Does anyone else dislike US-05?

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.
jigtwins

jigtwins

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
241
Reaction score
51
Location
Creston
Maybe it's just me, but I have really had some not so good flavors come out of this "clean" yeast. From fruity, peach like flavors to a almost Belgian like aroma and off flavor. Not to mention the time it takes for this yeast to drop out. I've cold crashed for a week and still had lots of yeast in suspension. I brew all grain. Pitch hydrated yeast or a appropriate amount of slurry if I have It. Use temp control and tried temps from 62 up to 70. Feel like I have my processes dialed in. The beers I've made with other yeasts have been better than the ones with 05. I think this yeast will be off the list for me from here on out.
 
I'm not a big fan. But I haven't used it in years.

I am on a big dry yeast kick though. I'm trying to lower the ABV in a lot of my beer and tossing dry yeast in some water has been super easy. That and I had some liquid London ale fail on me and the stand by of Notty bailed out my pale ale. I do love the Notty.
 
I haven't had any off flavors, but I can vouch for the yeast refusing to settle. A homebrewer that I know says that he warms his batches using US-05 in order to get the yeast to drop.
 
I'm with you. I did a cream ale that is on the peachy side and took forever to clear, fermented at 62. After reading that fermenting low gives those flavors I did a pale ale fermented at 65. The pale ale is less peachy and cleared better, I'm thinking to only use S5 for that recipe and something cleaner for cream ales.
 
Us-05 is more neutral to my palate then notty, notty and us-04 throw out a weird fruity/tart ester that i detect that most people don't, and yes I've tried fermenting notty/04 from 58-70 and didn't care for any of the beers, ymmv
 
brewbama said:
I use the "other" West Coast dry yeast (Bry-97). Though not the same strain, I prefer Bry-97 to US-05 in my American beers for all the reasons cited.
Click to expand...


Haven't tried the bry-97 yet, I wouldn't mind trying that and i need to find another english ale yeast to try with an upcoming porter to oak for this fall
 
I made a starter with mine and had no problems. Direct pitch, and I have issues galore. Don't even get me started on Nottingham
 
I have some on hand, just in case I have another yeast strain that doesn't start for some reason. But I don't routinely use it.

I like other chico strains much better, like WLP001.

S05 gives me off flavors below about 64 degrees and above 68 degrees, and it takes forever to clear. I'm just not a fan of it.

I"ve used BRY97 with 'ok' results, but I can't think of any dry yeast strain that I've used that I actually like or recommend anymore, except for maybe S04 at 62 degrees in cider.
 
Apart from it not clearing particularly well without fining, I still like it. I've never had any off notes from it either. If it's good enough for Kernel then it's good enough for any homebrewer :) Unless you insist on clear beer of course :)
 
I always cold-crash for a few days prior to kegging then cold-carb/condition for at least two full weeks, so the less-than-stellar flocculation thing with US-05 is a non-issue.
By the time a keg is tapped it's read-through clear.

As for the fermentation issues, I always run US-05 at 65°F wort temperature in a ferm fridge and I've never noted an unpleasant character.
It's actually one of the most neutral strains I've used, and I use it often.
I'm sipping a US-05 APA right now that's very nice indeed...

Cheers!
 
Rhaop said:
Haven't tried the bry-97 yet, I wouldn't mind trying that and i need to find another english ale yeast to try with an upcoming porter to oak for this fall
Click to expand...

I use WYeast 1098 for all stouts and porters and really like it. Even use it in a honey nut brown. Basically I've had good success with that strain with all beers darker than an amber. Also had good luck with Bry-97. It takes a while to get going on its first pitch (whether dry or rehydrated - doesn't matter), but if you harvest and repitch that longer lag time will be greatly decreased. I've liked 97 for pale ales and IPAs as much as 05. Not saying it's better, but it's not worse, IME.
 
I've never compared it to the liquid Chico strains since we don't have liquid yeast in China, but I've been wondering, did Fermentis just end up getting a crappy substrain of Chico that throws peach flavors and doesn't flocculate well, or is there an issue with the yeast drying process that either selects worse yeast cells or alters them in some way so they're not as good as their liquid counterparts? It's frustrating as a brewer without access to liquid yeast to hear all of the praise heaped on certain strains and think, "if only Fermentis/Lallemand/Mangrove Jack's/Mauribrew/Brewferm/??? could get that strain I'd be set." It seems like the majority of dry yeasts are considered inferior to their liquid equivalents, but why is that so?
 
