[denny]

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.

By "performance" I wasn't necessarily referring to fermentation characteristics.  I was thinking of the flavor and mouthfeel of the finished beer.

[denny]

The OP mentions good results with 34/70. Would it be heresy to use that yeast for clean, malty "ales"?

Absolutely not IMO.  I've done it many times.

[Bel Air Brewing]

The OP mentions good results with 34/70. Would it be heresy to use that yeast for clean, malty "ales"?

Absolutely not IMO.  I've done it many times.

What ferment temp would you recommend for this? Maybe 70 - 72 F?

[jeffy]

The OP mentions good results with 34/70. Would it be heresy to use that yeast for clean, malty "ales"?

Absolutely not IMO.  I've done it many times.

I’m brewing a Rye Pale Ale tomorrow with left-over 34/70, probably keeping it at 60-62F.

[denny]

The OP mentions good results with 34/70. Would it be heresy to use that yeast for clean, malty "ales"?

Absolutely not IMO.  I've done it many times.

What ferment temp would you recommend for this? Maybe 70 - 72 F?

For ales, whether real or pseudo, I like to keep it 63-65F

[Saccharomyces]

The weird thing about Frohberg lager strains is that they perform better at 22C than 8 to 10C like Saaz lager strains do having lost a good bit of the cryotolerance from S. eubayanus.  W-34/70 is the prototypical Frohberg strain.  I am assuming that W-34/70's forgiving nature is why it is the most popular lager strain in the world. However, it was Carlsberg Unterhefe #1 (CBS 1513 and Wyeast 2042 PC) combined with mechanical refrigeration that led to the industrial lager brewing revolution (Carlsberg Unterhefe No. 1 is the prototypical Saaz strain). Emil Hansen refused to capitalize on his discovery.  He freely shared it with the world like all good scientists do.  The strain used at Miller is a descendant of Carlsberg Unterhefe No. 1. I am fairly certain that Anheuser-Busch is using a derived Frohberg strain because their production fermentation temperature is in the mid-fifties.

[erockrph]

The weird thing about Frohberg lager strains is that they perform better at 22C than 8 to 10C like Saaz lager strains do having lost a good bit of the cryotolerance from S. eubayanus.  W-34/70 is the prototypical Frohberg strain.  I am assuming that W-34/70's forgiving nature is why it is the most popular lager strain in the world. However, it was Carlsberg Unterhefe #1 (CBS 1513 and Wyeast 2042 PC) combined with mechanical refrigeration that led to the industrial lager brewing revolution (Carlsberg Unterhefe No. 1 is the prototypical Saaz strain). Emil Hansen refused to capitalize on his discovery.  He freely shared it with the world like all good scientists do.  The strain used at Miller is a descendant of Carlsberg Unterhefe No. 1. I am fairly certain that Anheuser-Busch is using a derived Frohberg strain because their production fermentation temperature is in the mid-fifties.

WY2007 tastes dead-on for Budweiser to my palate, and it behaves quite well even in the upper 50's. Per Wyeast, it is the "classic American lager strain", so I've always assumed that it is AB's yeast.

[Saccharomyces]

WY2007 tastes dead-on for Budweiser to my palate, and it behaves quite well even in the upper 50's. Per Wyeast, it is the "classic American lager strain", so I've always assumed that it is AB's yeast.

It has been an open secret that Wyeast 2007 is from Anheuser-Busch for some time.  Most the yeast propagators were more open about the sources of their cultures in the nineties than they are today.  After all, brewing at the amateur level was a cottage industry, not a lifestyle. The major propagators have even changed the names of many of their cultures to obscure their origins.   Wyeast 2007 used to be called "American Lager."  That was at a time when American lager meant Budweiser.  Wyeast 2035 used to be called "New Ulm Lager."  It does not take a rocket scientist to determine the source of 2035 given that name.

[hopfenundmalz]

If y'all are comparing Chico Strains, why not from Sierra Nevada bottle conditioned beer to BRY-97? One of their people said what they have today is different from commercial examples.

[Iliff Ave]

Different opinion that no one Will agree with. 05 was my go to forever then I was hearing a lot of recommendations for 97 so I have used it in the last handful of batches.

In my experience, 97 is more sluggish, slower to clear, and leaves a bit more body. I find 05 to be more dry and neutral. I’ve never got the peach thing from 05 but just assume it exists at this point.

I think lallemand also promotes 97 as a strain capable of bio transformation

I’m not sure I have a preference and would use either depending on the circumstances.

[Saccharomyces]

In my experience, 97 is more sluggish, slower to clear, and leaves a bit more body. I find 05 to be more dry and neutral. I’ve never got the peach thing from 05 but just assume it exists at this point.

