Yeast subustitution

[Choguy03]

I am going to be brewing EdWort's Haus Pale Ale as my fist AG. He pitched Nottingham dry yeast, but my LHBS only has coopers. Would that be a viable alternative, or is there a different White Labs that I should use? Thanks dudes.

 

[Bob]

Well, Coopers and Nottingham are really completely different. You will still end up with beer, but it'll be different. Not bad different, just different.

Coopers is much more estery than Nottingham, imparting more fruity flavors and aromas when fermented at the same temperatures as Nottingham. Nottingham is widely admired because it ferments very "clean"; that is to say, it does not impart much in the way of esters.

If it were my beer, I'd choose a fresh packet of Coopers over buying two vials of White Labs yeast of any type - because that's what you'd have to do, if you wanted a properly vigourous ferment and didn't want to make a starter. "Pitchable vial", my angry white male backside.

Let's look at it this way - Edwort's HPA can have some fruity esters in it. Pale Ales of any type, an estery profile is appropriate. So Coopers is a viable choice. Now, if you were brewing Edwort's Belgian Pale Ale (not that he's listed one; I'm just sayin'), Coopers yeast would be inappropriate, because it won't provide the right flavor/aroma profile. You dig?

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Choguy03]

Thanks for the info. I will make a starter if necessary, but what do you recommend from WL. I was thinking WLP008-East Coast Ale, it says it is very clean and low on the esters. I am also planning on washing the yeast, so hopefully I will save some money down the line.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

I think WLP001, the California Ale, is supposed to be the uber-neutral yeast.

I tend to brew English styles, though, I like esters in my beer.

 

[Bob]

Really, it's open season. I like East Coast Ale, but prefer Cal V. It's very neutral.

Enjoy!

Bob

 

[-Dan-]

I'm sure most clean fermenting ale yeasts are a good sub, like wyeast 1056.

 

[MattMann]

I may sound crazy, but i used yeast harvested from a sierra nevade pale ale. It may not even be the same one that they use for fermenting, but I am cheap. I will know in a few weeks how it turns out.

 

[WBC]

I may sound crazy, but i used yeast harvested from a sierra nevade pale ale. It may not even be the same one that they use for fermenting, but I am cheap. I will know in a few weeks how it turns out.

Yeah I would like to see if you suceeded too. I made a starter from bottles before too but did not use it. I chickened out.

 

[Grimsawyer]

my vote for Rogue Pacman!!!!!!!!

--------------------
|| * * * * * * * ||
|| * ||- :rockin: || * ||
|| * ||- :rockin: || * ||
|| * ||- :rockin: || * ||

 

[Brew-boy]

WLP001 for sure, I did not like the WLP008 it had a Tart finish to it.

 

[nealf]

Safale S-05 is what I would use if I had to brew it again without Nottingham; its a good yeast alternative IMO.

 

[jpsloan]

How does the Safale-04 compare? I suspect it'll be more similar to the Coopers, but haven't used it before.

 

[elkdog]

Safale-04 attenuates a bit less and flocculates better than the S-05. It also imparts a classic English, slightly fruity flavor to the beer, as opposed the cleaner flavor S-05 gives you. For an American Pale Ale, S-05 is probably the better choice, but I've used the 04 in several English beers, and it's my go-to yeast for those. S-04 wouldn't make bad beer by any stretch, but it wouldn't be quite the clean, crisp taste an APA tends to call for.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

WLP001, WLP051 or 1056.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

I may sound crazy, but i used yeast harvested from a sierra nevade pale ale.

I don't think that's crazy at all. I'm pretty sure WLP001 is the same strain of yeast used at Sierra Nevada.

 

[ChuckMoney]

I tend to flip flop between wlp051 (California V) and wlp008 (East Coast) for all of my beers, I wash one cake of each every 6 months and that provides me more than enough for starters for every batch of brew that i'll make in that time period.

 

[Saccharomyces]

I used Safale 05 for my pale ale which is still in the fermenter. I used to use WLP001 but switched to dry after reading that -05 works so well as a sub for -001 (and the dry packet doesn't need a starter to boot).

- Eric

 

[schristian619]

I just brewed this last weekend as my first AG, and used safeale s-05 since notty wasn't readily available. That's what i would recomend, cause thats what EdWort recomended on another thread.

 

[nealf]

If i'm not much mistaken Safale S-05 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP 001.. so if they're all the same why wouldn't I just use the dry yeast all the time due to price?

http://www.brew365.com/yeast_us56.php

 

[Bob]

Personal preference? Really, I dunno. Some folks have problems with dry yeast for some reason. I say, if S05=1056=001, why on earth would I pay more for liquid yeast which I must then culture with a starter? I'll spend the $2 on a packet of dry yeast, thanks so much.

Bob

 

[Brew-boy]

If i'm not much mistaken Safale S-05 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP 001.. so if they're all the same why wouldn't I just use the dry yeast all the time due to price?

http://www.brew365.com/yeast_us56.php

I don't think the dry yeast compares to the high quality liquid yeast.
I mean I will use dry if that is the only option but I just prefer the liquid.

 

[Kauai_Kahuna]

WLP001 is my primary yeast for most batch's, *I* think it is the same as 1056. Very good for pale ales, IPA's, etc.
Next yeast I need to try is Cal V.

 

[brewt00l]

If i'm not much mistaken Safale S-05 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP 001.. so if they're all the same why wouldn't I just use the dry yeast all the time due to price?

http://www.brew365.com/yeast_us56.php

They are all supposed to be the same strain but most split batch comparisons I have seen generally yield slightly different results between the three. Personally, I have always been very satisfied with the performance and results of US05 that I haven't seen the need to look elsewhere when I am shooting for that type of yeast profile.

 

[Choguy03]

I went with WLP 001. I will be washing this yeast because I know it is a good one because it is so clean. Thanks guys.

 

[Chriso]

I don't think the dry yeast compares to the high quality liquid yeast.

This is a very controversial statement, but many people are starting to form/accept the opinion that it does, indeed, compare as long as it's the right dry yeast.

S-04 and US-05 are gaining quite the reputation, especially around here. Fermentis WB and others... not so much.

I'd use the US-05 and be done with it. Cheap, dependable, and if you wash your cake and save it, you can get a gajillion batches out of one $2 pack, bringing your yeast cost down to something like 10c a batch.