FatDragon said:
It seems like the majority of dry yeasts are considered inferior to their liquid equivalents, but why is that so?
Click to expand...

Because of the ease of spreading discontent over the internet.

Once a Dry yeast is pitched, hydrated, does its thing , re-harvested and saved for later use ....it is now a liquid yeast.

Peoples palats are all different. Not everyone is even capable of picking up on the "off Flavors" some others may experience. Its like color vision...Not everyone sees the same hue of color and many are color impaired.

Some palates are just super sensitive and can detect everything... These people would make great tasters I suppose. Although they will be critiquing flavors most others cant even perceive.

I smell things my wife cant and vice/versa..My Neighbor use to swear our house was grey..It was Sea Foam green to everyone else I ever talked to. I painted it dark green so he could now agree with me when I told people to come to the green house on the left and not the second grey house on the left ..LOL


Im not a big fan of any yeast yet known to man... Because all my beers would be award winners if someone would just get me the right damm yeast. :)

You cant blame every bad thing on a particular yeast any more then you can blame every bad thing on the Devil.
 
FatDragon said:
I've never compared it to the liquid Chico strains since we don't have liquid yeast in China, but I've been wondering, did Fermentis just end up getting a crappy substrain of Chico that throws peach flavors and doesn't flocculate well, or is there an issue with the yeast drying process that either selects worse yeast cells or alters them in some way so they're not as good as their liquid counterparts? It's frustrating as a brewer without access to liquid yeast to hear all of the praise heaped on certain strains and think, "if only Fermentis/Lallemand/Mangrove Jack's/Mauribrew/Brewferm/??? could get that strain I'd be set." It seems like the majority of dry yeasts are considered inferior to their liquid equivalents, but why is that so?
Click to expand...


I think it has to do with the drying process that makes flocculation somewhat more difficult. I've noticed that when using dry yeast, my beer is slow to clear, even after fining and cold crashing. It is worth noting that while there are exceptional similarities between dry yeast and liquid yeast strains, they are actually genetically distinct. I believe that the process of drying yeast is particularly stressful and will render less hardy strains to be ineffective (which is why there's less variety in dry yeast strains).

I don't necessarily dislike US-05, but with the quantity of more interesting strains available, I'd rather use something different for the same purpose. At any rate, I don't really use any Chico strains anymore, as my palate has gravitated towards continental beers and English ale strains (if Conan qualifies as such).
 
I like US-05. I use it when I don't want the beer to taste like the yeast I used. I've never had any off flavors with it but I also use it with very strict temp control. It is always fermented at 68 degrees until the krausen falls then ramped up to 72 for a few days then cold crashed to 33 for a few days. After that it is kegged. The yeast is pretty slow to floc but after 10 days in the keg you could read a newspaper through my blonde ale with no finings used.
 
I've used it in most of my batches since I'm still in my first year of brewing. I now know that it's essentially unstoppable and will over-attenuate now matter what you do. However, I made a pale ale of mine with it and it was very good. I really don't think it's suitable for other styles, though. Too dry, too crisp. It's a hop yeast.
 
Strangely, I've never had a floc problem with it. I use whirlfloc with no cold crash and settles fine.
 
I really like US-05. I have active temperature control and hold my fermentations at either 66 or 68. No issues with peach flavors. I've got a friend who brews with it using mainly ambient temperature control (cool basement) and he does sometimes get the peachy flavor. It does take time to clear but is dependable attenuator meaning I don't end up with either lower or higher FG than expected batch to batch. Once you are ready to cold crash and package gelatin will clear it up just fine.

Also performs very well for collecting and re-pitching. I'll frequently save a cake in a couple pint jars and get very reliable fermentation without a starter using 1/2 cup relatively fresh cake in a 5 gallon fermentor.
 
For those who know their American brewing history, which dry yeast would you consider to be closest to the "typical" yeast used for American breweries before Prohibition?

The reason I ask is because I am working on an adaptation of Kentucky Common Ale; it was suggested that I use S05 for this adaptation, and I am currently leaning toward using it - but if BRY97, Mangrove Jack or some other dry yeast would get me closer to the original characteristics of Kentucky Common Ale, I'd prefer that.

