S-05/WLP001/Wyeast 1056

[Brocster]

While I brew a lot of styles, about 50% of my beers are using the West Coast yeast strain/type. This includes some dry stouts, pale ales and IPA's mainly.

I have been using 1056 exclusively with a starter and brew AG with decent temperature control. SG usually in the .50 - .60 range.

What is everyone's opinon on the differences of these three yeasts and why would you use one over the other? I like 1056 a lot, but I am curious to learn a bit about others opinons, good or bad, about these three types.


(wow - side note: I am sitting in the airport in Chicago, it is not even 8:00 am and three of the drunkest guys wearing green shirts just stumbled by. lol)

Anyways, I would love to hear some comments on taste and use.

Thanks!

 

[samc]

05 is just a lot easier to deal with. Don't have to plan ahead with a starter. I cannot discern the difference in taste over liquid all though some claim they can.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

People probably get sick of hearing me, but you asked!

To me, US-05 doesn't behave or taste at all like 1056. I only brewed 2 beers with it, but both beers came out really really estery to the point that I didn't like the beer, despite fermenting in the mid 60s. 1056 for me is reliable and produces tasty, clean beers every time. Not so with US-05 in my limited experience.

In my own system, I rinse my yeast and reuse it, and I've mostly used liquids so I don't mind making starters. And with reuse, I get to use one packet of 1056 to produce a LOT of beers. I won't be using US-05 again.

From what I've read, most other people have better experiences with US-05 though. I'd say you should just try it with one batch, but ferment it colder as most of the US-05 users seem to and then judge for yourself. You can read a lot of opinions but the fact is, forming your own opinion is worth more. If I just trusted everyone's opinion on US-05 I'd be using it a lot. But having tried it, I won't. Your experience may vary from ours.

 

[hukdizzle]

People probably get sick of hearing me, but you asked!

To me, US-05 doesn't behave or taste at all like 1056. I only brewed 2 beers with it, but both beers came out really really estery to the point that I didn't like the beer, despite fermenting in the mid 60s. 1056 for me is reliable and produces tasty, clean beers every time. Not so with US-05 in my limited experience.

In my own system, I rinse my yeast and reuse it, and I've mostly used liquids so I don't mind making starters. And with reuse, I get to use one packet of 1056 to produce a LOT of beers. I won't be using US-05 again.

From what I've read, most other people have better experiences with US-05 though. I'd say you should just try it with one batch, but ferment it colder as most of the US-05 users seem to and then judge for yourself. You can read a lot of opinions but the fact is, forming your own opinion is worth more. If I just trusted everyone's opinion on US-05 I'd be using it a lot. But having tried it, I won't. Your experience may vary from ours.

I second everything said here and I find US-05 far too estery for my taste in the beers I produce. I actually just realized this recently as I tasted my first brew I have done in 6 months yesterday. The beer was fermented at 63'F (Fermenter temperature, not ambient) for a week and then after it hit terminal grav I ramped it up to 68 for a rest. The beer still came out far too estery for my taste as it was a pale ale and I wanted a very clean beer.

I have basically come to the conclusion that I just flat out do not like US-05 at all and will not be using it any longer unless I find myself with a need for yeast fast. 1056/wlp001 seem to be the benchmark for clean fermenting/high attenuating yeast that produces clean west coast ale styles, I will be using both exclusively now in place of us-05 from now on.

 

[Brocster]

People probably get sick of hearing me, but you asked!

To me, US-05 doesn't behave or taste at all like 1056. I only brewed 2 beers with it, but both beers came out really really estery to the point that I didn't like the beer, despite fermenting in the mid 60s. 1056 for me is reliable and produces tasty, clean beers every time. Not so with US-05 in my limited experience.

In my own system, I rinse my yeast and reuse it, and I've mostly used liquids so I don't mind making starters. And with reuse, I get to use one packet of 1056 to produce a LOT of beers. I won't be using US-05 again.

From what I've read, most other people have better experiences with US-05 though. I'd say you should just try it with one batch, but ferment it colder as most of the US-05 users seem to and then judge for yourself. You can read a lot of opinions but the fact is, forming your own opinion is worth more. If I just trusted everyone's opinion on US-05 I'd be using it a lot. But having tried it, I won't. Your experience may vary from ours.

I am brewing a Bavarian Weiss this weekend, so I won't be able to this right away, but perhaps I will run a "test".

Brew up a simple ale, maybe something around the .50 range with 35-45 IBU's, maybe some decent Caramel 60 to add some body and flavor. Brew 6 gallons and split between 6 - 1 gallon jugs to ferment out. Put 3 of the gallons at 62 degrees ambient, 3 of the gallons at 68 and split the 3 yeast evenly. Ferment for four weeks, bottle for 2 and taste away...

