Dry yeasts really that good now?

BrewSwag 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
J

jdc2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
127
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
I haven't brewed for awhile, but when I was I found that I really
needed to make a starter of actively fermenting yeast to get
consistently good results. All the dry yeast beers I made
had off flavors. Before switching to liquid yeast, I first tried
a few batches with temperature control in a fridge (fermenting
ales around 62F), and that definitely improved things, but it
was temperature control plus using a starter that gave me
what I would call a "professional" brew. I never tried making
a starter with dry yeast but maybe that would work as well,
but I doubt it because of the contamination in the yeast
as well as the lag time causing other bugs to grow in the beer.
I don't see with the lag time (and it is significant even if you
hydrate) how pitching a dry yeast could give you a clean
tasting beer.
Jim:mug:
 
From what I have read most of the experts out there agree that the quality of dry yeast has increased significantly. They recommend using it just as often as liquid yeast but yes they do recommend that you rehydrate usually.
 
Yes they are, and we've beaten this horse to death.

You don't need to make a starter with dry yeast. And the idea of there being large numbers of contaminants in dry yeast is one of those myths that we have busted on here as well....pure conjecture and anti-dry yeast propaganda based on 30 year old anecdotal information back from the days when yeas tcame in cakes in hot cargo ships and was of dubious parentage.

There is a ton of threads discussing this in great detail.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/dry-yeast-profiles-descriptions-131810/?highlight=fermentis

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/dry-yeast-not-dry-yeast-question-83122/?highlight=fermentis

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/i-love-dry-yeast-131351/?highlight=fermentis

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/dry-yeast-vs-liquid-75697/?highlight=fermentis

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/there-place-dry-yeast-130508/?highlight=fermentis

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/dried-yeast-not-always-sterile-viable-91289/?highlight=fermentis

It's really not a -vs- They both make great beer.....they both have their place.

I have found that a lot of new brewers especially, THINK they HAVE to use liquid yeast, 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....

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.

Modern dry yeasts are just as good these days as liquids.

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.

Even John Palmer talks about this...He doesn't bash dry yeast, just points out the differences.

6.3 Yeast Forms

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.
Click to expand...

The only real "criticism" of dry yeast, is that, due to how they are made to be stable, that there are not many varieties available, that and the warning to avoid those "no-name" yeasts under the lids of extract can and to go with one of the "proven" strains.

But gone is all that BS about there being contaminants and mutations in dry yeast. It's a multi billion dollar industry and MANY commercial breweries use Dry yeast, the same dry yeast that we use....and I don't think They'd risk it if they bought into that garbage.
 
I understand the love for dry yeast. I've used almost exclusively for two years. I am really looking forward to getting into liquid strains now though. It occurred to me after debating about the differences in halcyon and maris otter or cascade and centennial that I should think about yeast more. After all that debate on the details, I'd sprinkle some notty or US- 05 on the wort and without any regard to pitching rate. It's really stupid when you think about it.

If you are spending more money on Maris Otter or premium character malts or adjuncts, you should consider liquid strains because the difference should be more apparent.
 
Ok Revvy, thanks for posting that. Here's another point
of view.

From "Brewing" by Michael J. Lewis (Dept. of Food Science
and Technology, UCal) and Tom W. Young (School of
Biochemistry, University of Birmingham UK)pp149-150:

