US-05 (dry) vs WY1056 (liquid) - My tests/results

Hi everyone,

Safale US-05 dry yeast is my go to yeast for blonde ales, all american style pale ales (APAs), IPAs (AIPAs), as well as anything else that requires a clean fermentation. It's a yeast I know well and I use it a lot.

I like the convenience of this dry yeast as it keeps for years when kept in the freezer and is so much easier to use than liquid.

Some brewers have indicated that they prefer the liquid versions (Wyeast 1056 or White Labs WLP001 California Ale) because they taste better so I thought I'd do a series of tests, starting with an Organic Blonde Ale that is a light coloured 5.3% ABV (1.048 -> 1.007) made with 85% Organic Pils malt, 5% carafoam, 10% table sugar, hopped to 15 IBU with Crystal. It's meant to be an "everybody likes it" beer.

It was brewed on Feb 17, 2013.

In one fermenter with ~5.5 gallons of wort I pitched 12 grams of hydrated US-05 dry yeast at 66F. The yeast was one year old and had been stored in a freezer at 0F.

In the second fermenter with ~5.5 gallons of wort at 66F I pitched two WY1056 smack packs with manufacturing dates of Feb 4 (only 13 days old). Both were smacked and allowed to swell for 5 hours first.

Both were left to ferment at 64-66F ambient.

On Feb 25 (8 days later) both were at 1.008 / 68F. The WY1056 beer tasted crisper/brighter. The US-05 was more grainy tasting, more astringent.

On March 3 (14 days later) I racked to my 5 gallon 'brite' tanks and added gelatine to clear the beer. The beers tasted much more similar at this point.

On March 8 (19 days later) I kegged both and placed them in my conditioning fridge at 33-34F on C02 gas to carb them up.

On March 23, 15 days after putting them on C02, they are carbonated to approx 2 volumes. Fairly low, but I've always liked my beers less carb'ed than usual. There's less carbonic bite this way and I find I enjoy the flavour more, even with a lighter beer like this that doesn't have a ton of flavour.

At this point I did a 3 way test where you try and point out which beer is the different one: Two glasses of beer fermented with WY1056, one glass with beer fermented US-05. Labels were added on the bottom of the glasses so that I couldn't see them. My wife mixed them up and I tasted with my eyes closed. I tasted them all a few times and thought one of them was the different one (the US-05) so I pointed that one out. I was wrong.

My wife reshuffled them and I tried again, tasting each multiple times, jumping back and forth, trying to find a difference. I realized I couldn't tell them apart at all. I tasted again and ended up taking my best guess. I was wrong again.

My wife then tried twice, guessed twice, and was wrong both times.

Maybe others can tell the difference, but to our taste buds US-05 and WY1056 taste identical on lighter beers so I'll be sticking with using US-05 for these types of beers as dry yeast is (IMHO) so much easier to use.

I'm also trying the same two yeasts on an APA that I brewed recently with a massive hop stand to see if the hoppyness makes any difference. UPDATE: Same results. I was unable to tell any difference.

Note: US05, WY1056, and WLP001 are all based on the same Chico strain, so they are expected to taste similar. I was surprised in this case that I didn't notice any difference at all once the beer had been conditioned and carbonated.

I have a couple of vials of fresh WLP001 so next time I brew this I'll do the same experiment with US-05 and WLP001.

Kal

Very cool, I like this. I am getting ready to try out WY1056 in the next week, it's in my fridge. Maybe when I do my Hopped Up IPA, I'll give US05 a try, i've never tried it before.

Thanks again for your scientific-minded pursuits (that also happen to make good beer along the way )!

Great info, Thanks for posting your results.

Cheers

WileECoyote said:

Great info, Thanks for posting your results.

Cheers

Click to expand...

+1! :rockin:

05 is my go to...cheap, clean, reliable...what's not to like?

Yup. There are lots of beers that I'd never think of going with dry. As luck would have it, my favourite styles are hoppy American beers (AIPAs, APAs, American Browns, etc) so I'm usually looking for a neutral yeast like US-05 / WLP001 / WY1056.

