Survey - Dry vs. Liquid Yeast

Matt Foley said:

Thanks for the reply CBBaron. But what about white labs cal ale 001. Shouldn't it clear pretty quick?

Click to expand...

From Whitelabs website
WLP001 California Ale Yeast
Flocculation: Medium

WLP001 is a clean yeast and ferments dry but could be better on clearing out of the beer.

S-04 is fruiter and not as dry but Flocculates better.

If you want a very clear liquid yeast look at this one.
WLP002 English Ale Yeast
Flocculation: Very High

Craig

Shockerengr said:

I'll use dry where I can and just control the temp of the ferment sometime to get the character i want.

Charlie Papazian has said on basic brewing radio (9-28-06) that he generally just uses one strain of yeast that he has kept around for about 25 years. He adjust the malt and the temp to get want he wants out if....this goes for lagers and ales! (i believe he has a lager yeast)

Click to expand...

WLP862 Cry Havoc Charlie Papazian Yeast
http://www.whitelabs.com/beer/newstrains.html


reported to be mutated from Budwiser

I'm in the use both camp.

I just did a side by side of Nottingham and Wyeast 1968 with my Bitter recipe. I can't tell the difference based on taste and both attenuated the same. The 1968 definitely clears faster and better which is why I'll continue using it for my Bitter, but for Stouts, Porters etc will use Nottingham. For Hefe's and other beers where the yeast adds unique characteristics to the beer I use liquid.

I've heard Charlie's podcast. I think his takehome message is that your process has alot more to do with the final product then the yeast you use for most recipes. Having experimented alot with my process I have to concur.

I'm in the dry yeast camp. From what I tasted in a comparison, really wasn't a difference to warrant me to pay the extra price. Now, if I decide to try out my brews in a competition, I might be so inclined. But for now, dry yeast is the way to go....cheaper, easier to handle and I have plenty of it.

I have been using from frozen liquid yeast I have done up and stored in my freezer, but as of late been using a fair bit of dry yeast. Guess I'm getting lazy.

I used to use Nottingham dry yeast packs, but switched to Wyeast 1056 propogator packs and make starters. I generally only make IPAs and variations so I dont stray to far into other types of yeasts. I had good experience with Nottingham yeast that I rehydrated while brewing, and then dumped into the fermentor. I like the crisper and cleaner taste that the liquids bring to my beers, but I am new, so I could be imagining things

Greg

Nottingham and Safale05 will produce a very clean tasting beer.

I'm sold on yeast.

rohanski said:

I'm sold on yeast.

Click to expand...

well without it you'd just have a bed time drink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horlicks

My new favorite is US-05 dry and I even reused slurry from it. Wow, that's .75 per batch. Take that white labs!

I wanted to brew this weekend but didn't get time to go buy yeast. I found a old packet of dried yeast a cheap generic brand. Youngs. It had been sat in my store cupboard for months and months.
I don't use 02 or shake to aerate I just run the wort from my kettle to my carboy and pitch.
2 hours later it was fermenting, 4 hours later is was ready to blow off.

None of the brew shops I use keep the dried yeast in a fridge and I have never had anything other than good results.

Make your own mind up.

[YOUTUBE]KYCM0NaensI[/YOUTUBE]

Wow! you guys have got me interested in dry yeast. Years ago, it was the only kind available and it was crap on a stick! The stuff was contaminated from the factory! When yeast slants came out i went nuts. Finally! Now we could brew a decent beer. When liquids came along, they cost too much, so i sliced 'em up about 15 times. But, you guys are saying the new dry yeasts are pretty good. Maybe i better catch up with the times and try them out! ......

Thanks for all the opinions on yeast. It gave me confidence to use the dry yeast and save some money as well. If it comes out tasty, I'm sold. When I do get more advanced, perhaps then I'll go for liquid yeast. So for now I'm a dry camper!