Could be fun to do I guess.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

I am brewing a Bavarian Weiss this weekend, so I won't be able to this right away, but perhaps I will run a "test".

Brew up a simple ale, maybe something around the .50 range with 35-45 IBU's, maybe some decent Caramel 60 to add some body and flavor. Brew 6 gallons and split between 6 - 1 gallon jugs to ferment out. Put 3 of the gallons at 62 degrees ambient, 3 of the gallons at 68 and split the 3 yeast evenly. Ferment for four weeks, bottle for 2 and taste away...

Could be fun to do I guess.

A worthwhile experiment for sure!

 

[backsaw13]

I second everything said here and I find US-05 far too estery for my taste in the beers I produce. I actually just realized this recently as I tasted my first brew I have done in 6 months yesterday. The beer was fermented at 63'F (Fermenter temperature, not ambient) for a week and then after it hit terminal grav I ramped it up to 68 for a rest. The beer still came out far too estery for my taste as it was a pale ale and I wanted a very clean beer.

I have basically come to the conclusion that I just flat out do not like US-05 at all and will not be using it any longer unless I find myself with a need for yeast fast. 1056/wlp001 seem to be the benchmark for clean fermenting/high attenuating yeast that produces clean west coast ale styles, I will be using both exclusively now in place of us-05 from now on.

Huh - I have a pale ale with us-05 almost ready to bottle - kept at 63 the entire time. Now I am worried. This is the first time I have used us-05. Guess I will know soon enough if I find it too estery.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

Huh - I have a pale ale with us-05 almost ready to bottle - kept at 63 the entire time. Now I am worried. This is the first time I have used us-05. Guess I will know soon enough if I find it too estery.

Don't get overly worried. Just relax and try the beer when the time comes. I think most people get good beers from that yeast. There are just some of us who don't. Doesn't mean yours will be messed up though.

 

[carp]

I've been using US05 almost exclusively in my 17-batch brewing career, making APAs and IPAs. I have had a few instances (3 I think) of quite estery batches - not pleasant.

However the other batches have not suffered from this - they have been very clean tasting.

At least one of the estery batches was associated with cooler-than-normal (high 50s) fermentation, and high temps were definitely not a factor in the others.

I'm just starting to get into yeast washing / starters, etc. so may move away from it eventually, but for the time being I'll keep taking my chances with it. I like the convenience and the cost.

 

[Doog_Si_Reeb]

I have not had a bad experience with US-05. I have had a few issues with Nottingham producing flavors/esters I didn't like, but not so with the US-05. If you look down a few posts in the yeast forum, there is a thread about a US-05 fan club with happy customers.

On a similar note, I was under the impression that US-05 = 1056 = WLP001. And by "=" I mean genetic equivalence. I thought they were the same pedigree of yeast but managed and packaged by different companies/techniques.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

On a similar note, I was under the impression that US-05 = 1056 = WLP001. And by "=" I mean genetic equivalence. I thought they were the same pedigree of yeast but managed and packaged by different companies/techniques.

That's the word. But, once the yeasts are in those respective labs, they can vary. We don't know at what stage these labs collected the yeast and from where. From my understanding, this is originally the Ballantine strain, then later the Sierra Nevada strain. Once the labs have them in house, though, the yeast can adapt to circumstances in the lab and how they're treated, what the environment is like, how they're packaged and stored etc etc. In my experience, White Labs' and Wyeast's iterations of this yeast act and taste very similar while Fermentis' version does not act or taste like the other two. Personally, I've used White Labs' and Wyeast's version of this interchangeably many times and liked the results with both. Not so with US-05, for me anyway.

 

[bigjoe]

I've only brewed 1 beer with it. Its only about 2 weeks old. Took gravity sample the other day to make sure its at FG. The uncarbed sample was nice. Hops came through and I could still taste the malt. It didn't seem overly estery to me, but it was warm and uncarbed. Defiantely will taste different when cold and carbed. Feremntation seemed sluggish, but I was in the low 60's the whole time so I didn't give it much attention, just figured it was a little cool for the yeast.

 

[Brew-boy]

I prefer WLP001 as my first go to. I have done a side by side and S-05 to me was not as clean as the 001

 

[serum67]

I have used all 3, and also agree that the S-05 is estery. Every beer I do with that yeast, no matter what the Dryhop / Aroma hops are, they have a very similar aroma. Changed to 001 and 1056, it changed completely. I strictly used 05 out of convenience, but have since sworn off of it (unless no other choice).

The 001 is always my Go-to. Very clean, ALWAYS performs and is great in my higher gravity beers.

These 3 are not ALL the same. After a side by side with the same beer (001 vs. S-05) the choice was clear. Just my 2cents.