"To obtain the large amount of yeast needed for fermentation,
cultures on maintenance media or in their preserved
state are first grown up in the laboratory before transfer
to specialized equipment....This equipment is designed
to hygienically produce the large amount of yeast needed
for fermentation. This guarantees a regular supply of
high-quality, healthy yeast, free from other microbes
and, by reducing variation, assists in assuring both
consistent fermentation and beer quality. Recourse to
the laboratory stocks occurs at regular intervals
(perhaps twice yearly) but fresh yeast is drawn from
the propagator at much more frequent intervals. Typically
yeast will be replaced after five to ten successive
fermentations. Most fermentations are therefore
conducted with yeast drawn from a previous one and not
from a propagator. Brewers involved in small-scale
operations often use mixed cultures (more than one
strain) and have very limited (if any) laboratory
facilities. In case of problems with yeast, they
obtain slurry from other brewers or sometimes re-isolate
the strains from their mixture.
Increasingly, microbrewers are using dried
brewer's yeast as their primary source. This is highly
viable and supplied in larg (kg) amounts. The yeast
may be cultured by the producer under conditions far
removed from those found in a brewery and may contain
contaminating microbes (particularly lactic acid bacteria).
Both these factors may influence the quality of the first
and especially subsequent fermentations conducted with
the yeast."

(This is why making a starter with dried yeast is not
recommended. Because if the dried yeast is contaminated,
it will propagate with the yeast in your starter.)

A few pages later, they describe how a typical brewing
operation creates an actively fermenting culture that
is 1/10 the size of the batch of beer they are making.
When that batch is done, 1/10 is removed and used for
the next batch. They also describe how some brewers
take a yeast slurry from a batch and press it into
a cake that is about 25% by weight yeast, and use
it for the next batch, using 0.3kg per hectoliter.
By my calculation that would be 14 grams or about
half an ounce of dry yeast per 5 gallon batch.

The fact that some microbreweries save money by using
dried yeast doesn't mean that their beer wouldn't be
better if they used an actively fermenting culture.
So I think I'll stick to making starters because
even if the dried yeast isn't contaminated, the lag
time will still allow any microbes from the air/dust
to get a foothold.
Jim:mug:
 
Dried yeast companies report a very low contamination rate. (Fermentis yeast, for example, reports less than 5 bacterial cells/mL of wort in adequately pitched wort.) Patterson, however, mentions that sometimes the level falls below what can be detected in the lab. And, the experience of many brewers shows that this level does not result in problematic beer.

http://***********/stories/recipes/article/indices/58-yeast/570-dried-brewing-yeast-on-the-rise


What are the odds of introducing contamination by making a starter from Liquid yeast at home? Probably higher than what Fermentis reports in the dry yeast packets.
 
samc said:
Dried yeast companies report a very low contamination rate. ...
What are the odds of introducing contamination by making a starter from Liquid yeast at home? Probably higher than what Fermentis reports in the dry yeast packets.
Click to expand...


Are you telling me that the companies that make the yeast claim that
there isn't much contamination in their product? I can hardly believe
that! Next you'll be telling me that Microsoft says its operating systems
have no bugs.

The second part doesn't make sense. Even if there were less contamination
in the packet, you still have to rehydrate, and how could you introduce more
contamination in the starter-making process than in the rehydrating process?
Seems to me you'd have an identical problem either way. In any case,
I don't see how the people who are claiming that would know for sure.
Jim:mug:
 
I'm gonna pop my head into this quickly down-spiraling thread and put in a good word for Safbrew T-58 as a solid Belgian-style dry yeast. I got great characteristic flavor from using a packet of it on two brews I did recently, and I was totally surprised by the quality and the flavor. I felt I got well more than $2.50 worth of value for the one dry packet, versus the $13 I would've spent on two liquid cultures for these brews.

But, as it is, welcome anyhow, jdc2.
 
jdc2 said:
Are you telling me that the companies that make the yeast claim that
there isn't much contamination in their product? I can hardly believe
that! Next you'll be telling me that Microsoft says its operating systems
have no bugs.

The second part doesn't make sense. Even if there were less contamination
in the packet, you still have to rehydrate, and how could you introduce more
contamination in the starter-making process than in the rehydrating process?
Seems to me you'd have an identical problem either way. In any case,
I don't see how the people who are claiming that would know for sure.
Jim:mug:
Click to expand...

You don't really have to rehydrate. I have brewed many times and did not bother with the rehydrate. If you do rehydrate it is a simpler shorter term process using cooled boiled water and 30 minutes waiting time.

