Wyeast vs. White labs vs. dry

Which one produces the best tasting beer and why? For the past 8 months or so I've been using White labs with pretty good results, but I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about the different manufacturers and styles.

you'll likely get very different answers to this question. some think that the drying process impacts the yeast negatively and therefore advocate using liquid yeast. certainly, there are a lot of yeast strains that you just can't get dry, which is an advantage for liquid yeast. On the other hand, dry yeast is very easy and convenient, and i personally have had very good results for the beers i've used dry yeast for.

My personal summary is that I've used both with good results. I typically use liquid yeast, but don't have a strong argument for using liquid over dry except if a yeast strain is only available in liquid.

EDIT: Oh, and I've noticed no difference between quality in white labs and wyeast. they're both very good companies with very good yeast if you ask me.

Other than dry yeast having limited options, they're all the same to me.

I like wyeast because of it's packaging no light gets in and the smack pack in allows you to see how viable the yeast is.

They all can make great beer or ****ty beer depending on the brewer, NOT on the type of yeast. It's not a competition, it's not an argument, they all serve their purposes, one is NOT better than other....

If you're brewing a standard ale it's a waste of time and money to use liquid yeast. Dry yeast is fine for 99% of the brewing we do.

I have found that a lot of new brewers especially, THINK they HAVE to use liquid yeast for everything, but in reality most ales can be made with Notty, Windsor, Us-05, Us-04 and many lagers with basic Saflager.....7-8 bucks a pop for liquid as opposed to $1.50-2.50 for dry, with more cell count, is imho just a waste of money for the majority of a brewer's recipe bank...most commercial ales us a limited range of strains, and those liquid strains are really the same strains that the afore mentioned dry strains cover, for example Us-05 is the famed "Chico strain", so if you are paying 7-8 bucks for Wyeast 1056 American/Chico Ale Yeast, and you STILL have to make a starter to have enough viable cells, then you are ripping yourself off, in terms of time and money....

I use dry yeast for 99% of my beers, for basic ales I use safale 05, for more british styles I us safale 04 and for basic lagers I use saflager..

The only time I use liquid yeast is if I am making a beer where the yeast drives the style, where certain flavor characteristics are derived from the yeast, such as phenols. Like Belgian beers, where you get spicy/peppery flavors from the yeast and higher temp fermentation. Or let's say a wheat beer (needing a lowly flocculant yest) or a Kholsch, where the style of the beer uses a specific yeast strain that is un available in dry form. Or certain certain specific English ale strains like Yorkshire or Burton

But if you are looking for a "clean" yeast profile, meaning about 90% of american ales, the 05, or nottingham is the way to go. Need "Bready" or yeasty for English ales, then 04 or windsor. Want a clean, low profile lager yeast- saflager usually does the trick.

The idea of dry yeast is "bad" is really a holdover from the bad old days of homebrew prohibition (prior to 1978 in america) when yeast came over in hot ship cargo holds, was of indeterminant pedigree and may have sat on the shelves under those cans of blue ribbon malt extract in the grocery store for god knows how long. That is simply not the case in the 21st century- all yeasts, liquid or dry ave excellent and can be used, EVEN the stuff that comes with kits.

Palmer doesn't bash dry yeasts...

Yeast come in two main product forms, dry and liquid. (There is also another form, available as pure cultures on petri dishes or slants, but it is generally used as one would use liquid yeast.) Dry yeast are select, hardy strains that have been dehydrated for storability. There are a lot of yeast cells in a typical 7 gram packet. For best results, it needs to be re-hydrated before it is pitched. For the first-time brewer, a dry ale yeast is highly recommended.

Dry yeast is convenient for the beginning brewer because the packets provide a lot of viable yeast cells, they can be stored for extended periods of time and they can be prepared quickly on brewing day. It is common to use one or two packets (7 - 14 grams) of dried yeast for a typical five gallon batch. This amount of yeast, when properly re-hydrated, provides enough active yeast cells to ensure a strong fermentation. Dry yeast can be stored for extended periods (preferably in the refrigerator) but the packets do degrade with time. This is one of the pitfalls with brewing from the no-name yeast packets taped to the top of a can of malt extract. They are probably more than a year old and may not be very viable. It is better to buy another packet or three of a reputable brewer's yeast that has been kept in the refrigerator at the brewshop. Some leading and reliable brands of dry yeast are DCL Yeast, Yeast Labs (marketed by G.W. Kent, produced by Lallemand of Canada), Cooper's, DanStar (produced by Lallemand), Munton & Fison and Edme.

