I must admit that I’ve gotten lazy, and have gotten in a dry yeast rut, in particular, overusing US-05. For those of you who do well in comps, and are willing to sell the farm, what are your “go to” yeast strains for comp-quality APAs and AIPAs? Just to be clear, I’m not interested so much in anyone’s personal favorite strain, but what the comp people choose for comps.
US-05, WYeast 1056, White Labs 001 
Denny’s Choice is good too. Rogue’s Pacman can be good too add can WYeast 1272.
These are my choices anyway.
After years of telling myself 05 was basically comparable to 1056, I recently did a split batch. Although it wasn’t a blind tasting, I thought 1056 was noticeably cleaner than 05.
WLP007 Dry English Ale. Great attenuation, ferments quick (3-4 days), clean, a little more “characterful” than chico, and floccs almost like WLP002 when finished.
WLP060 American Ale yeast blend.
Slightly more subdued hop character than 001, leaves a little bit more maltiness and clears the beer better.
Do you make starters with your liquid yeasts? You might be tasting the difference between the population of the yeast added more than the difference between the US-05 and 1056. Then, maybe it is the yeast.
Me? Always.
so far, WY 1272 appears to be going over the best, and…more importantly…it’s my favorite too.
cheers–
–Michael
My Amer. IPA’s have done pretty well in some bigger (400 entry) competitions. For my tastes, 1450 is great. It has this wonderful mouthfeel that seems to take some of the harsh edges off of the hops. It doesn’t allow the hop aroma to come through as well as 1056 but there’s an easy solution for that! More dry hops! The other thing I like is that I don’t seem to have to use as much crystal malt as I used to with 1056 to get the same malt impression.
Regarding US-05, I totally agree with Denny. Having done numerous side by sides 1056 is the way to go. I know a lof of folks really like it but IMO it doesn’t make the same quality beer. If you are serious about doing well in competition, I would go for the liquid yeast (with a starter of course) to give yourself the best shot.
I’ve always thought so as well.
The two may have the same basic origins, but I don’t see how they drying process would not affect the yeast. The dry yeast manufacturers have certainly gotten good at delivering a good product, much better than in past years. But it seems to me that the drying process would surely morph the original yeast into something at least somewhat different. Then again, I’m not a biologist… :-\
Re the OP’s comments, as far as “getting lazy” with a particular yeast, if you have something you like and it works, using it as a standard isn’t being lazy at all. I have probably 5 or 6 different strains banked that I grow and use from time to time, but at least 95% of my brews (of various types) are made with the same ‘house’ yeast I’ve used since the late '80’s. I know what to expect from it, it works in a wide variety of styles, and has always been dependable.
I use US-05 in my APAs and AIPAs. My last APA won bronze in a local homebrew competition here in Denver put on by Dry Dock Brewery/ Brew Hut. I’m only doing three gallon batches and use the entire packet of yeast. I haven’t tried 1056, so maybe that’s what will get me gold next time.
I like WY1056 and WLP001 the best. They seem to give me the cleanest flavor profile plus they attenuate fairly well. I also like WLP002 because it floccs out really well, but you have to adjust your mash temp down 2-3 degrees to get the same attenuation as the American strains.
I also agree with Denny in regards to US05. I get a very slight fruitiness from it.
Oh, I see now to who it is that I am replying
I guess I knew the answer to my question. I am glad to find you in this great forum.
Tom
Yeah, when I saw your question earlier, all I could think was a standard line from those old cowboy movies… “you’re not from around these parts, are you?”
There should not be any genetic effects of drying the yeast (so no morphing into something else), but there are very likely epigenetic effects (changes in gene expression and other non-genetic differences). I think it would be interesting to compare the results after repitching in identical beers a few times, see if they perform more similarly. They should in theory.
That makes sense. I may have to try that experiment of repitching the dry and wet versions through multiple batches. I’ve often wondered about this, especially given the general consensus that 05 seems to finish dryer than WL01 or WY1056.
Interesting beasties, these yeasties.
I almost always use 1056 in my apa and aipa. I once did a split batch for a beer dinner using 05 and 1056. The 1056 was much cleaner and the 05 was more fruity. I served the 05 first and kept the remaining 1056 for myself.
I have noted this as well.
With US-05 being perceived as “more fruity” that just suggests to me that it was “more stressed” during the first 24-48 hours of pitching. That could be due to underpitching (using one instead of two packets), not hydrating the dry yeast (to help reform the cell walls before being pitched into high gravity wort), and having to rev up cellular metabolism from a dormant state (unlike the liquid yeast which has been reved up metabolically in a starter prior to pitching). Most of us are lazy and just dump dry US-05 right into the wort. Kind of like pushing freshly-hatched birds out of the nest, i.e., “fly or die.”
IMO, a true side-by-side comparison would involve making a starter of 1056 and US-05 prior to pitching.
rehydrating is one thing, but making a starter for a dry yeast actually hurts things