My goal is not a "perfect" brew, but rather an adaptation of the original that balances "user-friendliness" for the typical home-/stovetop-brewer with a plausible representation of the original. I think I'm getting pretty darn close with the other ingredients, but the yeast is still a bit of a mystery for me, and I've found no real clues, other than that it was evidently a fast-acting yeast that had perhaps medium floccuation. Kentucky Common Ale was described in documents as a bit "cloudy" when young, but the sources go on to say that it would settle when given time.

Any advice would be appreciated - sorry for going slightly off-topic!
 
Thanks for all the input on this subject. All good info. I just feel this yeast is not for me. I much prefer something that clears fast and has as good attenution as 05.
 
I used US 05 strictly because of the peach/apricot flavors it can give off when fermented in the low 60s.

I brewed an apricot blonde, usually I just use a generic blonde recipe and add the apricot puree to the secondary. This go round I wanted to use hops and yeast that would support the flavors and not let the apricot stand alone.

It has been a week in the fermenter and smells fantastic.
 
Add me to the list of people who don't like US-05. I always end up getting a peachy ester flavor in my beers that I don't get when using WY-1056. US-05 reminds me a bit of Conan and Sticky yeast but more one dimensional (skewed towards peach instead of a more round fruit flavor). I could see some people liking the taste of US-05 FWIW and it's fairly clean compared to strains like US-04.

I've had a lot more success making clean tasting beers with strains like WY-1272 (American Ale II), WY-1764 (Pacman), and WY-1056 (American Ale).
 
Stillraining said:
Because of the ease of spreading discontent over the internet.

Once a Dry yeast is pitched, hydrated, does its thing , re-harvested and saved for later use ....it is now a liquid yeast.

...

You cant blame every bad thing on a particular yeast any more then you can blame every bad thing on the Devil.
Click to expand...

No disagreement on any of these points (or the ones in the middle), but I'm wondering about the actual substrains being propogated by the different labs. There's no denial from anyone who's compared them that US-05 lacks the flocculation capabilities of the WL or Wyeast Chico strains. There's widespread opinion that it throws more esters. There are other opinions floating out there about other dry yeasts versus their liquid strain equivalents that rarely favor the dry option. Some of it may be opinion and hearsay that has spread over the internet and by word of mouth, but some of it, like the flocculation difference between Chico strains, is clearly observable.

We know that 05 and 001 and 1056 are all Chico strains. We also know that they're all different because they contain different mutations acquired either before or after their respective labs collected and started propogating the strain. My question is: does Fermentis simply have a lower-flocculating, more ester-prone strain of Chico than WL and Wyeast, or does the drying process somehow impact these factors? Repeat the question with other dry yeast complaints - Abbaye producing underwhelming phenols and esters, S-04 getting nasty anywhere above 64F, etc. If it's a strain issue and not a process issue, what's to stop dry yeast labs from going out and selecting better sub-strains and producing a product that is unassailable in head-to-head tests with their competitors?
 
If it's a strain issue and not a process issue, what's to stop dry yeast labs from going out and selecting better sub-strains and producing a product that is unassailable in head-to-head tests with their competitors?
Click to expand...

Its possible.

But like anything else, no manufacture is going to admit they have a problem ( if they even do ) or change something that to them insist broken in the first place and is making money. An all out boycott from the industry not withstanding.

I think it boils down to a Ford vs Chevy debate....what works for one doesn't for another. Use what you like and pass on the rest....On it goes.

I have never had any issue with it........................so far.


But if I ever do .......I just happen to love peaches..:D
 
I never had an issue with US-05 until recently. A couple weeks ago I made a pretty standard, heavy late hopped IPA. Chilled best I could with our warm ground water this time of year, chilled further for 14 hours in my keezer and then pitched a whole pack of Morgans American Ale yeast (repackaged US-05, but slightly more than you get in a normal Safale pack). Fermentation was slow slow slow. Took a while to take off while holding around 18-19C. Finally got going and had a pretty wimpy krausen for a while. Krausen finally fell this weekend, gravity is holding around 1.011, but man is it sulfury. Ive never had an issue with sulfur with this yeast till now. I guess the slow take off and lowish temps probably didn't help.
I need this IPA to be presentable to a group of strangers (making it for a friend's party and said friend has talked up my beer), by the end of the month. SO gonna warm it up to drive out some CO2 and dry hop, hoping that enough gets blown off.
 
Last edited:
Add me to the list of those that don't care for US-05. I have found that it takes a LONG time to clean up compared to other yeasts. If you aren't in a hurry, it's alright, but there are much better options out there IMO.
 
