Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001...they're not the same.

Sat Apr 13, 2013 6:35 am

I've fermented many times with 001, and it's very happy at 68 (internal temp). Now I'm fermenting with 1056 at 65 degrees, and it's blown through the airlock on 4 consecutive days. That never happens to me with any yeast because I ferment in large, wide buckets, with low fermenation temperatures, and leave about 5 inches of head space. This one is fermenting at 58 degrees ambient. Now, I have this sulfur smell coming from the 1056 bucket. I know the sulfur will eventually dissipate, but I've never had that with 001. Also, I want to dry hop this beer near the end of fermentation, and I'm not sure how I feel about tossing a lot of hops into a sulfurous beer. One of my dry hops will be Columbus which, like Apollo and Summit, has a tendency to leave a bit of a sulfur character. In addition to being cleaner, the 001 yeast also appears to be more flocculant. The only similarity that I'm finding is that they're both very attenuative. When I ferment with a clean and neutral yeast, I want it to be clean and neutral. I won't be using 1056 again. Other than the Rogue strain and the West Yorkshire strain, I've not been impressed with Wyeast's products. They're far inferior to White Labs. Here is a blog I found about a side by side experiment with 001 and 1056; the experimenters also have sulfur coming from the 1056:

WLP001 v Wyeast 1056 Results



The citra IPA Jeremy and I recently brewed was the first batch I've actually oxygenated vs simply aerated. After reading Yeast by Jamil Zainasheff and Chris White, I decided to invest the few bucks in a mostly proper oxygenation setup in order to get my fermentation that much more optimal. We brewed for a ten gallon yield, split the batch in half and pitched starters of WLP001 and Wyeast 1056 into two separate fermentors. Each 5 gallon better bottle got a 30 second shot of pure oxygen through a 5 micron stone. Both 2 liter starters were treated identically with yeast nutrient and splitting time on the stir plate.

Fermentation took off pretty quickly for both (an expected outcome) but over the course of fermentation, I experienced a level of attention from WLP001 which was a completely unexpected outcome.

OG on this beer was 1.065 and the target finishing gravity should have been around 1.016. On this batch the WLP001 made it all of the way down to 1.008. This puts the attenuation rate at 85% instead of the typical 75%. The Wyeast ended up right around 1.016. Jeremy got the WLP batch, so I haven't had the opportunity to do a side by side of carbonated, conditioned beer, but my preliminary tasting indicated that the WLP version was more neutral and thinner than the Wyeast version. The latter had some of the faint sulfury character I've picked up on the last few batches we've fermented with Wyeast 1056.
Come On Fulham!!

"...know your process, know your yeast." - Ozwald
User avatar
BeaverBarber
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:19 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001...they're not the same.

Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:28 am

Of course they're different, who suggested they were the same in the first place?
Lee

"Show me on this doll where the internet hurt you."

"Every zoo is a petting zoo if you man the fuck up."

:bnarmy: BN Army // 13th Mountain Division :bnarmy:
User avatar
Ozwald
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3658
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Gallatin Gateway, Montana

Re: Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001...they're not the same.

Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:53 am

Ozwald wrote:Of course they're different, who suggested they were the same in the first place?

There are many sources that suggest Wyeast 1056 and WLP001 are interchangeable...you can Google it if you like. Both are even referred to as the Chico yeast strain. When recipes are formulated, it's very common to read "yeast-WLP 001 or Wyeast 1056" which suggests a similarity. Maybe "substitute" would be a better word? But that's kind of splitting hairs.
Come On Fulham!!

"...know your process, know your yeast." - Ozwald
User avatar
BeaverBarber
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:19 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001...they're not the same.

Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:20 am

BeaverBarber wrote:Other than the Rogue strain and the West Yorkshire strain, I've not been impressed with Wyeast's products. They're far inferior to White Labs. Here is a blog I found about a side by side experiment with 001 and 1056; the experimenters also have sulfur coming from the 1056:



They're generally assumed to be cultured from the same original strain - Sierra Nevada.

Yeast comparison chart here: http://www.mrmalty.com/yeast.htm#Wyeast_vs_WLP

I would disagree with all of your findings. I've used both brands for years, both are quality products. I actually prefer Wyeast as I've found that their packaging is more protective when it comes to temperature extremes. Over the years I've purchased several vials of White Lab's yeast that were DOA. I assume they died during shipping/storage due to high/low temps. The Wyeast smack-pack is also a great way to verify the viability of the yeast.

I've never had any sulfury notes from 1056 or 001. Seems like you might have an infection of some kind.

Michael
Datamike
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:12 am

Re: Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001...they're not the same.

Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:05 pm

Datamike wrote:
BeaverBarber wrote:Other than the Rogue strain and the West Yorkshire strain, I've not been impressed with Wyeast's products. They're far inferior to White Labs. Here is a blog I found about a side by side experiment with 001 and 1056; the experimenters also have sulfur coming from the 1056:



They're generally assumed to be cultured from the same original strain - Sierra Nevada.

