Wyeast 1056 vs WLP 001

[couchsending]

They are not even close to the same strain imo. 1056 and us-05 have a mineral/dough flavor I don’t care for. I don’t get that at all from wlp001. Also 1056 and us-05 aren’t even in the same ballpark as the real Chico. Ive cultured that up a few times from Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. That’s a very good yeast! I’m actually going to bank some for the freezer! It’s a tad fruity fermented around 67f. Reminds me of fruity pebbles a little bit but it fades and cleans up with cold conditioning. It’s also a very slow yeast on first pitch (haven’t taken it farther than that). I’ve grown to really not like those two strains. They also have a mouthfeel to them wlp001 doesn’t. Wlp001 is much crisper and cleaner than 1056/us-05 also.

side note I rebrewed a cascade 2 row smash with 1056 and hate it. I just hate that yeast lol The real Chico version was awesome though

Pretty sure SN switched to a bottling strain around 2015 or so.

 

[eric19312]

I'd add this experiment to the fire
https://brulosophy.com/2017/04/03/y...afale-us-05-american-ale-exbeeriment-results/
I found this and the related one from experimental brewing actually stunning. We see so many Brulosophy experiments come back showing inability of the panel to reliably tell clearly different beers apart...beers with different final gravities, warm fermented vs cold fermented lagers, the list goes on and on to point where many just assume they must be totally inept at running what should be a simple comparison test...

And then you have two yeasts I've been told for years are more or less the same thing and bam...P=0.002...the tasters were able to reliably tell the beers apart.

 

[Vale71]

That test is just as worthless as any other Brülosophy test. They compared a liquid yeast with a dry yeast. Even if WLP001 and US-05 were the exact same strain (which we don't know) the drying process puts lots of strain on yeast and this results in a dramatically different fermentation profile. The profile will change noticeably if you harvest and reuse the (originally) dry yeast especially starting from the second/third harvest until it will become identical to the same strain delivered in liquid form. But of course one shouldn't expect this guy to know anything about that...

So basically they got the result they weren't expecting but anybody else who has the foggiest idea about brewing and yeast management would have expected. Oh well, at least their panel of tasters didn't fail in detecting what must have been quite a dramatic difference in taste profile, one has to give them that...

So to sum up, WLP001 might or might not be the same strain as US-05, Brülosophy's worthless experiment has neither proven not disproven that and we're none the wiser.

 

[rtstrider]

Pretty sure SN switched to a bottling strain around 2015 or so.

Direct from the source. They bottle with the same strain they ferment with.

I can tell a pretty significant difference but someone else may not be able to pick that up. Believe or not us-05 used to be the only strain I used lol Then I branched out a bit, to work on developing the palate, and came back around to it. My first time using 1056 was actually 3 months ago. Tastes so close to us-05 I don’t think I could reliably tell them apart in a blind taste test. I also brewed a lite blonde ale with wlp001 for comparison sake right after and yep! Much better/cleaner!

 

[eric19312]

Mash schedule is 145 for 75 min, and 155 for 10min although I'm considering 148 for the whole time. I'm adding 1.5 lbs of sugar, the FG is actually supposed to get down to about 1.006 - 1.008 ideally.

Thanks
Mike

Thats seems to be an unreasonable level of attenuation to expect for any of these yeasts. Can you link the recipe you are planning to follow?

I'm thinking you want extra large yeast pitch to avoid any chance of under attenuation. Maybe lager pitch rate. I'm less of a fan of repeating oxygenation x-hours after pitching yeast. Too much opportunity for the oxygen to mess with your hops.

 

[eric19312]

That test is just as worthless as any other Brülosophy test. They compared a liquid yeast with a dry yeast. Even if WLP001 and US-05 were the exact same strain (which we don't know) the drying process puts lots of strain on yeast and this results in a dramatically different fermentation profile. The profile will change noticeably if you harvest and reuse the (originally) dry yeast especially starting from the second/third harvest until it will become identical to the same strain delivered in liquid form. But of course one shouldn't expect this guy to know anything about that...

So basically they got the result they weren't expecting but anybody else who has the foggiest idea about brewing and yeast management would have expected. Oh well, at least their panel of tasters didn't fail in detecting what must have been quite a dramatic difference in taste profile, one has to give them that...

So to sum up, WLP001 might or might not be the same strain as US-05, Brülosophy's worthless experiment has neither proven not disproven that and we're none the wiser.

I follow your argument and agree I think I can tell the difference between my repitched US-05 and fresh packs. Never tried side by side let alone tried blind testing but I do expect to see getting airlock activity faster with harvested yeast.

I've been attributing the different to likely differences in pitching rates (I expect I underestimate the cell count of my harvested yeast) but I suppose the drying process could be contributor too.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

That test is just as worthless as any other Brülosophy test. They compared a liquid yeast with a dry yeast. Even if WLP001 and US-05 were the exact same strain (which we don't know)

Which we do know - they're not. As discussed in this thread following the Dunham lab's sequencing of many of the Chico family. 1056 and US-05 are in a subfamily that has a mutation in the BAT1 gene compared to the original BRY-96 group, which is repaired in the WLP001 subfamily. 1056 and WLP001 have both lost a copy of chromosome V as well compared to the BRY-96 group.

 

[dmtaylor]

I's just going to say the same thing @Northern_Brewer . These yeasts, 1056 vs WLP001 vs US-05 are all cousins at best, not really as similar as some once thought. Close, yeah, kind of. But not really the same at all.

Cheers.

 

[rtstrider]

Which we do know - they're not. As discussed in this thread following the Dunham lab's sequencing of many of the Chico family. 1056 and US-05 are in a subfamily that has a mutation in the BAT1 gene compared to the original BRY-96 group, which is repaired in the WLP001 subfamily. 1056 and WLP001 have both lost a copy of chromosome V as well compared to the BRY-96 group.
View attachment 719095

I want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. Is this stating bry-96 and the Elysian house strain are the same yeast?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Is this stating bry-96 and the Elysian house strain are the same yeast?

As has been a theme of this thread - they're not identical, but very, very close. They probably got their yeast direct from Seibel.

 

[bwible]

Back to the original question: I know this is an old post, but 1056 should be able to handle 10% if you treat it right. I typically would make a weaker beer first and ferment that, then pitch your 10% onto the yeast cake. I have made barleywine with 1056 many times.

For stronger beers, I’ve had great success with 1028 for darker beers like RIS. And 1728 also has a higher alcohol tolerance and is reportedly more versatie than I have been giving it credit for. I have a 1728 now that I plan to do a few beers with.

 

[dmtaylor]

I want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. Is this stating bry-96 and the Elysian house strain are the same yeast?

These are about as closely related as any two yeasts can possibly be related. I would consider them to be identical IMHO.