If you need a beer in a hurry, try a mid to low gravity english ale (it will probably come under the heading 'ordinary bitter'), keep the hop additions to a minimum and the IBUs to 35 or less, use 2 sachets of Safale 04 (one should do to be honest) and you will be drinking it within 2 weeks. (i've made one in 10 days). Very usefull stuff is dried yeast.

I use both depending on style.

In short, you can make good beer with dry yeast but you can make great beer with liquid.

Click to expand...

IMHO great beers can be made from both.

eddie said:

In short, you can make good beer with dry yeast but you can make great beer with liquid.

Click to expand...

I'll bite on this one as well. What about liquid slurry extracted from a strain that began dry? Is this to say that you think a US-05 strain is significantly different mutation of the 056 liquid equivelent? Have you done a side by side comparison using a split batch? Honestly, unless someone has and took a blind taste test between them, this is all just hearsay and propaganda.

It's almost like the guys who buy premium gas for their low compression 4-cylinder cars because "it better".

I am partial to Nottingham.

Did a split batch - 5 gals with Nottingham, 5 with Windsor ...

I preferred the Nottingham...the Windsor was sweeter it seemed..though both batches came out well...

The only time I use liguid is based on the recipe.

I started strictly liquid but have been moving to dry and plan to use it as much as possible in the future.

Dry is cheaper, easier, and in my experience can be less stressful as I keep checking for activation in the carboy.

Some strains there is no option. If a time comes when there are at least dry kolsch and Belgian strains i could become a straight and narrow dry brewer. I think in the coming years as people begin to migrate to the dry strains and the demand grows the selection will grow.

As was mentioned before without structured comparisons hearsay will be the biggest battlefront for dry.

Bobby_M said:

It's almost like the guys who buy premium gas for their low compression 4-cylinder cars because "it better".

Click to expand...

I think this might be one of my reasons for not going liquid if a good dry is available that does the trick. I believe that liquid yeasts are more pure strains and with some exceptions different strains than available in dry. But my brewing processes, recipes and techniques are not developed enough to be able to tell the difference. Neither is my palate. I do suspect there are a number of home brewers who can tell the difference. For now I will use dry when an appropriate strain is available and liquid when I do things like Belgians for which good substitutes are less available.

Craig

I've been using nothing but liquid lately, I really feel I can more precisely control my beer's flavor this way. Not too mention, you can reuse the yeast quite a bit, it gets down to around $2.25 a brew if you reuse 3 times. I've started washing my yeast and I'm suspecting I'll be able to get more than 3 uses out of each. To each his own, though.

I suspect there's a tendency to be dogmatic about this. Some brewing authorities have likely compared results at a time when dry yeast was garbage. They see no reason to change methods now and new brewers take their word for it.

I don't really know how using liquid yeast would yield more control. Exactly what control is that?

I agree that liquid is a must for strains unavailable in dry, but I'm getting really temped to do a split batch test here.

Realizing this thread is in the extract brewing forum, I think moving up to partial mash or all grain would be a bigger improvement in the end result than it would be to "upgrade" to liquid yeasts.

Bobby_M said:

I suspect there's a tendency to be dogmatic about this. Some brewing authorities have likely compared results at a time when dry yeast was garbage. They see no reason to change methods now and new brewers take their word for it.

Click to expand...

I emphatically agree with Bobby here. Well stated.

Things are changing fast in the homebrewing world right now, and everyone should keep an open mind rather than get fixed on what book authors or established homebrewers have said in the past. If we believed everything that was written, I would have missed out on good dry yeast strains, inexpensive but high quality aluminum pots, batch sparging, quick single infusion mashes, foamy Star San, etc., etc., etc. Further, I would be spending all my time worrying about hot side aeration or getting my beer out of the primary exactly on day 7, and other such silly stuff.

I think part of the attraction and fun with this hobby is the infinite world of possibility available to us to always improve our brewing technique and our final product. Sometimes this means challenging the accepted practice and throwing out the dogma. So to all budding homebrewers, my point is don't knock something controversial until you have tried it once for yourself -- if you fail to keep an open mind, you might be hindering your own progress.

[/general rant]