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

[kal]

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

 

[lockwom]

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.

 

[kal]

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

 

[OCBrewin]

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 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.

 

[mtnagel]

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.

 

[kal]

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'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.

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.

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

 

[JuanMoore]

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

 

[OCBrewin]

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

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.

 

[y2jrock60]

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.

 

[thadius856]

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.

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.

 

[Jon73]

Thanks for the experiment. I just did a milk stout with 2 packs of dry yeast (SO-4) and it took off just as quick as if I had made a starter with liquid yeast. Made me wonder why I don't use dry for my Ales and save myself the time and trouble. Now I'm given a little info to back up my future laziness.

 

[BigFloyd]

Thanks for the experiment. I just did a milk stout with 2 packs of dry yeast (SO-4) and it took off just as quick as if I had made a starter with liquid yeast. Made me wonder why I don't use dry for my Ales and save myself the time and trouble.

I just bottled a milk chocolate stout this weekend that was done on about 1/4 of the cake from a batch of ESB that turned out great. The yeast was S-04. The stout should turn out nice as well based on a taste at bottling time. My next batch of ESB (one of my fav styles to have on tap) will be on Wyeast 1968 ESB to see if there's a significant difference.

Now I'm given a little info to back up my future laziness.

I'm always on the lookout for that kind of info.

I've lost count of the posts on HBT where someone way under-pitched with a single vial or smackpack (no starter) and was then concerned that their ferment wasn't going well or that they had some off-flavors. If making something like an amber ale (another of my favs), 'tis much preferable to pitch a pack of rehydrated US-05 and have enough cells for wort up to 1.060 than to under-pitch a single smackpack of 1056 or vial of WLP001 w/o doing a starter.

 

[thadius856]

I've lost count of the posts on HBT where someone way under-pitched with a single vial or smackpack (no starter) and was then concerned that their ferment wasn't going well or that they had some off-flavors.[/FONT]

Right. I just finished a 16 hour brew day a few days ago. On the last batch, I realized I hadn't ran it through YeastCalc to check how many cell I'd need, the viability of the packet, etc.

"Ugh. Whatever. I'm tired." So I pitched two S-04 packets into a 11g batch of 1.039 and went to bed. Turns out, I needed 304b cells and had about 220b viable in a packet, so two was well within reason. It only cost me an extra $3 and 10 seconds or so to shave 30 minutes off a very long brew day. Worth every penny.

 

[kal]

UPDATE: WHAT ABOUT HOPPY BEERS?

I've now done the same 3-way blind tasting on my Electric Hop Stand Pale Ale that 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 the previous Blonde Ale experiment I discuss in this thread. Same experiment, but now with a hoppy beer that's been in the keg for ~4 weeks so it is at its prime.

Two glasses were filled half way with WY1056 fermented beer, one with US-05 fermented beer. My wife again mixed them up so that I wouldn't know which was which.

The results were the same as with the lighter beer. Try as a I might, I could not pick out which of the 3 beers was fermened with US-05. I just couldn't tell at all. I tried with the beer cold (38-40F) and then again 20 minutes later after they had warmed up a bit. I just couldn't tell and would have been guessing. I did guess, thinking that maybe I was tasting something different in one of the samples, but again I was wrong both times. My wife didn't try the experiment as she's not a fan of hoppy beers (more for me).

Conclusion: To my tastebuds both lighter (delicate) beers as well as hoppy beers do not taste any different. These are the two styles I make the most with US-05 so I will continue to use it as I've done for years as I find it so much easier to use.

Eventually I will also try US-05 against White Labs WLP-001 California Ale. It's based on the same Chico strain. I have two vials of this in the fridge now so my next American style hoppy beer with be half fermented with this. I fully expect the same results but just need to be sure for my own curiosity.

If anyone else tries this test please post your results here. I'd be curious to hear if anyone with more refined tastebuds tastes any differences.

Cheers!

Kal

 

[cuda6pak]

Great info! Makes me want to stay with the dry yeasts I've done in all my beers so far (3)

 

[kal]

Great info! Makes me want to stay with the dry yeasts I've done in all my beers so far (3)

Just to be clear, the same cannot be said for a comparison of other dry yeasts to a (supposed) liquid equivalent. I do use a lot of liquid yeasts, many of which (IMHO) have no dry counterpart.