Dry yeasts are good but the rigor of the dehydration process limits the number of different ale strains that are available and in the case of dry lager yeast, eliminates them almost entirely. A few dry lager yeasts do exist, but popular opinion is that they behave more like ale yeasts than lager. DCL Yeast markets two strains of dry lager yeast, Saflager S-189 and S-23, though only S-23 is currently available in a homebrewing size. The recommended fermentation temperature is 48-59°F. I would advise you to use two packets per 5 gallon batch to be assured of a good pitching rate.

The only thing missing with dry yeast is real individuality, which is where liquid yeasts come in. Many more different strains of yeast are available in liquid form than in dry.

Liquid yeast used to come in 50 ml foil pouches, and did not contain as many yeast cells as in the dry packets. The yeast in these packages needed to be grown in a starter wort to bring the cell counts up to a more useful level. In the past few years, larger 175 ml pouches (Wyeast Labs) and ready-to-pitch tubes (White Labs) have become the most popular forms of liquid yeast packaging and contain enough viable cells to ferment a five gallon batch.

Click to expand...

The Yeast like Notty, Us-05, u-04, and many others, made my Danstar, and fermentis are some of the best yeast around, they are just as good as the liquid strains, in fact, many are the exact same strains as those by whitelabs, and wyyeast, just in dry forms.

Good quality dry yeast has been used by commercial breweries for decades if not longer, and it was only since Homebrewing was legalized was the stuff we know available to homebrewers.

That's why every dry yeast house has industrial divisions.

Danstars website even alludes to this...

The use of active dried professional yeasts for amateur brewing is a relatively new phenomenon introduced by Lallemand. Now, choose your active dried yeast for brewing with confidence. Ask for Danstar superior quality yeasts at your local retailer.

Click to expand...

And this from Fermentis....Beer Industrial Brewing Why use Fermentis Yeast

Bottom line, use what you want, but realize that is only a preference. Both liquid and dry are excellent these days. They both have the potential to make great or crappy beer.

keepitcold said:

i like wyeast because of it's packaging no light gets in and the smack pack in allows you to see how viable the yeast is.

Click to expand...

+1

Dry yeast is a cheaper alternative for when the yeast strain is "pretty much" the same. For example, as already stated, WLP001, 1056, and US-05 are all, supposedly, the "Chico" (Sierra Nevada) strain. Pitched at the same temperature, pitch rate, and nutrient environment, they are pretty close to identical, although there "may" be slight variations.

I make mostly American Pale Ales and IPAs, so it's US-05 for me most often, like Revvy. Why spend the money for liquid when dry (easier) is available for the strain. OTOH, there is not a wide variety of yeast strains available in dry. So, there are times you gotta go liquid. In those cases, I still think there is not much difference in flavor between Wyeast and White Labs equivalents. Buy Wyeast if you like the Smack Packs, or White Labs if you like the compact form factor.

Rich

So it's all about how much yeast you pitch. The little vial of white labs should be propagated up for at least 3 or 4 days in a starter or run for about 2 days under a stir plate. The wyeast stuff with a smack pack is still good about self propagating and you get a lot of yeast, but it should still be propagated in a starter. Dry yeast you get 10 to 100 times as much yeast and doesn't need a starter. It also can be the exact strain only in dry form. This is true for the saflager 23 which is the bock strain for both white labs and wyeast. I love dry yeast for lagers because I get 2 or 3 packets and don't have to worry about a giant stater. I like liquid ale yeasts for variety and get excellent results for them when I use a starter.

Always make a good starter for liquid yeasts, your beer will be much better.

Us-05 might have originally been the Chico strain but the drying process changed it. It doesn't make it bad, just different. Personally I prefer the liquid version in lighter flavored beers. But in an IPA or a big stout I always use US-05.

Also, White Labs and Wyeast have the same amount of cells in their products. The smack pack does not cause any reproduction. It simply proofs the yeast.

RichBenn said:

For example, as already stated, WLP001, 1056, and US-05 are all, supposedly, the "Chico" (Sierra Nevada) strain. Pitched at the same temperature, pitch rate, and nutrient environment.

Click to expand...

