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

[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.

 

[kal]

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

Whether the yeast originated from dry or liquid, both can be washed and re-used.

Kal

 

[jmcquesten]

Whether the yeast originated from dry or liquid, both can be washed and re-used.

Kal

*no* reason it wouldn't work

 

[kal]

Oops! Correct. I completely missed that I missed a word!

Kal

 

[TrubHead]

Oops! Correct. I completely missed that I missed a word!

Kal

Thanks. Thought I was losing it.

 

[rayfound]

Any plans to try comparisons like this of other strains?

Such as S-04 vs WLP007?

This was great, and gives me the justification I need to just be lazy on an occasional beer, skip the starter, and pitch in a packet of US-05.

 

[kal]

Any plans to try comparisons like this of other strains?

Such as S-04 vs WLP007?

Nope! Sorry. While I've heard reports that s-04 is supposedly the same strain as WLP007 (Wyeast 1098), I'm not a big user of S-04 so I'm not really interested in brewing up a comparison batch.

I only did this comparison as US-05 is the yeast I probably use 80% of the time given the styles I like.

Give that S-04/WLP007 comparison a go yourself and report back your findings. I'm sure others would like to hear about it.

Kal

 

[rayfound]

Give that S-04/WLP007 comparison a go yourself and report back your findings. I'm sure others would like to hear about it.

Kal

I may try... Unfortunately, I haven't been a big fan of either beer I've made with S-04, so I am reluctant to try again, but my Cousin who I brew with a lot uses WLP007 for 60% of his beer... and I have no problems with it... so I'm at a loss.

 

[JuanMoore]

Any plans to try comparisons like this of other strains?

Such as S-04 vs WLP007?

This was great, and gives me the justification I need to just be lazy on an occasional beer, skip the starter, and pitch in a packet of US-05.

I split a batch of IPA between S04 and WLP007, and they are definitely not the same strain. The computer that had all of my notes from back then crashed, and I don't remember the details, but I do remember them being significantly different, and I remember having a slight preference for the WLP007.

 

[samorg42]

I was using Wyeast smack packs for ales, rye, and IPA. The smack packs were fine but expensive and I had a smack pack blow up when I smacked it and had to use what was left because of the extreme distance to the brew store. I tried Safale 05 based on good ratings. It has twice the yeast cells, costs half as much, stores longer and so far so good. I keep half a dozen in the freezer.