A vial of Liquid yeast does not insure that you are going to get 100% non contaminated culture. Many things can transpire between White Labs/Wyeast and your home, such as bad handling en route, etc. Are you going to believe the Liquid yeast vendors anymore than the dry yeast vendors? Why? That's like taking your Microsoft analogy one step further and saying they are lying swine but that Apple makes a perfect OS and they state so in the advertising and I believe them.


I think there is a place for both products at this point! I use both but I just don't see any evidence of contamination problems with Fermentis yeast. They are French and I doubt they lie! LOL

Whatever you use I am sure you will have a great beer!
 
samc said:
Are you going to believe the Liquid yeast vendors anymore than the dry yeast vendors? Why?
Click to expand...

It's not the vendors I believe, it's my own experience. Brewing with
dried yeast (15 or 16 batches) versus another 16 with liquid yeast.
I first used dried yeast with a temperature controlled fridge on the
last two batches and got some improvement by fermenting around 62F,
but didn't get what I would call professional quality beer until I used the temperature control with pitching about half a quart of actively fermenting
yeast made from a liquid yeast. And it's not like I had some
variability after using the starters, it was great every time. You
can probably get away with some variability in the temperature but
but I think pitching a decent quantity of actively fermenting yeast
is key. If anyone can get what they want with dry yeast, more
power to them, but it didn't work for me. You don't have to spend
$13 every time, you can culture some of it or use some yeast slurry
from your batch for the next one.

Jim:mug:
 
This is the Ford Chevy thing all over again. Use what works for you, do the side by side experiments and see for yourself. Both will make beer but you might like one over the other.
Myself I prefer the liquid but that is just me.
 
I should stay out but here's my two cents.

1.) There are well respected micro-breweries using dry yeast. They sell beer for a living. They can't afford off-flavors.

2.) Many, many brewers on this site have brewed award winning beers using dry yeast exclusively.

Use what you like and what works for you but you aren't going to win this argument because there isn't much to support it. Dry yeast today if rehydrated properly, is very solid.
 
So, I guess I'm not getting your thread title then. It would seem you were interested in improvements or the overall quality of today's dry yeast by asking the question:

Dry yeasts really that good now?

Maybe something along these lines would be more appropriate:

I don't like dry yeast. Who's with me?
 
Shooter said:
So, I guess I'm not getting your thread title then. It would seem you were interested in improvements or the overall quality of today's dry yeast by asking the question:

Dry yeasts really that good now?

Maybe something along these lines would be more appropriate:

I don't like dry yeast. Who's with me?
Click to expand...

No, it just seems that way because I didn't see any convincing
answers to my question. But I've heard enough to be willing
to split a batch and use dry yeast on half. But it seems to me
that dry yeasts are primarily a money saving short cut, and
if they were really that good, they would be in demand, the
price would go up and the price of liquid yeast would go down.

Jim :mug:
 
jdc2 said:
No, it just seems that way because I didn't see any convincing
answers to my question. But I've heard enough to be willing
to split a batch and use dry yeast on half. But it seems to me
that dry yeasts are primarily a money saving short cut, and
if they were really that good, they would be in demand, the
price would go up and the price of liquid yeast would go down.

Jim :mug:
Click to expand...

I think many will agree with me here. The price of Fermentis Dry Yeast HAS gone up and it's because more brewers are using it. So you're right, this is happening.
 
Lodovico said:
I think many will agree with me here. The price of Fermentis Dry Yeast HAS gone up and it's because more brewers are using it. So you're right, this is happening.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there have been many threads complaining about it recently. I imagine jdc2 will now argue that the rising price is a clear indication that not enough people are buying dry yeast and therefore companies like Fermentis are having to raise prices. So, this indicates it must be an inferior product.