 

[mithion]

I've tried both 1056 and US-05. I can't make an accurate judgment on 1056 as I used it back in the days when I had just started homebrewing so my beers sucked but for many other reasons than yeast. I did have bad experiences with dry yeast back when I first started so I stayed mostly away from them until recently. After reading on this forum about the wonders of Fermentis yeast, I decided to give it another shot in a SNPA clone. After sampling this beer, it just blew my mind away. This isn't a SNPA clone, this IS SNPA. US-05 did an amazing job of fermenting a really clean beer. I thus stand corrected about dry yeast. So if you don't want to screw around with starters, use US-05. If you want to wash yeast and thus save a little money by recycling that 8$ pack of 1056, then go liquid. Both dry and liquid will offer superb performance. As far as I'm concerned, they are the same.

 

[Doog_Si_Reeb]

In my experience, White Labs' and Wyeast's iterations of this yeast act and taste very similar while Fermentis' version does not act or taste like the other two.

This makes sense considering the additional processing that would be involved in successfully drying the yeast. The two liquid forms would be treated, handled and packaged in a very similar manner so in theory they should produce very similar results.

 

[Surly]

Reading this thread I decided to try some 1056. It has been awhile and I have advanced my brewing.

I do know, I will not use Nottingham again. At least until I run a cycle of 05 and 1056 and then return to Nottingham as a comparison after I learn, experiment and compare even more.

 

[BuzzCraft]

This is interesting. Can anyone who finds US-05 "estery" describe the flavors they percieve from this yeast?? MattHollingsworth??

I ascribed to the party line that WLP001 and US-05 are the same. I've used 001 for years, but have used US-05 on 3 occassions in the past 6 months, out of convenience.

The first batch had a mild but wierd fruity (maybe even clovey?) taste that I thought was a wild yeast infection. The keg was consumed at a party and everyone seemed to love it (except for me). The second is on tap now (EdWort's Haus Pale)...a bit fruity, but pretty good. I'm going to crack the keg of the third (Celebration Ale clone) tonight. The FG hydrometer sample, however, had the same flavor note as the first batch I used US-05 on.

I didn't realize the common link between these beers till I read this thread yesterday and went back to check my brewing notes last night. I think I'm off this yeast.

Again, if anyone who has a better descriptor for the estery character they've perceived can chime in, I'd appreciate it.

 

[serum67]

My friend Gubby describes it perfectly:

"I typically get an interesting pale stonefruit/tropical fruit ester from the US-05 at warmer temps."

This is exactly what I get as well.

 

[damdaman]

Hmm, interesting thread. I have typically liked the beers I produced with 1056 and 001 better, but previously attributed that to other factors. The one beer I've finished and drinking with 05 is quite.... flowery. Do estery flavors decline with time if you age the beer?

I have an IIPA that I pitched with 2 packets of 05 fermenting now. I hope it turns out ok, I am using a lower temp on this one but it appears that doesn't have much affect on the esters.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

This is interesting. Can anyone who finds US-05 "estery" describe the flavors they percieve from this yeast?? MattHollingsworth??

I ascribed to the party line that WLP001 and US-05 are the same. I've used 001 for years, but have used US-05 on 3 occassions in the past 6 months, out of convenience.

The first batch had a mild but wierd fruity (maybe even clovey?) taste that I thought was a wild yeast infection. The keg was consumed at a party and everyone seemed to love it (except for me). The second is on tap now (EdWort's Haus Pale)...a bit fruity, but pretty good. I'm going to crack the keg of the third (Celebration Ale clone) tonight. The FG hydrometer sample, however, had the same flavor note as the first batch I used US-05 on.

I didn't realize the common link between these beers till I read this thread yesterday and went back to check my brewing notes last night. I think I'm off this yeast.

Again, if anyone who has a better descriptor for the estery character they've perceived can chime in, I'd appreciate it.

One of the beers was dumped, the other is a Barleywine that's been heavily dry hopped now, so I have to go from memory. And using the memory, I couldn't give it to any one fruit. I'd just have to say harshly fruity. I mean, you wouldn't miss it if it happened to you at the levels that I got it at.

 

[carp]

This is interesting. Can anyone who finds US-05 "estery" describe the flavors they percieve from this yeast?? MattHollingsworth??

I ascribed to the party line that WLP001 and US-05 are the same. I've used 001 for years, but have used US-05 on 3 occassions in the past 6 months, out of convenience.

The first batch had a mild but wierd fruity (maybe even clovey?) taste that I thought was a wild yeast infection. The keg was consumed at a party and everyone seemed to love it (except for me). The second is on tap now (EdWort's Haus Pale)...a bit fruity, but pretty good. I'm going to crack the keg of the third (Celebration Ale clone) tonight. The FG hydrometer sample, however, had the same flavor note as the first batch I used US-05 on.

I didn't realize the common link between these beers till I read this thread yesterday and went back to check my brewing notes last night. I think I'm off this yeast.

