We are looking at brewing a standard ale. In the region of a Kolsch, but American style. Not an IPA.
More simply put, an American Pils, but fermented with a neutral ale yeast.
We have years of experience with 1056. But how about SafAle? US-05?
I find that its nearly identical. Dry yeast is a nice alternative.
Might give the US-05 a try. We had fantastic results with the W-34/70.
Instead of US-05 I recommend Bry-97. …unless you like the peachy-ness of US-05. (Many do but I’m not one of them, which is why I like Bry -97).
1056 and US05 may have the same heritage but produce different results. I find 1056 far cleaner and would recommend that for your purposes. As a data point, Brulosophy tested 05 against WLP001. 001 won. We tested 1056 against 001. 1056 won. That says to me that 1056 is preferred over 05, which is my opinion also.
THIS^^^^^
I also have experiences peachy flavors with US-05 many times. I tried fermenting at 68-69F last time I used it and that was much better. No peach.
But, Bry-97 is way easier to use. No off flavors from 60-70 or even wider range.
I have also tried Mangrove Jack’s M44. It is easy to use and clean also.
Mangrove Jack’s M36 is a great yeast if you want more character. I use it for Ambers and English Pale Ales. Safale S04 is also good for these.
Lallemand London English-style Ale yeast has nice flavor for English Pale Ales. But, it doesn’t ferment maltotriose and leaves high FG. But, that high FG isn’t really noticeable when drinking the beer.
I have been thinking about Wyeast 1056 ever since Chris Large at the University of Washington replied to my inquiry. Chris is a graduate student on the yeast research team that is studying the different sources of this strain in use. Here is part of his reply:
"Furthermore, we were a little thrown off up until recently by some sequencing of BRY-97 that placed it outside of the American brewing yeast strains (we now think that sequencing was of a contaminant). We have since received a copy of the original deposited strain from Tobias. I’m still in the process of finishing the analysis on it, but it appears that the strain is really closely related to Wyeast1056. As well, we got some info from Tobias about BRY-97: “BRY-97 was re-isolated from a brewery that originally bought Siebel’s BRY-96. The new isolate had some superior characteristics e.g. better flocculation. That is why we decided to use this isolate to commercialize as a dry yeast and call it BRY-97.” I wouldn’t be very surprised if Wyeast1056 is in fact a derivative of BRY-97, which is pretty neat (more analysis needed though). "
The quoted verbiage is from Tobias Fischborn. Tobias is a senior research scientist at Lallemand. I am beginning to believe that BRY-97 is actually Sierra Nevada’s culture, which is why BRY-97 matches Wyeast 1056 genetically so well. It is well-known that Sierra Nevada started with BRY-96. The head brewer has even mentioned it (he referred to it as culture #96). However, he also mentioned that Sierra Nevada now uses their own variant that is the result of selective pressure in their environment. We also know that 1056 came from Sierra Nevada. To have that close of a genetic match has to mean that BRY-97 is Sierra Nevada.
I would agree that BRY97 is a lot like 1056…but not identical in performance in my experience. That should be no surprise.
I can see an Experimental Homebrew experiment in the future. BRY-97 is definitely different than Wyeast 1056 performance-wise on the initial pitch, but how do these cultures differ in performance when repitched? Each batch of wort would have to split into two different fermentations, so that the experiment would be an apples to apples comparison. One thing that I know for certain is that BRY-97 is significantly more flocculent than Wyeast 1056. The culture forms large flocs and cropped slurry is thick. Here is a photo that I took of a BRY-97 crop I took.
I’m a WLP001 California Ale puppet.
Before I got good at lagers I used to make lots of blonde ales with WLP001. I would ferment in the low 60’s and those beers were clean, crisp, and delicious. I have tried those same recipes with US-05 and the beers have had a nasty peach cider flavor.
This mp3 from the White Labs website talks about the versatility of WLP001.
The OP mentions good results with 34/70. Would it be heresy to use that yeast for clean, malty “ales”?
I used London ESB in a split batch cream ale recently and liked it the best in a blind tasting. As a result I will be using it more in future. Clean and malty.
By “performance” I wasn’t necessarily referring to fermentation characteristics. I was thinking of the flavor and mouthfeel of the finished beer.
Absolutely not IMO. I’ve done it many times.
What ferment temp would you recommend for this? Maybe 70 - 72 F?
I’m brewing a Rye Pale Ale tomorrow with left-over 34/70, probably keeping it at 60-62F.
For ales, whether real or pseudo, I like to keep it 63-65F