[Steve Ruch]

How do these two compare? Is it true that the 97 is a dry version of WLP051?

[HoosierBrew]

As for the first question, I haven't used 97. For the second, IIRC Mark said that BRY97 was taken from what we know as WY1272/WL051.

[hopfenundmalz]

 BRY-97 has more esters. It starts SLOW.

[Frankenbrew]

BRY-97 has more esters. It starts SLOW.

^^^^Yes, exactly!

[Steve Ruch]

BRY-97 has more esters. It starts SLOW.

^^^^Yes, exactly!

Good to know, thanks.

[bayareabrewer]

even thought they are definitely different strains, they don't taste remarkably different to me. My palate may not be as refined as y'alls, but I don't think substituting one for the other is going to make or break your recipe.

[PORTERHAUS]

I had a kick where I used the Bry-97 for several batches. I kind of agree with the last post that they are different but not all that different in flavor. But Bry-97 does floculate harder and faster and I felt it did take some of the hops with it (on the hoppy beers I used it on anyway). Makes me want to try this yeast again, maybe I will the next time I have something calling for US-05 like I usually use.

[mabrungard]

I've got a pale ale on tap now that used BRY-97. Pretty clean tasting. I would use it again.

[dmtaylor]

I used BRY-97 one time, last year for an ESB.  Lag time was 30 hours.  It turned out fine but nothing to really write home about.  It did seem to accentuate the malt flavors and leave the hops in the back seat I thought.  I also noted that it took 5-6 months of cellar aging before the beer tasted really quite good, before that it was a little hazy and just kind of muddled... can't say for sure anymore as my memory is pretty bad.  I still have two bottles left, I can taste one next week (I'm on-call for work right now, dang it).  Got 78% apparent attenuation.

US-05...... well we all know what that one does, and it's pretty good.  Attenuation is way higher at like 80-85%.

[erockrph]

Just chiming in to agree with a few of the things said. I do feel that it seems to mute the hops a bit. It also tends to finish a couple of points higher than US-05 in the same recipe. I wouldn't hesitate to use it in something like a brown ale or a small porter. But since the majority of the beers I use a clean ale strain for are hoppy, I keep US-05 on hand at all times but not BRY-97.

[dmtaylor]

I keep US-05 on hand at all times but not BRY-97.

Ditto, although I think I might be changing my mind because I don't always want such high attenuation, plus, I am more of a malt-head and don't mind hops getting muted in more of my beers.  Hmm, gotta think about this... also I might just want to keep Windsor on hand at all times for similar but more extreme reasons, since it only gets 60-62% attenuation.......

[hopfenundmalz]

The one time I used BRY-97 it was for a Ballantine IPA clone. It produced more mouthfeel than Chico. My note was to use the sugar that was in the original recipe I had worked from. I did that recently, and use WLP-051 instead and that had a starter so the lag was reasonable.

[Steve Ruch]

I had a kick where I used the Bry-97 for several batches. I kind of agree with the last post that they are different but not all that different in flavor. But Bry-97 does floculate harder and faster.

That's a good reason to keep some on hand.

[bboy9000]

Many of you likely remember Mark's post in these yeast strains.  An interesting read:

A Yeast Hypothesis

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehomebrewersassociation%2Eorg%2Fforum%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D18875&share_tid=18875&share_fid=40079&share_type=t

[hopfenundmalz]

Many of you likely remember Mark's post in these yeast strains.  An interesting read:

A Yeast Hypothesis

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehomebrewersassociation%2Eorg%2Fforum%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D18875&share_tid=18875&share_fid=40079&share_type=t

That is why I have use the BRY-97/WLP-051 for a few clones. Before that I was using Chico, BRY-96/001/1056.