Again, if anyone who has a better descriptor for the estery character they've perceived can chime in, I'd appreciate it.

One of my occasions the taste was clove, the other it was a quite pronounced banana flavor.

I want to reiterate that I've gotten these noticeable esters in only 3 out of 15 or so batches, and in fact at least once (memory fails) it was only in half (one keg) of a 10 gallon batch.

 

[legaleagle]

Question for those who had an estery experience with 05: how long did you let it sit on the yeast post-fermentation and did the ambient temp rise at all during the last part of fermentation (ie, after the kreusen fell)? As I understand it, the current thinking seems to be that a late fermentation temp rise (both in ales and lagers) and allowing the beer to sit on the yeast a little while post-fermentation allows the yeast to re-consume many of the esters that some folks are very sensitive to. I follow this process with a house Irish Red I brew with the Wyeast Irish (which is known to be estery) and have yet to note any esters in the final product...

 

[MattHollingsworth]

Question for those who had an estery experience with 05: how long did you let it sit on the yeast post-fermentation and did the ambient temp rise at all during the last part of fermentation (ie, after the kreusen fell)? As I understand it, the current thinking seems to be that a late fermentation temp rise (both in ales and lagers) and allowing the beer to sit on the yeast a little while post-fermentation allows the yeast to re-consume many of the esters that some folks are very sensitive to. I follow this process with a house Irish Red I brew with the Wyeast Irish (which is known to be estery) and have yet to note any esters in the final product...

I didn't raise the temp, but both beers were allowed to sit in primary on the yeast for a total of a month and no luck with reducing the esters.

 

[BuzzCraft]

Question for those who had an estery experience with 05: how long did you let it sit on the yeast post-fermentation and did the ambient temp rise at all during the last part of fermentation (ie, after the kreusen fell)? As I understand it, the current thinking seems to be that a late fermentation temp rise (both in ales and lagers) and allowing the beer to sit on the yeast a little while post-fermentation allows the yeast to re-consume many of the esters that some folks are very sensitive to. I follow this process with a house Irish Red I brew with the Wyeast Irish (which is known to be estery) and have yet to note any esters in the final product...

just checked my notes. the worst one i had sat in the primary at 65F for 3.5 weeks....clovey, but not undrinkable...just not as clean as i wanted. this one was tapped young for a party.

i just tapped a keg of ipa last night that had a clovey (maybe ripe banana?) sort of flavor on my FG hydrometer sample 10 days ago, but now tastes fine. still a little fruitier than i'd like, though. this one fermented at 65F and ramped temp to 68-70F after vigorous fermentation subsided....one month in primary, then 10 days in keg dryhopping before carbonating and tapping.

i'm going to repeat both of those beers with WLP001 under similar fermentation conditions. i think i'm just ultrasensitive to the clovey flavor, cause others don't seem to detect it. which is funny, cause in general, i think my palate sucks!

 

[legaleagle]

I think Jamil is the guy who I learned the post-kreusen temp rise in ales to resduce ester notes idea from. I had long heard about it for lagers to reduce diacytal notes, but not ales. I have not tried 05, but have been experimenting with dry yeast lately (Nottingham) based on folks here talking about how they worked as well as liquid yeasts for a fraction of the cost. So far so good with Nottingham - no ester issues. 05 was next on my experimentation list, but now I am little leary based on what I am reading here and seeing some of you have used this process and still get the esters. Might this clove note be a basic part of this yeast's flavor profile?

 

[mithion]

Question for those who had an estery experience with 05: how long did you let it sit on the yeast post-fermentation and did the ambient temp rise at all during the last part of fermentation (ie, after the kreusen fell)? As I understand it, the current thinking seems to be that a late fermentation temp rise (both in ales and lagers) and allowing the beer to sit on the yeast a little while post-fermentation allows the yeast to re-consume many of the esters that some folks are very sensitive to. I follow this process with a house Irish Red I brew with the Wyeast Irish (which is known to be estery) and have yet to note any esters in the final product...

Mine sat at 65 for three weeks in the primary and the beer doesn't have any esters SNPA didn't have. It's suppose to throw off some citrusy esters at higher temperatures. And I think by citrus they mean the zest of the fruit. Try zesting an orange and a grapefruit to catch a whiff of them. You'll see that those can be extremely floral. That's what you might be getting in your beer.

 

[fredthecat]

i have used s-05 about 7 or 8 times, but never used the others. i too always wondered if there'd be any difference as it's supposed to come from the same original yeast?

my experience with s-05 was that it was quite forgiving, and as per its description emphasizes hops over malt. i never had any kind of spicy off flavours, but sometimes a bit of a peachy-plum fruitiness just a touch over being neutral. it did crap out one time at 1.024 in a high gravity brew.

i'd love to compare it to a wyeast or white labs one and i'll post the results if i ever do