US-05 and WLP001 really the same thing?

[DJL531]

I admit I like dry yeast because it is easy. I really like liquid yeast and I think I get better results overall when using it. Maybe it is just perception on my part.

Recently at the local brew shop they were out of WLP001 and I knew I had US-05 at home. Guy behind the counter said, "It's the same thing". I know they are both American Ale "chico" yeasts, but are they really the same? US-05, WLP001, Imperial A07, etc...

 

[3 Dawg Night]

I mean, what's your definition of "same"? They're both yeasts. They're both the Chico strain. They're basically interchangeable.

Are there likely small genetic difference between the two? Sure, but that will be the case with any two segregated groups of organisms.

 

[DJL531]

I mean, what's your definition of "same"? They're both yeasts. They're both the Chico strain. They're basically interchangeable.

Are there likely small genetic difference between the two? Sure, but that will be the case with any two segregated groups of organisms.

Brew shop made it sound like they were completely interchageable, and I get it they are both Chino and interchangeable. Is there any benefit from one to the other?. So the question, are they really the exact same when it comes use and expected results in fermentation? I understand genetically they can't be the same. So my question becomes, should I just buy cheaper dry yeast and not worry about it when it comes to an American pale ale or IPA and just let US-05 grind its way through those?

 

[3 Dawg Night]

You'll get the same beer. Most recipe books list them interchangeably. Some folks say that US-05 gives a slight peachy ester, but I've never been able to detect it. I've used both dry and liquid yeast, but I tend to gravitate toward liquid. That's just personal preference, but it's hard to argue against the ease-of-use with dry yeast. My highest rated beer (APA that took 2nd place BoS) used US-05.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

So my question becomes, should I just buy cheaper dry yeast and not worry about it when it comes to an American pale ale or IPA and just let US-05 grind its way through those?

There are some in-depth threads active talking about the genetics of various yeasts. US-05, WY1056 and WLP001 are closely related. US-05 is closer to one of those liquid yeast versions (I forget which one) than they are to each other. There are plenty of people that say they produce the exact same beer, and others that have a preference for one of the other. If you can do a side by side split batch, it might help you decide. That said, I did a split batch with WLP001 vs WLP051 and I could not detect the odd beer out in a triangle test...so I doubt I could detect differences in the Chico strains.

I have been a fan of liquid yeasts for a long time, but given the quality and number of offerings of dried yeast these days, I have thought about swapping to 100% dried for a while and see how it goes. I do often harvest and reuse yeast, but it is a pain to store harvested jars and the long shelf life of dried yeast is appealing.

 

[bkboiler]

I'm sure some people will chime in with some lab sources...
But from my anecdotal evidence I've gotten different beers from them.
Bear in mind us-05 has been dried and wlp001 is liquid...so even if microbiologically it's the exact same organism, it's going to be a different level of "yeastie happiness" when it gets into your wort. I prefer wlp001 from a flavor perspective, but rarely use it since us-05 is cheaper, more shelf stable, higher cell count, and I've gotten good enough at using it that I get a clean ferment.
Close enough for gov't work.

 

[dmtaylor]

These are NOT the same. US-05 attenuates about 10% more than WLP001 or 1056. On the genetic tree, these are in quite different branches.

 

[cgoldberg3]

These are NOT the same. US-05 attenuates about 10% more than WLP001 or 1056. On the genetic tree, these are in quite different branches.

Hmm. So if you want to use them interchangeably, you'd need to adjust mash temperature to account for more or less attenuation.

 

[dmtaylor]

Hmm. So if you want to use them interchangeably, you'd need to adjust mash temperature to account for more or less attenuation.

Indeed. And better yet, mash TIME. A short mash of say 25-30 minutes can decrease attenuation / increase FG even more dramatically than mashing hot. And a loooong mash of say 2 hours or more will reduce FG / increase attenuation as long as it's ANYWHERE within about the goldilocks zone like 145 to 160 F.