WLP001 vs WyEast 1056 vs US-05
Here is my opinion on the matter.
Wyeast 1056 = US-05... they behave the same in every way. I've been doing little observations over the last few years. It might be worth a split batch to finalise these opinions, however they both need fining in the fermenter to aid in flocculation, they are both producers of "vanilla" type esters at 22 degrees plus... also they both ferment quite happily at the 15 degree mark.
WLP001 on the other hand drops bright at 5 degrees and less... it also flocs on its own at room temp (over time). At warmer temps, the ester is "fruity" compared to "vanillary". The palate this yeast creates is fuller compared to the other 2 - the mouthfeel as a result has more "presence"...
In my opinion - out of the 3 strains, WLP001 is superior. Dont get me wrong though: they are all very good strains, however if I were to choose 1 out of the lot... I'd pick 001.
Let the debate rage.
Wyeast 1056 = US-05... they behave the same in every way. I've been doing little observations over the last few years. It might be worth a split batch to finalise these opinions, however they both need fining in the fermenter to aid in flocculation, they are both producers of "vanilla" type esters at 22 degrees plus... also they both ferment quite happily at the 15 degree mark.
WLP001 on the other hand drops bright at 5 degrees and less... it also flocs on its own at room temp (over time). At warmer temps, the ester is "fruity" compared to "vanillary". The palate this yeast creates is fuller compared to the other 2 - the mouthfeel as a result has more "presence"...
In my opinion - out of the 3 strains, WLP001 is superior. Dont get me wrong though: they are all very good strains, however if I were to choose 1 out of the lot... I'd pick 001.
Let the debate rage.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James P on
-
I poured striaght onto slurry when I forgot to by more yeast... best lag time I ever had!
-
Permalink Reply by jt on
-
I pitched onto a whole yeastcake once and had an almost instataneous ferment and a real quick one at that - at which point Stu pointed out the link to mrmalty for the correct quantity of slurry.
I'd like to reuse yeast more, but can't be bothered going to too much fuss with starters etc. If I could keg, bottle or rack one day and then save a cup of slurry to use the next day without a starter I'd probably do it.
(just how long could you save slurry before needing a starter ?)
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Neilson on
-
Its called a conical fermenter!!
-
-
Permalink Reply by denimglen on
-
Yeah I found this as well.
I was buying liquid strains for styles I didn't brew often but the dry equivalents wouldn't do them justice (kolsch, Cal common, weizen), so would have ended up using a $25 yeast per beer, so I started to freeze. -
-
-
The usual reason stated for not reusing dry yeast is that the risk of contamination and all that outweigh the 'cheap price' of dry yeast.
However - if they are all so similar, what is a valid argument for paying upwards of $20 for the liquid version, when the dry version is available at all homebrew shops?
Kinda already mentioned but yeah, say 25 bucks for a smack pack, 2000mL starter, split into 10 vials, say each vial gives three gens of yeast, less than a dollar a shot for yeast, excluding starter wort cost.
Can't see any reason not to use dry yeast, but if I'm going to all that trouble I'd rather spend the extra and go with the liquid version.
-
Permalink Reply by vdog on
-
I'm just in the process of fermenting a split batch of American Pale Ale - 20L in each fermenter, one with US-05 and one with 1272 (kindly donated by Shane Morley during the Steam Brewing tour a couple of months ago). It'll be really interesting to see what difference there is, if any. Both are fermenting right next to each other, so exactly the same handling, temperature etc.
This is the first time I've tried a liquid yeast, so really keen to see how it goes. It was a slower starter than the 05, no idea whether that'll make a difference in the end.
As an aside, having dry-hopped both batches, is it still possible to harvest and reuse some of that 1272?
-
-
Sadly, this has not gone well at all. Being liquid yeast novices we didn't get the smack pack out early enough, but figured we'd just pitch it anyway, since it says you can. After four days of no action, we finally saw some activity - but tasting a sample last night it's pretty clear it's not the right kind - it tastes revolting. Kind of like rotting grapefruit. Not what we were looking for!
At the time 'nah, don't bother with a starter, too much hassle' seemed like such a good idea...
Don't know whether we'll bother with the liquids again in a hurry - as much as I want to see what they're like, this experience has really just confirmed my faith in good old '05!
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Bridges on
-
If you directly pitched the 1272 from Shane then you're likely to struggle. I''d generally make a starter up for any liquid yeast, and especially for one that's several months old.
That being said, it sounds like you have some sort of infection, which isn't necessarily from the yeast.
As a general rule, I don't believe the instructions on yeast packets. The dry yeasts suggest you can sprinkle them on top of the wort - I wouldn't, I'd always rehydrate first. The Wyeast packs suggest you can just tip it in - I'd always make a starter.
-
-
General rule is for every month past manufactor you need to smack and let it sit... I have had a nine month old pack of Wyeast take a week or so to swell, but it took off once in the wort.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on
-
I know a commercial craft brewer in the states that uses dried s-23 for all his lagers just opens the top of the fermenter and pours it in dry. He's won a few medals at gabf as well so it can't be too bad.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Help Fund This Site
FRESH LIQUID YEAST!!!
DIRECT FROM THE LAB
AMAZING VIABILITY
Luke's Beer+
Events
© 2024 Created by nzbrewer.
Powered by