Based on my experience, US-05 produces more fruity esters (particularly peach and apricot) and doesn't flocculate as well as WLP 001. It's still one of the better dry yeasts out there in my opinion, but I generally go with liquid these days.

Revvy said:

The only time I use liquid yeast is if I am making a beer where the yeast drives the style, where certain flavor characteristics are derived from the yeast

Click to expand...

I have come to the same conclusions after starting out using liquid exclusively

I have used both side by side(liquid and dry) and for me I can tell a difference. I prefer the liquid hands down. Now for just a house ale dry would be more than fine. Everyone has there own tastes and you the brewer must decide if the added cost is worth it. Do a side by side test and you will form your own opinion on this subject.

I've used all with similar results. I've used Notty mostly because of the styles I've brewed. I like the results when it performs but it's also the only yeast I've used that's let me down. I've had two occasions where it did nothing for reasons unknown to me.

When using a dry yeast I've always re-hydrated prior to pitching. I find it interesting that the wine crowd specifically avoids this. They tend to pitch the dry yeast directly on top of the must without any stirring. I've always been curious why they do this with wine while it's definitely not a "recognized" practice with beer.

The smack pack doesn't cause yeast to grow? I thought the smack pack was a bunch of growth nutrients. Well then, always make a starter when using liquid yeast.

I found the dry London ale strain to not be very good, I went with liquid and it turned out great. I have tried liquid lager strains and the starter that I would have to make is so massive that I can't do it. I have had excellent results with saflager 23. I think it really just depends on what you like and what you find out when you use yeast. Just pitch the proper amount, dry yeast it's much easier to do that and that will produce less esters than if you dumped a tiny amount of yeast from a vile or smack pack.

keepitcold said:

I like wyeast because of it's packaging no light gets in and the smack pack in allows you to see how viable the yeast is.

Click to expand...

What difference does that make, it's hops that are affected by light.


_

asterix404 said:

The smack pack doesn't cause yeast to grow? I thought the smack pack was a bunch of growth nutrients.

Click to expand...

It's just enough nutrients to wake the yeast up, it's not enough to cause the yeast to reproduce to the size we need for most beers. That's why it's important to know how much your beer needs and make a starter to that amount.

In fact even on the faq it talks about how it doesn't matter if you inflate the pack or not.

My LHBS sells dry for almost the same price as liquid, so I almost always go liquid.

WLP001/WY1056/S-05. I can't tell the difference. That doesn't mean there is no difference, just that I can't spot it.
WLP002/WY1968/S-04. I can't tell the difference between 002 and 1968, but S-O4 (the closest dry yeast to the liquids) is nothing like as good to my taste. Then again S-04 is supposed to be a different strain than the other 2.
WLP013/WY1028. Supposed to be the same strain. I like WY1028, but find WLP013 to be bland and not at all pleasant. No dry equivalent that I am aware of.
WLP023. Awesome! Haven't tried the WY equivalent, and I'm not aware of a dry equivalent.
Nottingham. Haven't found a liquid equivalent.

-a.

ajf said:

WLP002/WY1968/S-04. I can't tell the difference between 002 and 1968, but S-O4 (the closest dry yeast to the liquids) is nothing like as good to my taste. Then again S-04 is supposed to be a different strain than the other 2.


-a.

Click to expand...

S-04 is supposed to be a Whitbread strain, so WLP007/WY1098 would be the closest equivalent.

ArcaneXor said:

Based on my experience, US-05 produces more fruity esters (particularly peach and apricot) and doesn't flocculate as well as WLP 001. It's still one of the better dry yeasts out there in my opinion, but I generally go with liquid these days.

Click to expand...

I've heard this before, but have never experienced(see below) ANY fruity esters with US-05. I always control the temperature to the low 60's, however. Since US-05 has way more yeast cells than liquid, and has nutrient in the package, it can take off like a rocket, producing lot's of heat. The Chico yeast does produce off flavors if fermented high. I've experienced it with both WLP001 and US-05(oops, looks like I have had fruity esters with US-05!).

Another variable is pitching dry vs. re-hydrating. Dry pitching kills or slows a bunch of cells; survival rate is better re-hydrated(which is what is recommended to Safale's commercial customers)

I can't help but wonder if it's impossible to do an accurate comparison of this strain dry vs. liquid, without doing second or third generation with totally equivalent cell count yeast starters. Yeast strains do mutate, though, so the characteristics can be different as the different vendors have propagated them over many generations.