I ferment at 66, leave in primary for 60 days, bottle, let sit for 30 days. End up with clear wonderful ale.
 
I've never had any problems using US-05. I primary ferment @ 65F for 5 to 7 days, take a hydrometer reading to confirm FG has been reached, and leave it alone for another week to settle out before bottling.
 
I have no problem with US-05 I always ferment around 68-72 degrees and have no off flavors. Even if it gets up to 75F or a littler higher near the end it always comes out clean. I do agree that it can over-attenuate at times, but nothing more than a few points. Also after bottle conditioning my beers for a couple of weeks they always come out pretty clear and I really have no complaints about this yeast.
 
My only interesting observation with this yeast is that at 68° it took quite awhile to take off. I followed the re-hydrating instructions to the letter, pitched it into wort that was at temperature and then waited. I checked the next morning and there was a thin layer of foam/krausen in the carboy but no churning activity in the wort. No big deal since there was clearly something going on. End of day 1 and the krausen was a little thicker but still no churning. Wort was still dark. By the end of day two there was a thicker krausen but still nothing like most other yeasts I use (I am what you might call a yeast whore) and just a few little chunks I could see floating up and down in the wort but no lightening of the wort at all. It wasn't until day 3 when the wort started lightening up and the krausen got thick.

Also, it took almost a full week and a half for the wort to floc out and none of that happened until I raised the temp to 72° for the d-rest for a few days. I read about you guys going grain to glass in 2 weeks with this yeast and I know that I DEFINITELY won't be doing that.

For the record here's the recipe, which isn't a "big beer" by any stretch:

Ruthless Rye, 90 Minute Boil
OG 1.064; FG 1.015

9.5 UK Pale Malt
1.5 Rye Malt
12oz Crystal 80
1oz Chocolate Malt
8oz rice hulls
1oz Columbus FWH
0.5 Chinhook, 0.5 Amarillo, 0.5 Columbus At flame out; whirlpool for 5 minutes
1.5 Citra, 0.5 Columbus, 0.5 Amarillo Dry Hop for 7 days

Mash at 154
Ferment at 68° for 4 days, Raise temp to 72° for 10 days (dry hop)
 
I've never minded 05 as it may be a little slow to get going it does its thing in a couple days I also don't mind hazy beer and I use a lot of the fruitier hops so maybe I don't pick up on the peach as much since it blends with the hop flavors. I also use Conan too and never get peach out of that either. I do cold crash my primary for a couple days if not longer and even bottles in the fridge after 2 weeks with either Conan or 05 ad still pretty hazy but I also use wheat, oats and flaked wheat in my grain bill so I'm not expecting a clear beer. So for me when I don't want to make a starter 05 is my go to.
 
EtchyLives said:
I read about you guys going grain to glass in 2 weeks with this yeast and I know that I DEFINITELY won't be doing that.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I feel. I just cant believe that this yeast can ferment and drop out to go grain to glass in a short time frame. I have never had any luck with fast turn arounds except with a few english yeasts.
 
jigtwins said:
Exactly how I feel. I just cant believe that this yeast can ferment and drop out to go grain to glass in a short time frame. I have never had any luck with fast turn arounds except with a few english yeasts.
Click to expand...

As a guy who bottles I never believe this I mean it takes 10 days for the bottles to carb that's after a 10 primary plus cold crashing then if you want your bottles to clear in a fridge prob another week. That's what a month from brewing to drinking. So that's 10 in primary, 10 to carb and a week for the beers to settle out in the fridge, I need to start kegging.
 
As with alcohol, I believe that US-05 is being blamed for a lot of things that it just has not done. It is a very good dried yeast, which in my opinion and experience produces a wonderous beverage. WLP001 beats it for dead though.
 

Similar threads

kurds_2408
Yeast Help for DIPA Clone
Replies
3
Views
238
day_trippr
day_trippr
Dland
Clove flavor source US-05?
Replies
12
Views
1K
An Ankoù
An Ankoù
Gadjobrinus
US-05 as bottling yeast in long cold-conditioned IPA
Replies
13
Views
625
BrewnWKopperKat
BrewnWKopperKat
Yesfan
US-05 Feedback and Some Other Questions/Suggestions
Replies
20
Views
2K
day_trippr
day_trippr
Tony B
My babies are growing up
Replies
0
Views
172
Tony B
Tony B
wps-hbt2

Latest posts

Back
Top