Have you ever repitched BRY 97? BRY-97 can be sluggish on the initial pitch if one pitches just one pack.  However, it performed like any other yeast strain when I repitched it.  BRY-97 is a very flocculent yeast strain.  It forms big flocs. The few times that I used US-05 I did not care for the results.  I could never get my head wrapped around why so many people like that strain. I have never been a big dry yeast user.  The dry brewing yeast that was available when I started to brew in the early nineties was so dreadful that I have only used it for spur of the moment brewing.  However, if I am going to use a dry ale yeast, it will more than likely be BRY-97.  I did not like Nottingham pitched by itself. Pitched with Windsor, Nottingham was okay. Windsor pitched by itself means high final gravity.  S-04 is okay, but not spectacular.  To be honest, all-grain beer has always been too much work for me to pitch dry yeast.  That may change after I get my brew house up and running. 

[Bel Air Brewing]

In my experience, 97 is more sluggish, slower to clear, and leaves a bit more body. I find 05 to be more dry and neutral. I’ve never got the peach thing from 05 but just assume it exists at this point.

Have you ever repitched BRY 97? BRY-97 can be sluggish on the initial pitch if one pitches just one pack.  However, it performed like any other yeast strain when I repitched it.  BRY-97 is a very flocculent yeast strain.  It forms big flocs. The few times that I used US-05 I did not care for the results.  I could never get my head wrapped around why so many people like that strain. I have never been a big dry yeast user.  The dry brewing yeast that was available when I started to brew in the early nineties was so dreadful that I have only used it for spur of the moment brewing.  However, if I am going to use a dry ale yeast, it will more than likely be BRY-97.  I did not like Nottingham pitched by itself. Pitched with Windsor, Nottingham was okay. Windsor pitched by itself means high final gravity.  S-04 is okay, but not spectacular.  To be honest, all-grain beer has always been too much work for me to pitch dry yeast.  That may change after I get my brew house up and running.

We were like you, in that dry yeast was thought of as inferior to liquid yeast. That is, until we tried W-34/70. Other than the longish lag time, it performed nicely, producing fantastic beers. And we have harvested this yeast multiple times, with each new generation improving in quality.

[tommymorris]

I like dry yeast, also. But, I recently purchased two 1 gallon jars (for SNS) and other gear to save and reuse slurries. Once reusing yeast the price difference between liquid and dry is much less of a concern.

I also bought a pack of Mexican Lager yeast. The first batch was excellent. I am looking forward to keeping that yeast for a while.  It’s was a slow fermenter though at 51F. I’m hoping the slurry will go a little faster.

I plan to try some 1450 soon also.

[Iliff Ave]

In my experience, 97 is more sluggish, slower to clear, and leaves a bit more body. I find 05 to be more dry and neutral. I’ve never got the peach thing from 05 but just assume it exists at this point.

Have you ever repitched BRY 97? BRY-97 can be sluggish on the initial pitch if one pitches just one pack.  However, it performed like any other yeast strain when I repitched it.  BRY-97 is a very flocculent yeast strain.  It forms big flocs. The few times that I used US-05 I did not care for the results.  I could never get my head wrapped around why so many people like that strain. I have never been a big dry yeast user.  The dry brewing yeast that was available when I started to brew in the early nineties was so dreadful that I have only used it for spur of the moment brewing.  However, if I am going to use a dry ale yeast, it will more than likely be BRY-97.  I did not like Nottingham pitched by itself. Pitched with Windsor, Nottingham was okay. Windsor pitched by itself means high final gravity.  S-04 is okay, but not spectacular.  To be honest, all-grain beer has always been too much work for me to pitch dry yeast.  That may change after I get my brew house up and running.

I have repitched 97 a few times and it still started sluggish (for what I would expect) however I was not inside the fermenter. As far as flocculation, I normally cold crash to 30F for a few days and fine with gelatin which makes reasonably bright beers for me. This has not been the case with 97. Again, I understood I would be in the minority here so was just throwing my experience out there knowing full well no one would agree with me. I actually like 97 however I was just surprised because I get different results than everything I had heard and continue to hear about the strain. I can only go off of my experience as I am not here to nay say or be on the wrong side of science. 

[Saccharomyces]

I have repitched 97 a few times and it still started sluggish (for what I would expect) however I was not inside the fermenter. As far as flocculation, I normally cold crash to 30F for a few days and fine with gelatin which makes reasonably bright beers for me. This has not been the case with 97.

Maybe, you are cold crashing too early.  I never cold crash.  I let a beer clear on its own schedule. The reality is that if a NewFlo strain is in suspension, it still has work to do. NewFlo strains floc and clear on their own schedule. If a strain has not started to clear, leave it alone. When you see signs of clearing, leave it alone. When there is at least 50% clear beer, go ahead and cold crash.  Impatience is a brewer's worst enemy.