--Rich

ajf said:

WLP001/WY1056/S-05. I can't tell the difference. That doesn't mean there is no difference, just that I can't spot it.
WLP002/WY1968/S-04. I can't tell the difference between 002 and 1968, but S-O4 (the closest dry yeast to the liquids) is nothing like as good to my taste. Then again S-04 is supposed to be a different strain than the other 2.
WLP013/WY1028. Supposed to be the same strain. I like WY1028, but find WLP013 to be bland and not at all pleasant. No dry equivalent that I am aware of.
WLP023. Awesome! Haven't tried the WY equivalent, and I'm not aware of a dry equivalent.
Nottingham. Haven't found a liquid equivalent.

-a.

Click to expand...

Good comparison info. Thanks AJF.
For liquid Notty, what about WLP039? White Labs - WLP039

Yup, that looks like the same yeast, but I've never tried it.
As WLPxxx cost me $8.75 per vial, I tend to only use their yeast for brews where I can harvest the yeast and make lots of brews from the one vial. I only use Nottingham about once per year in a dry stout, and it works well so I haven't looked for a liquid equivalent.

-a.

This is the complete yeast chart from Mr. Malty:

Yeast Strains

I think there is an equivalent safale and saflager strain comparison guide.

I agree with Rich except in the last point. I know that both companies (I have read many books detailing this) go to extreme lengths to avoid any mutation in their strain. I have also read that dry yeast should be rehydrated but I have dumped in packets into the wort and it has been perfectly fine, I have dumped it in warm water and then poured it in and it has been perfectly fine. I think you should rehydrate your yeast just to proof it if nothing else but if you forget it's not the end of the world and your beer will ferment. The dry yeast does also contain yeast nutrient so you can just pour it in to warm water and it will start to foam a bit.

I do agree that to do a true comparison you should use the same amount of yeast cells. Mr. Malty tells me that I can always pitch more yeast than I ever do so the fear of getting too much yeast I think is a bit exaggerated except if you are pouring directly onto yeast cake. Take a half cup or cup of slurry from the bottom of the primary and pouring it directly into the next batch is great. Pouring onto a whole yeast cake does cause strange flavors.

The one thing I really want to do is start skimming from the top and seeing how well that works. With the heff strains being 10$ a pack, if I can press a heff strain 10 generations I save a ton of money.

RichBenn said:

S-04 is supposed to be a Whitbread strain, so WLP007/WY1098 would be the closest equivalent.

Click to expand...

I agree completely, but if you want WLP002/WY1968, but you want a dry yeast, S-04 doesn't quite cut it. I still use it as a substitute in an emergency. I also tried WLP007 some years ago, but I never tried comparing it against S-04 so I can't comment about how they compare.

-a.

I started out with liquid but now I almost exclusively use dry. S-33 at 59 degrees is my go to house yeast.

asterix404 said:

The wyeast stuff with a smack pack is still good about self propagating and you get a lot of yeast, but it should still be propagated in a starter.

Click to expand...

Someone correct me, but I thought wyeast and white labs have essentially the same yeast cell counts.

As for the op, they're all very good. You can't go wrong with the dry yeast and I especially like them for lagers since I can just buy a few packs and not make a starter.

biestie said:

Someone correct me, but I thought wyeast and white labs have essentially the same yeast cell counts.

As for the op, they're all very good. You can't go wrong with the dry yeast and I especially like them for lagers since I can just buy a few packs and not make a starter.

Click to expand...

All the Wyeast packs do is to provide a tiny amount of wort to the yeast to produce CO2. It's basically a gimmick, especially since 20% of smack packs will spontaneously inflate without piercing the inner packet. I prefer being able to see the color of the White Labs yeast over the gimmicky smack packs.

ajf said:

I agree completely, but if you want WLP002/WY1968, but you want a dry yeast, S-04 doesn't quite cut it. I still use it as a substitute in an emergency. I also tried WLP007 some years ago, but I never tried comparing it against S-04 so I can't comment about how they compare.

-a.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's too bad it isn't an 002/1968 equivalent. I really don't like S-04. I think there are better British yeasts, and if one is to pick only one to have in their offerings, it should be an 002/1968 equivalent. Safale is a French company (AFAIK), so maybe that has something to do with it. If it was British, I'd expect a couple of UK strains.