I really still don't understand this thread. The OP says there are no clear or convincing arguments made here, yet several people have noted their success and the success of commercial brewers using dry yeast. However, this anecdotal evidence isn't convincing, but all of his arguments are along the lines of, "Well in my experience." It really just seems like he's one of those posters who likes to be contrary, because he can. I don't know, I've used both dry and liquid yeast. They both work fine as long as you understand the limits of the strain you're working with, but the premise here seems to be dry yeast is inherently flawed somehow. I guess I don't see any convincing evidence that supports that either.
 
My own limited experience with both has shown no difference in liquid, dry, or rehydrated.
I bet there are more than a few brewers around here that could put this to rest with a blind taste test.
 
jdc2 said:
No, it just seems that way because I didn't see any convincing answers to my question.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm even getting involved here, but ...

what would count as a convincing answer to your question?

Or, as some other people have noted, why isn't the answer here just: OK, then maybe you shouldn't use dry yeast? Lots of people here do and are very satisfied with their final products. But if you don't find any of these people's reasons convincing, then ... well, don't use it. Seems like that should be it, no? :confused:
 
As I said in my first post in this thread, this was a "quickly down-spiraling thread" - the OP had his opinion from the start, contrary opinions (and facts) be damned, and, as Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that."
 
jdc2 said:
No, it just seems that way because I didn't see any convincing
answers to my question. But I've heard enough to be willing
to split a batch and use dry yeast on half. But it seems to me
that dry yeasts are primarily a money saving short cut, and
if they were really that good, they would be in demand, the
price would go up and the price of liquid yeast would go down.

Jim :mug:
Click to expand...

I sell more liquid yeast than dry yeast, but I sell thousands of pack of dry yeast. There is a demand and the price if the most popular line of yeast recently doubled in price. Liquid yeast price will not go down because there is no reason for it to go down. If you havent not noticed things do not go down in price.

About the only thing I have seen go down in price is computers and memory. But computers and memory are extremely popular so price isn't related to popularity, that I can see.

There is nothing wrong with using dry yeast. That being said, there is a much bigger selection of liquids and the dry is made from a liquid.

Why do you need to be convinced to use dry? Use what you want and let others use what they want.
 
Exactly what I have said, do not let people tell you why you should use this or that. TRY it for yourself do the side by side then you will have results for you and your fermentation system.
 
Palefire said:
what would count as a convincing answer to your question?
Click to expand...

A scientific reason for improved yeast quality, such as:
"Oh yeah, the Acme yeast company has bioengineered
a strain that eliminates the long lag time."

Ok, now a question for all those people claiming to have
great beer with dry yeast: are you making light lagers
or pale ales with them, or only dark beers with half a pound
or more of dark malts to cover up the flavor defects?
Jim :mug:
 
jdc2 said:
Ok, now a question for all those people claiming to have
great beer with dry yeast: are you making light lagers
or pale ales with them, or only dark beers with half a pound
or more of dark malts to cover up the flavor defects?
Jim :mug:
Click to expand...

I'm making everything from light lagers to dark heavy beers (and I'm not "claiming" it, I'm doing it,) and like I said, I use 90% dry yeast for my brewing. And I'll have you know that my last two award winning beers, (one of them being a pretty light lager actually) were brewed with dried yeast.

You also fail to note that since very few contests ask WHAT YEAST PEOPLE USE, and rarely even ask what the recipe is, that even knowing the ration of dry yeast vs liquid (or ag vs extract for that matter) wins awards.

Dude, your thread is a thinly veiled troll thread, nothing more because you've obviously made up your mind, to have a bias against dry yeast. Including backing it up with the same sorts of old supposed "data" that was carried through from the days of crappy caked yeast.

You ignore the fact that in todays brewing the market is so competitive, that if dry yeast were so crappy it would be forced out of the marketplace.

You don't seem to care or even note that ALL the major dry yeast manufacturers have commercial divisions. That quite a few major breweries and well established micro breweries use dry yeast on a regular basis.

Like this;

Beer Industrial Brewing Why use Fermentis Yeast

Danstars website even says 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...

That means a)They were aimed at a professional market first, b) later have they become available to hobbiest. Kinda of like drug being prescription only first, THEN at some point it becomes available over the counter.

