Author Topic: Sarfale US-05  (Read 921 times)

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3173
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2018, 06:44:28 PM »
I've seen some questioning whether WLP001 and 1056 are even the same source as claimed by many, as well as US-05.  I'm pretty sure all 3 are quite different actually.  I myself have never done side-by-sides with each to know what the differences really are.  Anyone interested really *should* do experiments to see what the differences might be.

DJA testing has shown them to be different yeasts

Yeah, that's what I thought too.  Makes sense.  They all attenuate differently, which should be a somewhat obvious indicator.
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 19188
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2018, 08:40:05 PM »
I'm an outlier, but I don't care for US-05. I've tried fermenting cooler, fermenting warmer, in between the two, in different styles...I just don't like it. I've had better results with the liquid varieties of the strain, but honestly the results weren't much better.

I enjoy the Chico strain in commercial beers, but personally I've never been happy with the results when I brew with it.

You're less of an outlier than you might think.  I don't care for 05 and have stopped using it.  Like you, I prefer the liquid "versions" (yeah, they're not the same) specifically 1056.

I've seen some questioning whether WLP001 and 1056 are even the same source as claimed by many, as well as US-05.  I'm pretty sure all 3 are quite different actually.  I myself have never done side-by-sides with each to know what the differences really are.  Anyone interested really *should* do experiments to see what the differences might be.

https://www.experimentalbrew.com/experiments/writeups/writeup-yeast-comparison-same-strain-wyeast-1056-wlp001
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline hopfenundmalz

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 8768
  • Milford, MI
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2018, 03:55:57 PM »
I'm an outlier, but I don't care for US-05. I've tried fermenting cooler, fermenting warmer, in between the two, in different styles...I just don't like it. I've had better results with the liquid varieties of the strain, but honestly the results weren't much better.

I enjoy the Chico strain in commercial beers, but personally I've never been happy with the results when I brew with it.

You're less of an outlier than you might think.  I don't care for 05 and have stopped using it.  Like you, I prefer the liquid "versions" (yeah, they're not the same) specifically 1056.

I've seen some questioning whether WLP001 and 1056 are even the same source as claimed by many, as well as US-05.  I'm pretty sure all 3 are quite different actually.  I myself have never done side-by-sides with each to know what the differences really are.  Anyone interested really *should* do experiments to see what the differences might be.

DJA testing has shown them to be different yeasts

The yeast genome project has shown they are different, i.e. 1056 vs. 001. Nothing I have seen said anything about US-05 being different, but so much is coming ouT of that study, it is hard to keep up sometimes.
Jeff Rankert
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild
AHA Governing Committee
BJCP National
Home-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 19188
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2018, 04:00:53 PM »
I'm an outlier, but I don't care for US-05. I've tried fermenting cooler, fermenting warmer, in between the two, in different styles...I just don't like it. I've had better results with the liquid varieties of the strain, but honestly the results weren't much better.

I enjoy the Chico strain in commercial beers, but personally I've never been happy with the results when I brew with it.

You're less of an outlier than you might think.  I don't care for 05 and have stopped using it.  Like you, I prefer the liquid "versions" (yeah, they're not the same) specifically 1056.

I've seen some questioning whether WLP001 and 1056 are even the same source as claimed by many, as well as US-05.  I'm pretty sure all 3 are quite different actually.  I myself have never done side-by-sides with each to know what the differences really are.  Anyone interested really *should* do experiments to see what the differences might be.

DJA testing has shown them to be different yeasts

The yeast genome project has shown they are different, i.e. 1056 vs. 001. Nothing I have seen said anything about US-05 being different, but so much is coming ouT of that study, it is hard to keep up sometimes.

1056 and 001 were what I was referring to, per Dave's comment.  I know the source of 05, but I don't know if there has been genetic drift from the source.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3173
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2018, 04:18:57 PM »
I've seen some questioning whether WLP001 and 1056 are even the same source as claimed by many, as well as US-05.  I'm pretty sure all 3 are quite different actually.  I myself have never done side-by-sides with each to know what the differences really are.  Anyone interested really *should* do experiments to see what the differences might be.

DJA testing has shown them to be different yeasts

The yeast genome project has shown they are different, i.e. 1056 vs. 001. Nothing I have seen said anything about US-05 being different, but so much is coming ouT of that study, it is hard to keep up sometimes.

1056 and 001 were what I was referring to, per Dave's comment.  I know the source of 05, but I don't know if there has been genetic drift from the source.

The same DNA studies are what I was referring to, too.  As for US-05 (as well as any other so-called "equivalents" anywhere), I imagine there's always a little bit of drift between manufacturers.
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.

Offline joelv

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2018, 05:36:55 PM »
My only issue is with cold temps- some phenolic express in the cold for me.
I’m glad to read this. I had this exact same issue when my fermentation temp dropped. It finished in normal time after I warmed it to 68, but the phenol is on par with many Belgian strains. It isn’t changing with time so didn’t seem like an infection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 19188
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2018, 05:46:52 PM »
My only issue is with cold temps- some phenolic express in the cold for me.
I’m glad to read this. I had this exact same issue when my fermentation temp dropped. It finished in normal time after I warmed it to 68, but the phenol is on par with many Belgian strains. It isn’t changing with time so didn’t seem like an infection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How cold did you ferment?  I've gone to 55F with it.  I've gotten esters, but never phenolics.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline ynotbrusum

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2719
  • Da mihi sis cerevisiam.
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2018, 07:10:41 PM »
I had a batch in the garage one spring and we had a cold snap - the batch was in the high 40’s for a few days.  I thought I had a heater on, but it wasn’t plugged into the thermostat...I learned from that lesson.
Hodge Garage Brewing: "Brew with a glad heart!"

Offline joelv

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2018, 10:19:01 PM »
I had it in my garage also which was steady at 63 (ambient) which is where I started. Door was left open and we dropped into the low 50’s. Fermentation was visibly active but cool, and I moved it inside on the latter part of day 2 where it was sitting around 66 degrees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline banjo-guy

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2018, 01:31:49 AM »
I fermented a split batch APA fermented with 05 versus Wyeast 1056. I pitched and fermented at 65 for both of batches.
I could easily tell the beers apart as could the large majority of my 10 member family in a triangle test.
I stopped using US 05 after that experiment.

Offline Aksarben

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2018, 02:42:42 AM »
Are dry yeasts more prone to being variable and "crap" than liquid cultures?  I also posted a thread about whether Dry yeast strains have improved since 1998,as they appeared pretty shady back then.
Vernon

Associate Winemaker, Fenn Valley Vineyards
Fennville, MI

I was born with nothing, and have managed to keep most of it.

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3173
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
Re: Sarfale US-05
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2018, 11:10:29 AM »
Are dry yeasts more prone to being variable and "crap" than liquid cultures?  I also posted a thread about whether Dry yeast strains have improved since 1998,as they appeared pretty shady back then.

Dry yeasts are infinitely better today than in 1998.  In many ways dry yeast is better than liquid today.  That was not the case back in the old days.  If considering using more dry yeast today, I say yes, you should go for it.  That being said, there are cases where the character from liquid yeast cannot be duplicated since the dry yeast selection is much more limited.
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.