I've also done direct comparisons like this of WY3068 vs the new WB-06 dry for hefeweizens but unfortuantely WB-06 (to put it bluntly) sucks in comparison if you want that signature banana/clove taste.

I also haven't found a dry yeast I like for British style beers. There's nothing that (IMHO) can replace my favourite WY1968 Fullers yeast. S-04 works for some things but it's not for me.

As always, YMMV! Use what you like and works for you. I also highly recommend that people don't take my word for it: Try the test yourself. You may like WY1056 more than US-05. You may have more refined tastebuds. (I'll pretty much drink anything).

Kal

I've used both for the same recipes. In my experience the end result is the same but it takes US 05 two weeks longer to reach perfection. The US 05 has this noticible fruitiness that masks hops when it has aged exactly as long as it takes the 1056 to reach perfection. Two weeks later it is just as clean as the 1056.

Is US-05 similar at all to Lallmand's Nottingham ale yeast? Curious...
Sorry about the slight highjack...

Jonas217 said:

I've used both for the same recipes. In my experience the end result is the same but it takes US 05 two weeks longer to reach perfection. The US 05 has this noticible fruitiness that masks hops when it has aged exactly as long as it takes the 1056 to reach perfection. Two weeks later it is just as clean as the 1056.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

I also found that given a couple of weeks after kegging the US-05 was as clean as WY1056.

I keep 8 beers on tap and have room for 6 more in the conditioning fridge so that when a keg on tap goes empty, I have something to choose from that's ready to go. Most of these kegs will have been in the conditioning fridge at near freezing for 2-3 months on average so US-05 works for me. (At least for this light beer. I'll see how my hoppy APA works out in about a month and post back).

Kal

lebucheron said:

Is US-05 similar at all to Lallmand's Nottingham ale yeast? Curious...
Sorry about the slight highjack...

Click to expand...

Yes. Nottingham is also fairly neutral. I would say that US-05 is even more neutral however.

Back in September 2012 I did an Irish Red Ale where half was US-05 and the other half Nottingham.

The Nottingham was slighly fruitier, slightly more estery, more "British" if you can call it that. The difference wasn't massive but it was there.

Kal

subscribed! good work Kal

Great experiment. Good work! Thanks for posting.

lebucheron said:

Is US-05 similar at all to Lallmand's Nottingham ale yeast? Curious...
Sorry about the slight highjack...

Click to expand...

It may produce results that are similar to 1056 and US 05. I haven't used it. However 1056 and US 05 are reported to be the exact same strain along with White Labs WLP001.

kal said:

I'll see how my hoppy APA works out in about a month and post back.

Kal

Click to expand...

It should come out great. I used it for a hoppy American Amber and the cascade hops really shined. Lots of grapefruit.

lebucheron said:

Is US-05 similar at all to Lallmand's Nottingham ale yeast? Curious...
Sorry about the slight highjack...

Click to expand...

Kind of, but not really. I've used both and think you can get a "clean" ferment with Nottingham, but you have to run it cooler (about 4-5 degrees lower) than you would US-05 to get a similar result.

One nice thing you can do with Nottingham is run it at a much lower temp (down to 55*F) for the first week before slowly bringing it up into the low 60's and then a couple days to finish at 68*F (like a D-rest). It's almost like fermenting with a lager yeast. I'm drinking a Munich Dunkel now that I tried that with as an experiment and it worked really well.

Jonas217 said:

I've used both for the same recipes. In my experience the end result is the same but it takes US 05 two weeks longer to reach perfection. The US 05 has this noticible fruitiness that masks hops when it has aged exactly as long as it takes the 1056 to reach perfection. Two weeks later it is just as clean as the 1056.

Click to expand...

I've also noticed the fruitiness US 05 gives when fermenting slightly lower temps. When fermenting higher (closer to 70F or >) there is no fruitiness.

I've wondered about this debate. Thanks for the analysis. I like US-05 and paying 2-3x more for a single pack of 1056 bugs me. I think I'll load up on US-05.