You've refused to note any changes in dry yeast that has been made over the last 30 years.

And that there's a difference from an anonymous foiled packet of yeast under the lid of a cheap kit and kilo brew kit, and yeast from one of the biggies like Danstar and fermentis...

You've even ignored what one of the most noted authors on brewing, John Palmer has said about dry yeast.

So it's clear that you're set in your ways, you're not willing to be open minded, or even acknowledge that maybe your beliefs or even the info you use to "justify" your beliefs, may be outdated, biased or wrong.

So go ahead and use what you chose to, and believe what you want (right or wrong) and we're going to keep using what we use, and believe what we believe. And some of us are going to keep helping new brewers get the right information so that they can make up their own mind and realize that, like in so much of brewing their is no better or best, but only the preferred way of doing things.

And that in this day and age, as we have all said, there is nothing wrong with dry yeast coming from the big manufacturers like Danstar and Fermentis. That yeast science and the market place has made outdated notions like "contamination" and low performance and whatever else you choose to believe, pretty null and void. And that except for the reasons that authors like palmer, and many of us have noted (variety mostly) there really is no difference in terms of quality between liquid and dry yeast.

And that great beer and crappy can be made equally with dry and liquid yeast.

You supposedly asked a question; "Is dry yeast as good as liquid?" And the unanimous answer has been "Yes," but you don't really give a flying flip about the answer. You just really want to pick a fight.

Well, we don't do that here.

And by the way your compressed and pseudo
poetic way of formatting your answers in little
"couplets" or whatever you call it may have been
"cute" or original (to you at least but Zul'jen and
Jack the knife have been doing it for years and
do it much better than you) the first time you did it.
But is just hard for most folks to read. And just gets
really annoying after awhile.

Just like this thread has as well.

*unsubscribe*
 
SpanishCastleAle said:
Ya'll been trolled imo.
Click to expand...

+ 1000, see my comments.

troll_copy.jpg
 
Revvy said:
And by the way your compressed and pseudo
poetic way of formatting your answers in little
"couplets" or whatever you call it may have been
"cute" or original (to you at least but Zul'jen and
Jack the knife have been doing it for years and
do it much better than you) the first time you did it.
But is just hard for most folks to read. And just gets
really annoying after awhile.

Just like this thread has as well.

*unsubscribe*
Click to expand...

You are overreacting. There is no formatting by me going on, it's just
that the line endings are folded over or not depending on whether
or not I remember to hit the enter key at the end of the line.
My original post was honest and so were my answers. Some people
here really don't like a contrary opinion though.
Jim:confused:
 
Revvy said:
You don't seem to care or even note that ALL the major dry yeast manufacturers have commercial divisions. That quite a few major breweries and well established micro breweries use dry yeast on a regular basis.

Like this;

Beer Industrial Brewing Why use Fermentis Yeast
Click to expand...

I did note it because you said so earlier, and I responded that just
because some breweries use it doesn't mean that their beers wouldn't
be better if they pitched actively fermenting yeast. There's plenty of
mediocre microbrew out there, and maybe that's one reason why.

But even this Fermentis company appears to think that their dried
yeast is for special occasions, not regular use. This quote is from the
website you provided:

"Ready to pitch yeast from Fermentis offer significant benefits to the brewery depending on the application. Multiple site operations can achieve consistency by using the same yeast for pitching at all sites without the cost of transport or multiple propagations. Beers brewed infrequently such as beer brewed under licence or new products are often better suited to direct pitching rather than running the propagation plant for yeast that is not required for more than a few brews. Finally, the opportunity to replace the yeast at short notice is valuable to many brewers if accidental contamination of the yeast strain occurs."

They seem to be saying: "You can have better consistency with
dried yeast (maybe consistently mediocre); if you don't want to
bother propagating liquid yeast for just a couple of batches, use dry;
if your liquid yeast goes bad, use dry for a temporary replacement."

