[The Professor]

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.

[dbarber]

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.

[hoser]

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 have noted this as well.

[richardt]

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.

[Hokerer]

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

[thebigbaker]

The last 5 gallon batch I did (10/2011) was an APA @ 1.052 using US-05.  I could be wrong, but I don't think at this gravity, using a full pack of US-05 isn't under-pitching.  As I recall, I didn't taste any "fruitiness" and there's no notation of it in my notes for that brew.  The times I've used US-05 for my 3 gallon batches have all turned out great.  I'm going to try 1056 with my next 3gal APA to see if there is a difference.  I've been very pleased with the way my APAs have turned out w/ US-05, but I'll try anything that could make my beers even better!

[richardt]

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

That's not my understanding.  It just doesn't have the 30 minutes of glycogen to give it the extra "kick."  It hurts nothing and allows you to grow your numbers to the desired level.

http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/can-you-make-starter-dry-yeast-269561/

Again, I think those with the perception that US-05 is "more fruity" should work on proper rehydration, attemperation, and pitch rates if they're looking for a cleaner beer.

[hoser]

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

That's not my understanding.  It just doesn't have the 30 minutes of glycogen to give it the extra "kick."  It hurts nothing and allows you to grow your numbers to the desired level.

http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/can-you-make-starter-dry-yeast-269561/

Again, I think those with the perception that US-05 is "more fruity" should work on proper rehydration, attemperation, and pitch rates if they're looking for a cleaner beer.

I am not sure creating a starter would be a true side-by-side comparision, either.  I don't think creating a starter hurts dry yeast, but it changes things.  Using the same pitching rate of viable healthy cells with as accurate a cell count as possible would probably be more accurate, but difficult to do at home.

[bluesman]

I agree with Dr. Clayton Cone on the rehydration issue.

Rehydrating the yeast is the best way to get the most yield from the dry yeast, but I'm not convinced that making a starter from dry yeast will make better (cleaner) beer and to the contrary may only deplete valuable glycogen reserves prior to ferment and therefore stress the yeast upon fermentation of the wort.

YMMV

[richardt]

"We recommend that the rehydrated yeast be added to the wort within 30
minutes. We have built into each cell a large amount of glycogen and
trehalose that give the yeast a burst of energy to kick off the growth
cycle when it is in the wort. It is quickly used up if the yeast is
rehydrated for more than 30 minutes. There is no damage done here if it is
not immediatly add to the wort. You just do not get the added benefit of
that sudden burst of energy."  --Dr. Cone

Rehydrate and pitch within 30 minutes or you will have NO "valuable glycogen reserves" to help kick start the ferment.
Yeast starters may not have yeast cells with glycogen and trehalose reserves; but, they do not need them since the wort (in both the starter flask and the fermentor) contains the sugars needed.  I don't follow your statement that dry yeast which has been placed in a starter (and its reserves used up) would be any more "stressed" than liquid yeast which has been placed in a starter.  I maintain that both would be merrily chugging along and "ready to go" when pitched.

I do get that a starter for dry yeast isn't necessary so long as rehydration with proper temp and moderately-hard water is performed (adequate cell counts) and proper pitch rates are determined (# if packets for batch size and gravity).

I do think JZ and Chris White's recent book "Yeast" may be overstating the mantra that "dry yeast in a starter = BAD," when it may be more correctly stated that when "properly rehydrated, and promptly pitched, dry yeast doesn't need a starter." 

Re-read what the experts have to say, and keep in mind that some of them have skin in the game and their answers may reflect that.

[roguejim]

The last APA I entered in a BJCP comp was Fred's Late Hopped Amarillo pale ale, except that I used 1 packet of US-05.  The beer's gravity was 1.047.  I always aerate.  Some of the comments were that the beer had "esters of pear".  I didn't perceive these comments to be necessarily negative.  It took the Blue Ribbon.

[denny]

The last APA I entered in a BJCP comp was Fred's Late Hopped Amarillo pale ale, except that I used 1 packet of US-05.  The beer's gravity was 1.047.  I always aerate.  Some of the comments were that the beer had "esters of pear".  I didn't perceive these comments to be necessarily negative.  It took the Blue Ribbon.

Pear esters are a common observation with 05.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[johnf]

My personal preference and what I use in competition, which are always the same thing, is 1272.

[gordonstrong]

I like Wyeast 1272 in an AIPA and Wyeast 1968 fermented cool (62F) in an APA.

[narcout]

It took the Blue Ribbon.

For what it's worth, I've also won a ribbon with an APA fermented with US-05.  Though it was a white ribbon and not a blue one.