On a side note, it looks like you had no performance issues with year old frozen yeast. That's cool too.

kal said:

At this point I did a 3 way test where you try and point out which beer is the different one: Two glasses of beer fermented with WY1056, one glass with beer fermented US-05. Labels were added on the bottom of the glasses so that I couldn't see them. My wife mixed them up and I tasted with my eyes closed. I tasted them all a few times and thought one of them was the different one (the US-05) so I pointed that one out. I was wrong.
Kal

Click to expand...

Thanks for the experiment. Im using US-05 as my house yeast for now while I build experience. Am also harvesting and repitching. Maybe I'll repeat your experiment comparing fresh package to repitched.

One question on your experimental technique...why did you taste with your eyes closed? Was there an appearance difference---clarity, color etc or was it related to ability to sufficiently blind the samples?

eric19312 said:

One question on your experimental technique...why did you taste with your eyes closed? Was there an appearance difference---clarity, color etc or was it related to ability to sufficiently blind the samples?

Click to expand...

After pouring the pints with the foam patterns on top of the beer I could tell which was which because I saw what I poured. I should have had my wife pour all 3 then it wouldn't have mattered.

Kal

Good info.

When I first started brewing a few years ago I split a couple batches five ways between S-04, S-05, wlp001, 1056, and Nottingham. We did a lightly hopped APA and an Amber IIRC. I did multiple similar blind taste tests for both batches, with myself and several beer snob friends all tasting, and none of us could tell any difference between the three Chico strains, but there were obvious differences between the others. Both batches were fermented at 67F, and when I posted my results here, several people mentioned that they thought I would have noticed a difference if I'd fermented them cooler, and that they'd noticed a peach flavor from S-05 at cooler temps. I've not done a side by side since then, but I have fermented S-05 at 61F and not noticed any peach or other fruity flavors.

I've never done a blind taste test between S-05, Wy1056 and WLP001, but I cannot detect any difference between them, so if I want that style of yeast, I use S-05.

-a.

When I was a new brewer, I tried lots of things to improve my beers. One of those was switching to liquid yeast and starters. My beer did improve after i made the switch. I have to wonder, though, if it was my other processes being improved that made the difference. I'll probably still stick to liquid yeast and starters, but this is good assurance that it might not be a necessity.

mattfmoore said:

When I was a new brewer, I tried lots of things to improve my beers. One of those was switching to liquid yeast and starters. My beer did improve after i made the switch. I have to wonder, though, if it was my other processes being improved that made the difference. I'll probably still stick to liquid yeast and starters, but this is good assurance that it might not be a necessity.

Click to expand...

Well, don't take this narrow result as evidence beyond the appropriate scope.

For WY1056 - save your money and use US-05. You can probably extend this to include WLP001, since it and WY1056 are considered equivalent by most.

You can't extend this to other strains because he didn't present that data.

Any differences in fermenting? Did one floc better than the other?

Thanks for the write up. I love S05 so I probably won't waste my time with the smack packs going forward.

rayfound said:

Well, don't take this narrow result as evidence beyond the appropriate scope.

For WY1056 - save your money and use US-05. You can probably extend this to include WLP001, since it and WY1056 are considered equivalent by most.

You can't extend this to other strains because he didn't present that data.

Click to expand...

+1. This test was only with US-05 (dry) vs WY1056 (liquid). They're known to be the same Chico strain. I figured they'd taste very similar and possibly identical, but some brewers have noticed differences. I didn't myself so it's either because (a) there is no difference for how I brewed, or (b) my taste buds aren't refined enough to taste a difference. It may be that something about the beer I brewed masked differences / the difference is only noticeable in certain styles (what those styles are I do not know).

Generally speaking: There are some really good dry yeasts (IMHO US-05 is one of them) and also some really bad dry yeasts (mostly anything you get under the lid of an extract kit). When it comes to liquid, they are (again IMHO) all good, high quality yeasts. The caveat is that all yeasts need to be used correctly and be appropriate for what you are trying to achieve.

WDT said:

Any differences in fermenting? Did one floc better than the other?

Click to expand...