None of this means you won't get better beer if you use liquid instead
of dry.
Jim:mug::mug:
 
Well, I guess to further validate your point - even when I pitch my Notty or Danny or rehydrate it, it comes into contact with my wort.
Therefore theoretically making it a liquid.

You both win.
Be happy
 
jdc2 said:
I did note it because you said so earlier, and I responded that just
because some breweries use it doesn't mean that their beers wouldn't
be better if they pitched actively fermenting yeast. There's plenty of
mediocre microbrew out there, and maybe that's one reason why.

But even this Fermentis company appears to think that their dried
yeast is for special occasions, not regular use. This quote is from the
website you provided:

"Ready to pitch yeast from Fermentis offer significant benefits to the brewery depending on the application. Multiple site operations can achieve consistency by using the same yeast for pitching at all sites without the cost of transport or multiple propagations. Beers brewed infrequently such as beer brewed under licence or new products are often better suited to direct pitching rather than running the propagation plant for yeast that is not required for more than a few brews. Finally, the opportunity to replace the yeast at short notice is valuable to many brewers if accidental contamination of the yeast strain occurs."

They seem to be saying: "You can have better consistency with
dried yeast (maybe consistently mediocre); if you don't want to
bother propagating liquid yeast for just a couple of batches, use dry;
if your liquid yeast goes bad, use dry for a temporary replacement."

None of this means you won't get better beer if you use liquid instead
of dry.
Jim:mug::mug:
Click to expand...

what they are saying is depending on application dry yeast is a viable alternative to a prop plant. Make no sense on the scale of AB to procure, store, and rehydrate dried yeast. The handling and storage space alone would not warrant the application. But, if a brewery is producing on a much smaller scale say, less than a hectoliter per year, then it makes little sense to worry about propogation if the strain is available dried. Thus negating the need for the lab, the vessels, and the staff.

The rest is self explanatory. Propogate your Punkin Ale strain through the year or buy a dried strain?
 
DRY YEAST IS BETTER!! IN YO FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but for real just use what works for you. if you like dry use dry. if you dont like dry shut up and use liquid. that easy
 
jdc2 said:
You are overreacting. There is no formatting by me going on, it's just that the line endings are folded over or not depending on whether or not I remember to hit the enter key at the end of the line.
Click to expand...

You don't need to hit the enter key at the end of each line, unless you are typing on a typewriter. Typing, like yeast, has changed a bit in the past few decades.
 
I totally disagree that jdc2 is a troll. He has asked some great questions, brought up great points with citation, and has not personally mentioned anyone. In fact I think the forum is acting like a bunch of jerks to him.

I have not been impressed by dry yeast either. Let it be known. I brewed a Helles recently and the half I fermented with liquid yeast was way better. Maybe I just need to learn how to use that strain better, but the fact is that the beer fermented with dry was not as good. I will continue to try dry yeast, but in the three beers I have made with it, I have not been impressed (Helles, Oktoberfest, and a pale ale).

I think dry yeast is a fine alternative, but I much prefer liquid in my experience so far.

Back off the new guy. I, for one, am very impressed by how he has questioned this and argued his points. Just because a bunch of anonymous guys say something on the internet doesn't mean anyone has to take us seriously.
 
GeorgeH said:
You don't need to hit the enter key at the end of each line, unless you are typing on a typewriter. Typing, like yeast, has changed a bit in the past few decades.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one that looked the book up he referenced to earlier? Unless I am reading it wrong, the book was written in 1936 with one revision in 2001??

I used to use liquid yeast exclusively and have now used dry yeast exclusively for porbably 6 months (mainly Safale US-05) with great results. I make all types of Ales from BMC and Pale to IPA, Browns, Porters, etc.
 
Boerderij_Kabouter said:
I totally disagree that jdc2 is a troll. He has asked some great questions, brought up great points with citation, and has not personally mentioned anyone. In fact I think the forum is acting like a bunch of jerks to him.
Click to expand...