I like dry yeast just because I don't care for making starters or any of that. Spend 15 minutes rehydrating a pack of dry Nottingham and pitch her.

My brew days are often very spontaneous..like 'hell nice day, let's grab a kit from the LHBS and brew that sucker!" Not conductive to making starters heh.

As you can tell, there are lots of answers but pretty much everyone agrees that you can get good beer from either dry or liquid yeast.

YMMV, but I prefer liquid yeast because it seems like I get a cleaner beer with liquids than with US-05 or Notty. I haven't done side-by-side testing, so I would admit that this is highly subjective. Cost isn't much issue because I keep a sample from each starter and can re-use the yeast 4-5x. I make and can my own all-grain starters, as well. With dry yeast at about half the cost of liquid (not counting the starter) the cost difference is minimal.

Even if you use liquid, I would keep at least 1-2 packets of Notty or US-05 around. Just in case your starter doesn't start or you drop it or whatever. Seems like cheap insurance.

L

i buy dry yeast and get yeast slurry for free from a local brewery.

The dry yeast suits my needs most of the time. However, I'm not quite at the point where I'm finicky about specific levels of attenuation and flocculation. I can see that being an issue if I find a recipe that I really want to refine.

I prefer wyeast but I also always do a starter on a stir plate, and use proper temperature control. Liquid yeast is more fun for me as I like the starter process and benefits.

WOW, loads of information posted here. Thanks everyone for all the help! I've been using whitelabs lately, but it does get expensive using liquid. I'm going to swap back to dry, but before I did, I wanted to make sure dry yeast still produces good beer.

Thanks again everyone and I'm saving this thread for further yeast information!

I use liquid yeast most of the time. I find it enormously helpful that you can read different reviews and tasting notes about each yeast strain from different sources online, especially on the White Labs website. People will say what temperature worked best for them, etc. It also helps that there is more variety, and that some come from very notable breweries. To save on cost, you can do what I'm starting to, and wash the yeast. Start your own liquid yeast bank and create your own house strain.

I use liquid yeast by choice. The dry yeast doesn't produce the same beer according to my testing so I don't use it. I use White Labs WLP300 only.

I have used both and tend to wash or harvest my yeast to keep for a while. I have had both good and bad beers from both liquid and dry yeast. Liquid gets less costly when you reuse it a bunch. I have a spare fridge with probably 20+ containers of various yeast + the yeast farm in my freezer with a few frozen samples. Even if you reuse the liquid only once, you just now cut your yeast cost in half. My favorite dry is S0-4 and I only have White Labs for liquid avalable around here. I've only used S0-5 once and the beer turned out like crap. That being said I was new to brewing at the time and had nothing to do with the yeast.

beerloaf

jldc said:

Even if you use liquid, I would keep at least 1-2 packets of Notty or US-05 around. Just in case your starter doesn't start or you drop it or whatever. Seems like cheap insurance.

L

Click to expand...

This is very good advice. This batch I'm doing contains a bunch of firsts from advice gained on this thread. I'm doing a month primary/no secondary thanks to Revvy, using Bernie Brewer's awesome write-up to wash my WLP008 at the end of that. At the end of the day I will want some insurance for my next batch. If my Boston Ale clone (which strangely disappeared from the shelves) turns out good, I'll have 4 more generations of the strain. If I screw it up or the strain tastes like ***t, I'll use the dry next time.

I'll agree for most homebrewers of American style beers, it's probably just a matter of aesthetic preference. Homebrewers of American styles tend to go for a neutral or absent yeast profile. If you find yourself always building giant starters and fermenting your beers just above lager temperatures, you probably aren't going to appreciate the hedonic differences between liquid and dry versions of yeast, or in some cases even the difference between similar yeast strains (other than maybe flocculence and attenuation rates). You're looking for little to no contribution of the yeast other than alcohol production. In that case, economically, you're probably better served by dry yeasts.

The differences between individual yeast strains become more perceivable when you don't overpitch and bring the yeast temperature, while fermenting, up a little closer to the preferred metabolic working temperature of the yeast. However, in these cases, you are going to get a more yeast-forward flavor profile, which some people don't enjoy. With yeast forward beers, you're using whatever yeast provides the profile you're looking for, and in some cases, there are perceivable differences between the Wyeast and White Lab versions of yeasts purportedly isolated from the same beer.

Does anyone know of a chart that lists liquid yeasts to the comparable dry yeast?