Yeast comparison chart here: http://www.mrmalty.com/yeast.htm#Wyeast_vs_WLP

I would disagree with all of your findings. I've used both brands for years, both are quality products. I actually prefer Wyeast as I've found that their packaging is more protective when it comes to temperature extremes. Over the years I've purchased several vials of White Lab's yeast that were DOA. I assume they died during shipping/storage due to high/low temps. The Wyeast smack-pack is also a great way to verify the viability of the yeast.

I've never had any sulfury notes from 1056 or 001. Seems like you might have an infection of some kind.

Michael



I'm definitely on your side because I currently have a double IPA that's fermenting with 1056 that I intend to send into a radio show and enter into a homebrew contest. I really do hope that you're right because I've spent a lot of time with this beer, and I just poured in about $6 worth of dry hops. But the sulfur note isn't just my finding, it's someone else's side-by-side experimental finding too. It was a woman who performed the experiment, and we all know that women are far more observant, and much less forgiving when it comes to homebrew off-flavors. The opposite of American women would be British men, who'll drink almost any beer. As a form of punishment, they might not order another pint of the same beer, but they'll drink everything in their glass. I don't think my batch is infected, and I don't think the sulfur is particularly powerful, but it is there. Hopefully, once I wait this out, my findings and your findings will be the same. Cheers :jnj ,

Mike
Come On Fulham!!

"...know your process, know your yeast." - Ozwald
User avatar
BeaverBarber
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:19 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001...they're not the same.

Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:53 pm

Its a load of crap trashing Wyeast. We don't have a clue into how the yeast was treated by its shipper, or whether it set on a counter for a couple of hours in your LHBS before it was put in the fridge. I wouldn't make an IPA without 1056 or 001. Preferring the smack pack over a tube is my personnal preference. If there is a quantity of them in the LHBS always pick the freshest and flattest. I wouldn't ferment a competition beer in a plastic pail. Again a preference. I have filled a plastic fermenter pail with PBW after doing an IPA in it and could not get the hop smell out of it even after a week of soaking. So I stay away from buckets because if they smell you got to ask " What the hell else is there, too?" Wyeast and White Labs yeast are quality products. I don't have to look into the blogasphere to know this!

With respect to diversity in homebrewing!
:jnj
Gary
Eldorado/ Lemon Drop Summer IPA
German Bock
Boh Pils brewed on a 96 degree day.
gwk453
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:00 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NY

Re: Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001...they're not the same.

Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:13 pm

gwk453 wrote:Its a load of crap trashing Wyeast...With respect to diversity in homebrewing!
:jnj
Gary

I hope you're right, and I love diversity because I respect the :unicornrainbow: I was excited to use the Wyeast 1056 because the date on the package showed that it was only 2 weeks old. However, in my experience, the two yeasts have acted a bit differently. One yeast, White Labs, shows little activity at temperatures of 64-65 degrees, and the other blows through my airlock. One flocculates, and the other doesn't...they're not the same. I will now take the time to defend my bucket. I have the best buckets this side of Colonel Sanders. They are 100% rat-free. Long live the bucket!!!

Mike
Come On Fulham!!

"...know your process, know your yeast." - Ozwald
User avatar
BeaverBarber
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:19 am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001...they're not the same.

Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:04 am

BeaverBarber wrote:
Ozwald wrote:Of course they're different, who suggested they were the same in the first place?

... interchangeable ... similarity... Maybe "substitute" would be a better word? But that's kind of splitting hairs.


None of those words mean "same". It's typically referred to as a substitute, not the same. Homebrewing forums excluded. It's pretty typical for folks to slip up on terms in there. Take the whole yeast rinsing/washing for example. No White Labs vs Wyeast strains are the same & both companies, as well as experiments, will tell you this. Remember Nate brewing Laguanitas? The Wyeast worked better than the WLP. Neither yeast is better or worse, it's just what you like. The strains are close enough to be interchangeable, it just depends on which characteristics are more favorable for your pallet/process.

Edit: The results are also very easy to manipulate. I favor 001, personally. For my blonde ale, I aim for 85% attenuation & typically get it. For my brown, I aim for 75%. Also easy to hit. Know your process, know your yeast.
Lee

"Show me on this doll where the internet hurt you."

"Every zoo is a petting zoo if you man the fuck up."

:bnarmy: BN Army // 13th Mountain Division :bnarmy:
User avatar
Ozwald
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3658
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Gallatin Gateway, Montana

Next

Return to Fermentation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]

A BIT ABOUT US

The Brewing Network is a multimedia resource for brewers and beer lovers. Since 2005, we have been the leader in craft beer entertainment and information with live beer radio, podcasts, video, events and more.