The Chico strain US-05 dry yeast is one of my favourites so I've always wanted to do this test to see if I'd enjoy the liquid version better (which I didn't) but I'll continue to use liquid where I need to such as WY1968, WY3068, etc.

Kal

 

[eastoak]

US-05 has been my yeast for 90% of the beer i brew but recently (on 2 occasions) my homebrewing neighbor asked me to taste 2 glasses of beer and tell him which i liked better. he brewed a 10 gallon batch and fermented with 001 and 1056 but he did not mention this at first he just wanted my feedback on which beer i liked best. both times i picked 001 as the better beer (both APA). the hop flavor and aroma was good in both but the 001 hops tasted brighter and richer. i'll still use US-05 because i love the time savings but the APA i recently fermented with 001 has been a big hit and the mason jars of yeast i saved will definitely be put to use this summer.

 

[eric19312]

US-05 has been my yeast for 90% of the beer i brew but recently (on 2 occasions) my homebrewing neighbor asked me to taste 2 glasses of beer and tell him which i liked better. he brewed a 10 gallon batch and fermented with 001 and 1056 but he did not mention this at first he just wanted my feedback on which beer i liked best. both times i picked 001 as the better beer (both APA). the hop flavor and aroma was good in both but the 001 hops tasted brighter and richer. i'll still use US-05 because i love the time savings but the APA i recently fermented with 001 has been a big hit and the mason jars of yeast i saved will definitely be put to use this summer.

Interesting point. How do these yeasts evolve generation to generation? I typically go at least 4 generations off US-05 and believe there may be some differences generation to generation. I should maybe repeat OPs experiments with first (dry) vs a later generation....

 

[kal]

US-05 has been my yeast for 90% of the beer i brew but recently (on 2 occasions) my homebrewing neighbor asked me to taste 2 glasses of beer and tell him which i liked better. he brewed a 10 gallon batch and fermented with 001 and 1056 but he did not mention this at first he just wanted my feedback on which beer i liked best. both times i picked 001 as the better beer (both APA). the hop flavor and aroma was good in both but the 001 hops tasted brighter and richer. i'll still use US-05 because i love the time savings but the APA i recently fermented with 001 has been a big hit and the mason jars of yeast i saved will definitely be put to use this summer.

Thanks for posting. How old were the two beers you tried? Reason I ask is that while I didn't do a real blind 3-way testing of my US-05/WY1056 beers when I first kegged them, I did do some tasting almost weekly and I could ave sworn that they tasted different at first, but by the time I did actually do the 3-way blind test (~6 weeks after kegging) they tasted identical.

WLP001 may be slighly different of course. I need to put my two vials of it to the test!

Kal

 

[eastoak]

Thanks for posting. How old were the two beers you tried? Reason I ask is that while I didn't do a real blind 3-way testing of my US-05/WY1056 beers when I first kegged them, I did do some tasting almost weekly and I could ave sworn that they tasted different at first, but by the time I did actually do the 3-way blind test (~6 weeks after kegging) they tasted identical.

WLP001 may be slighly different of course. I need to put my two vials of it to the test!

Kal

i'm not sure how long they had been in the bottle/keg since i was not the brewer but i know he was brewing test batches for one of the local breweries that invited him to brew in their brewery (triple rock in berkeley). they were probably pretty fresh because i know he had not taken them over to triple rock yet.

i think that those yeasts are identical in the sense that they do not introduce any flavors but they each allow a different version of the ingredients to show through.

 

[mysterio]

Great experiment. For my tastes there's no comparison, I'll use WLP001 or 1056 every time. I find the liquid versions 'cleaner', and that I can taste the underlying malt and hop components.

I like to drink my beer young, though (ferment, leave it a couple of days, keg, then serve all within 10 days) - perhaps this accounts for it.

 

[kal]

I like to drink my beer young, though (ferment, leave it a couple of days, keg, then serve all within 10 days) - perhaps this accounts for it.

I think so. If had to drink it that young I'd be using WY1056 as well as it was cleaner tasting when very young but as timewent on I couldn't tell them apart. By the time it was in the keg and had a couple of weeks to carb up and condition, I couldn't tell them apart.

Some beer like Hefeweizen are bet when drunk really young, but I find that most anything else really gets better after a 2-3 weeks (minimum) of conditioning in the keg near freezing.