I use 8 gallon white plastic fermentation buckets (opaque) so I couldn't see what was going on during fermentation. Once fermented to completion and left a few extra days (14 days after pitch), I rack to 5 gallon glass carboys (my 'brite' tanks) and use use gelatine to clear so they drop clear very fast. They both seemed similarly cloudy on day 14. They both dropped clear fast with gelatine but that talks more about how well gelatine works than how flocculant the yeast is. I'm not sure if left to clear on its own if one would floc better/faster than the other.

Thanks for the write up. I love S05 so I probably won't waste my time with the smack packs going forward.

Click to expand...

Same here. At least for WY1056. I'll still use other Wyeast however such as WY1968, WY3068, etc. Dry yeast varieties are extremely limited in comparison to liquid. As mentioned above I wasn't doing an overall "dry" vs "liquid" experiment. That experiment doesn't make any sense.

Kal

WDT said:

Any differences in fermenting? Did one floc better than the other?

Click to expand...

Actually, to add something to this question, last night I racked my Electric Hop Stand Pale Ale (another experiment I did where 16 oz of hops were only added after boil, not during). This beer was fermented in split batches: Half on fresh US-05 (24 g), the other half on the slurry of two WY1056 smack packs used in this Blonde Ale experiment I discuss in this thread.

The two 5 gallon carboys side by side after adding dry hops:


(US-05 on the left, WY1056 on the right)

Now the picture doesn't really give you a great indication of which is more flocculant as I've just racked them so things got stirred up. I did rack carefully to not disturb the yeast cake on the bottom however and both appeared identical during the racking. The yeast had been pitched 12 days ago and fermented at 66F.

To throw another data point into the US-05 vs WY1056, for this hoppy APA, the WY1056 beer seemed to taste slightly smoother (slicker) and possibly slightly fruitier. Very hard to tell. I'll reserve full judgement until it's kegged and carb'ed and I can do a 3 way test. After the Blonde Ale test I completely expect them to taste the same, but I need to prove it to myself instead of just assuming.

Kal

Kal- I came here to comment about my similar experiences with Us-05 and 1056, but I just spent about 3 hours reading your basement brew/build thread in your sig.


Amazing.

Thanks for chiming in that your results were the same. I'm also glad that all that documenting that went into the basement reno wasn't done in vain!

Kal

I appreciate this kind of data! Yeast seem like a tough beast to tame, even comparing the same supplier's strain at two temperatures can be fascinating!

Would the gelatin treatment affect the comparison? Chico isn't very flocculant, but the gelatin could have played a role in the diminished 'graininess' of the US-05 batch.

Since many homebrewers do not add cold-side finings, perhaps that relates to the observed differences between US-05 and the liquid equivalents.

All yeast will settle given enough time. Gelatine accelerates the process. So by using it I feel I've only done what would happen eventually anyway.

You make an interesting point however: If a brewer doesn't like to use cold side finings and likes to drink the beer young, then maybe one of the two yeasts I compared would make more sense to use. That's not something I tested unfortunately as I've always clarified with gelatine.

Kal

JuanMoore said:

When I first started brewing a few years ago I split a couple batches five ways between S-04, S-05, wlp001, 1056, and Nottingham. We did a lightly hopped APA and an Amber IIRC. I did multiple similar blind taste tests for both batches, with myself and several beer snob friends all tasting, and none of us could tell any difference between the three Chico strains, but there were obvious differences between the others. Both batches were fermented at 67F, and when I posted my results here, several people mentioned that they thought I would have noticed a difference if I'd fermented them cooler, and that they'd noticed a peach flavor from S-05 at cooler temps. I've not done a side by side since then, but I have fermented S-05 at 61F and not noticed any peach or other fruity flavors.

Click to expand...

I have a cream ale that I fermented at about 59-60 deg f with US 05 and it definitely has an apricoty or peachy flavor to hit. Hoping it fades, but I will never do US 05 that low again.

I once tried this, but in the bottles I tried, there were clear carbonation differences, so it was easy for me to pick the different one. If I tried to ignore that, I couldn't really tell a difference between liquid and dry.

Question: If I wanted to try this on a 5 gallon batch, is there any reason I couldn't ferment 2.5 gallons in a 6 gallon ale pail? I wouldn't want to do 10 gallons most likely.

