# Which Yeast For An American Amber Ale?



## cpsmusic (3/2/11)

Hi,

For my next brew I'm planning on doing the American Amber Ale from Brewing Classic Styles. In the recipe it suggests to use either Wyeast 1056 or WLP001. Any thoughts on any differences between them?

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## felten (3/2/11)

Depends who you talk to, they're regarded as being very similar if not exactly the same.


----------



## Howlingdog (3/2/11)

How about wyeast 1272?

http://www.wyeastlab.com/rw_yeaststrain_detail.cfm?ID=11


----------



## Sydneybrewer (3/2/11)

Arent 1056 , wlpoo1 and us-05 the same chico strain? used by sierra nevada. They all should give you the same beer give or take, and not withstanding other factors (viability, pitching rates)


----------



## rude (3/2/11)

1272 flocculates better but a bit tart


----------



## cpsmusic (4/2/11)

Sydneybrewer said:


> Arent 1056 , wlpoo1 and us-05 the same chico strain? used by sierra nevada. They all should give you the same beer give or take, and not withstanding other factors (viability, pitching rates)



If these are all the same strain, is there any advantage to using the liquid versions rather than the US-05 which is dried?


----------



## Lecterfan (4/2/11)

Being able to split the smack pack and use the original gneration over and over.

Also, I have to say after 3 brews I am pretty much a 1272 (Wy American Ale II) convert. Attenuates just as well, better flocculation (in my experience). It provides a slightly different character to the final beer that I find appealing (although that may just be a novelty thing as I was sick of 1056).

I'll still use 1056 fer sher, but at the moment am loving 1272.


----------



## Bribie G (4/2/11)

What are the main flavour differences arising from 1056 as opposed to US-05? Also does it finish quicker? I really like US-05 but it hangs around like the mother in law for ages.


----------



## DanRayner (4/2/11)

US-05 (being a dry yeast) is so much easier to use and it's invariably cheaper. I just sprinkle it on top of the wort before aerating the lot - mixes it up nice. Some people hydrate the yeast first in some sterile water but I feel that the chances of other complications (infections etc) outweigh the extra viability you might get by hydration.

I use quite a bit of White Labs yeasts but have only ever used WLP001 once and didn't see much difference. I have had some problems with acetylaldehyde (in the past and whenever I am not paying attention to detail) using both US-05 and WLP001 - you just gotta remember not to under-pitch, to aerate the **** out of it and let it ferment rrriiiiiiggggghhhht out to avoid getting that green apple sharpness...

I use US-05 for all of my American ales (APA, AIPA, Cali Common, American Browns/Ambers etc). I've also used it in stouts and porters where the yeast character is not as important as malt etc...

EDIT: Bribie - both tend to be pretty hazy for a while but eventually drop clear. I really saw no flavour differences, but I do hop the **** out of the sorts of beers I make with this yeast so there might still be a subtle difference


----------



## Lecterfan (4/2/11)

I've usually found Us-05 to go harder sooner even with my meagre attempts at temp control. I found the Wy 1056 tends to take maybe another 24 hours in the primary phase and a bit longer then to clean up - even with a decent starter (I once overpitched Wy1056 with trub slurry and it went to full krausen in about 3 hours). Flavour wise not a huge difference, but with many (not all) of my US-05 beers I find the yeast clings around the edges of the bottles and doesn't flocc out as well in general. The liquid version has never given me that trouble (reason #987 to keg maybe...). Also if pushed I would say the liquid version seems to be a bit more subtle??? I could be talking absolute bollocks here, I've only done 17 AG brews but I've been using Wyeast for the last 4 years i K+K and then all-extract brews. I find the differences more pronounced in AG to be honest.

As for 1272, I'm rubbish at describing flavours, and all the beers I've used it in have been pretty hoppy, but fermented cool it leaves a nice clean after taste and seems to show off the hops without any detriment to the malt. Argon's LFPA is a great example, also Ross' Nelson Sauvin ale...I did both with 1272 at about 16c (probably 18c in the fermenter), and have done the LFPA and other APA's with 1056 before that, and I find the 1272 tends to leave a drier (still malty) aftertaste that I like. The wyeast website says citrus at cooler temps, but with the US hops I'm using I figure that just blends in somewhere.

Interested in others' thoughts...??? 


edit: I wholeheartedly agree with ease of use for dry as Dan stated above, but I guess the sybtle differences are worth the effort for me and the way my system works. Cheers!


----------



## [email protected] (4/2/11)

Just started using 1272 in my AG brews, have only used US05 in the past.
I really like 1272 much better. 

I bottle and the US05 really does hang around for a long time and i have also noticed how it clings to the sides of the bottle at the bottom.

I think 1272 accentuates the fruitiness of the hops more whilst still leaving a nice malty aftertaste perhaps slightly drier or some might say tart?
1272 clears so much quicker.

Once 05 has cleared i find its pretty neutral all round, good for starting out learning about what different malts taste like with different hops.

I have made other adjustments to my brewing as well, so that has to be taken into account and i would have to go back and do
the same brews again to know for sure.

BUt off the top of my head i am really enjoying 1272 at the moment.


----------



## Crusty (4/2/11)

Lecterfan said:


> Being able to split the smack pack and use the original gneration over and over.
> 
> Also, I have to say after 3 brews I am pretty much a 1272 (Wy American Ale II) convert. Attenuates just as well, better flocculation (in my experience). It provides a slightly different character to the final beer that I find appealing (although that may just be a novelty thing as I was sick of 1056).
> 
> I'll still use 1056 fer sher, but at the moment am loving 1272.




Totally agree.
I always used 1056 & after trying 1272 I'm also converted. I don't think there is a huge difference but I prefer the 1272. Definately some subtle differences between the two.


----------