Any reason why you like to drink your beer young?

Kal

 

[kal]

So to close the loop on this: 2 days ago both my wife and I tested the Blonde Ale where half was fermented with Safale US-05 dry yeast and the other half with White Labs WLP-001 California Ale liquid yeast.

The beer was kegged on June 13, 2013 so it was allowed to carbonate and condition for nearly 7 weeks before tasting.

We did the same 3 way test where you try and point out which beer is the different one: Two glasses of beer fermented with WLP001, 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 then tried and she was able to pick out the US-05 beer successfully. She found it be very slightly fruitier, the WLP001 slightly more 'tannic'. I re-shuffled and she again picked out the US-05 beer successfully.

I tried them side by side (knowing which was which) and then tried again to pick it out blindly and was successful in picking out the US-05 knowing what to look for this time. I prefer the US-05 but they're so similar that I doubt most people would notice (I didn't until I knew what to look for).

The conclusions I can draw:

- The difference between WLP001 and US-05 is extremely subtle in lighter beers. (The difference may be lost on on hoppier beers - I don't plan on testing this)
- WY1056 and US-05 taste the same to both of us in both lighter and hoppy beers.
- For my use, I see no need to use WLP001 or WY1056.
- My wife is better at differentiating tastes. Probably because I've killed my taste buds with 100+ IBU beers over the years.

Kal

 

[bob1852]

Good stuff!!

Maybe I'll take on the hoppy beer challenge with US-05 v. 1056.

The biggrest challenge I encountered during a previous experimemt (greenbelt v. 001) is to make sure the chilled wort is adequately mixed before separating and mixing.

It's probably not an issue with lightly hopped beers, but there has to be a noticeable difference if you just drain into one fermemter and then keep draining into the next fermenter. That second run has got to be affected by sitting on all that hop sludge for a longer time.

Hmmmmm, maybe my first experiment will be to use 05 on both split batches without mixing and see if there is a hop flavor difference between the two runs. (Of course this is all variable depending on your system/chilling methods/etc)

 

[Gold_Robber]

The conclusions I can draw:

- The difference between WLP001 and US-05 is extremely subtle in lighter beers. (The difference may be lost on on hoppier beers - I don't plan on testing this)
- WY1056 and US-05 taste the same to both of us in both lighter and hoppy beers.
- For my use, I see no need to use WLP001 or WY1056.
- My wife is better at differentiating tastes. Probably because I've killed my taste buds with 100+ IBU beers over the years.

Kal

Thanks for starting this thread, Kal, and all the work that you've done behind the scenes. The experiments have been a real eye-opener.

 

[grathan]

I didn't see if you mentioned ferm temps in any of the experiments. I know that I can taste the difference, but I haven't used US-05 since I used to ferment at 69*F ambient.

 

[kal]

I didn't see if you mentioned ferm temps in any of the experiments. I know that I can taste the difference, but I haven't used US-05 since I used to ferment at 69*F ambient.

Fermented at 64-66F ambient.

Kal

 

[msa8967]

So would using washed US-05 yeast from a low SG batch yield the same basic yeast profile as 1056? Some brewers think that washing a batch of beer that fermented with dry yeast is a waste of time but I think it would be interesting to compare washed US-05 with Wyeast 1056 and/or WL001.

 

[kal]

Washed yeast in an ideal situation results in yeast that's the same as the original. If the yeast was stressed or there were issues, or it's been re-used too many times and it's mutuated, the results may be different. (For example, they'll say if you want to reuse yeast, go from the lowest OG to the highest beers like Pale Ale -> IPA -> IIPA, and then don't reuse yeast from something with a high gravity like an IIPA).

I never bother reusing dry yeast but there's reason why it wouldn't work.

Kal

 

[TrubHead]

Washed yeast in an ideal situation results in yeast that's the same as the original. If the yeast was stressed or there were issues, or it's been re-used too many times and it's mutuated, the results may be different. (For example, they'll say if you want to reuse yeast, go from the lowest OG to the highest beers like Pale Ale -> IPA -> IIPA, and then don't reuse yeast from something with a high gravity like an IIPA).

I never bother reusing dry yeast but there's reason why it wouldn't work.

Kal

"there's reason why it wouldn't work." - Not understanding this statement.