this stating bry-96 and the Elysian house strain are the same yeast?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Is this stating bry-96 and the Elysian house strain are the same yeast?

As has been a theme of this thread - they're not identical, but very, very close. They probably got their yeast direct from Seibel.