OCBrewin said:

I have a cream ale that I fermented at about 59-60 deg f with US 05 and it definitely has an apricoty or peachy flavor to hit. Hoping it fades, but I will never do US 05 that low again.

Click to expand...

I've heard from others that this Chico strain does indeed throw some fruity flavours when fermented low.
Wyeast does mention it on their site: http://www.wyeastlab.com/rw_yeaststrain_detail.cfm?ID=5

It's interesting as normally with yeasts you get fruity esters when you ferment too high, not too low. This strain seems to be the exception.

mtnagel said:

Question: If I wanted to try this on a 5 gallon batch, is there any reason I couldn't ferment 2.5 gallons in a 6 gallon ale pail? I wouldn't want to do 10 gallons most likely.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't be any issues at all. The c02 will knock out any O2. It's just extra headspace you'll have.

Now that said, I know some people have had odd results when they ferment batches that are really small (like 1-2 gallon) that they don't get when they brew larger batches. I'm not sure of the reasons.

Kal

kal said:

All yeast will settle given enough time. Gelatine accelerates the process. So by using it I feel I've only done what would happen eventually anyway.

You make an interesting point however: If a brewer doesn't like to use cold side finings and likes to drink the beer young, then maybe one of the two yeasts I compared would make more sense to use. That's not something I tested unfortunately as I've always clarified with gelatine.

Kal

Click to expand...

Good point. In my experiments I didn't use any finings, but I used a 4 week primary followed by a cold crash, so any short term flocculation differences weren't apparent.

OCBrewin said:

I have a cream ale that I fermented at about 59-60 deg f with US 05 and it definitely has an apricoty or peachy flavor to hit. Hoping it fades, but I will never do US 05 that low again.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Have you tried a similar beer at the same temps using wlp001 or 1056?

kal said:

I've heard from others that this Chico strain does indeed throw some fruity flavours when fermented low.
Wyeast does mention it on their site: http://www.wyeastlab.com/rw_yeaststrain_detail.cfm?ID=5

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm wondering if it's specific to just S-05, or applies to every Chico strain. The wyeast literature would suggest it's not just S-05.

kal said:

Now that said, I know some people have had odd results when they ferment batches that are really small (like 1-2 gallon) that they don't get when they brew larger batches. I'm not sure of the reasons.

Kal

Click to expand...

I've done a lot of 1gal batches and never had any odd results, but it was a challenge to maintain consistent temperature. With such a small thermal mass, ambient temps have a much greater effect on the fermenting beer in smaller batches, and can be tough to control. I've always wondered if that plays a part in the odd results some people get.

Many of the people reporting odd results in smaller batches also seem to be overpitching. One guy in particular was comparing a 1 gal batch that he pitched 1/2 of a vial of white labs yeast to a 5 gal batch where he pitched 1 vial. With the vastly different pitching rates, I don't think the differences he noted can be attributed to batch size.

JuanMoore said:

Interesting. Have you tried a similar beer at the same temps using wlp001 or 1056?

Click to expand...

I haven't. Mostly because I really don't like that flavor in s beer and am doing my best to avoid it. Also, for Chico, I've only used 1056 once and never 001 - to me, I've heard so many times that they are the same as US 05 that I don't buy the liquid equivalent anymore. I think that if kept in the 65 deg range us 05 is clean and dependable.

I agree that they're both similar. If I'm lazy and don't feel like making a starter I just pick up some 05. However, I do notice that WLP001 tends to accentuate the hop bitterness more in my IPA and Pale Ales.

shuckit said:

I've wondered about this debate. Thanks for the analysis. I like US-05 and paying 2-3x more for a single pack of 1056 bugs me. I think I'll load up on US-05.

On a side note, it looks like you had no performance issues with year old frozen yeast. That's cool too.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

I have a half dozen packs of each US-05, S-04 and Nottingham in my fridge. They can make 80% of the batches I enjoy, don't need starters, and for low OG's can even be just sprinkled on without rehydration.

That said, I do have some stepped up WLP029, WLP007, and WLP300 vials in the fridge for those special brews.