I will respectfully disagree! :mug:

I don't think anyone is acting like jerks, well not most people. I do think there's some information he's twisting to show how it proves his point. The Fermentis quote in example is stating that there are many times you might not want to keep liquid yeast on hand, but that quote has NOTHING to do with the quality of the product or the quality of the final beer, just noting one of the up sides of dry yeast. There are many positive aspects of both dry and liquid yeast, but he twists it to note that, in his words:

"You can have better consistency with
dried yeast (maybe consistently mediocre); if you don't want to
bother propagating liquid yeast for just a couple of batches, use dry;
if your liquid yeast goes bad, use dry for a temporary replacement."

Note the mediocre addition there? He doesn't like dry yeast...that seems to be the point. Okay, point taken.

It seems he finds that there is a lot of lag time with dry yeast. I haven't noticed a significant lag time with properly rehydrated yeast. I've had liquid yeast that was quicker to ferment, but also some that was slower. However, jdc2 seems to think his experience should be taken as dogma and he casually waves away anyone else's experiences.

I don't agree with how jdc2 is arguing his point, I think he's misrepresenting a few things and certainly didn't ask this question to be convinced of anything. I do agree that, despite being a bit bull headed, he has been relatively professional in his responses. I think jdc2 is a big boy and can take care of himself! :D
 
Also, of interest, jdc2 raises the point that dry prices should increase if it's in such demand. When the fact that prices have gone up recently is brought to his attention, he simply ignores it as it is counter to his arguement.

Sir, it's not that we don't like a contrary opinion, it's that you make contrary points and then fail to follow up on them, instead jumping on to your next argument without addressing many counterpoints or simply blowing them aside.

EDIT: I guess my main point is that he see's no convincing evidence that dry yeast can make consistently good beer. I would counter that he has presented no convincing evidence that it cannot.
 
Back on the subject of discussion (which is supposed to be dry vs. liquid yeast) according to http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php you need 180 billion cells for 5.25 gallons of 1.048 wort.

According to the same link (I couldn't find a reference on Wyeast's or White Labs' sites) the most a tube of liquid yeast has is 120 billion cells, 66% of what you'd need for that wort.

According to http://www.danstaryeast.com/tds/nottingham.pdf dry Nottingham yeast has 5 billion cells per gram, and it comes in 11 gram packets, which works out to 55 billion cells (30% of our pitching rate). To achieve 180 billions cells you'd need a bit more than 3 packets of Nottingham.
 
Boerderij_Kabouter said:
I totally disagree that jdc2 is a troll. He has asked some great questions, brought up great points with citation, and has not personally mentioned anyone. In fact I think the forum is acting like a bunch of jerks to him.
Click to expand...

Thank you BK, I am not a troll. This place is like any newsgroup,
there are always people who want to be the "expert" and control
the conversation.
Jim:mug:
 
Shooter said:
I will respectfully disagree! :mug:

I don't think anyone is acting like jerks, well not most people. I do think there's some information he's twisting to show how it proves his point. The Fermentis quote in example is stating that there are many times you might not want to keep liquid yeast on hand, but that quote has NOTHING to do with the quality of the product or the quality of the final beer, just noting one of the up sides of dry yeast. There are many positive aspects of both dry and liquid yeast, but he twists it to note that, in his words:

"You can have better consistency with
dried yeast (maybe consistently mediocre); if you don't want to
bother propagating liquid yeast for just a couple of batches, use dry;
if your liquid yeast goes bad, use dry for a temporary replacement."

Note the mediocre addition there? He doesn't like dry yeast...that seems to be the point. Okay, point taken.
Click to expand...

I'm not twisting anything. I gave the original quote and then told
you what I thought it meant. Nowhere do they say that you would
make beer as good as liquid yeast, but one of the other posters
supplied the link to that quote as evidence that dry yeast is just as good as
making a starter, when it isn't evidence for anything other than
that dry yeast may be an *adequate* substitute.
Jim:mug:
 

Similar threads

Tony B
Dry yeast question
Replies
6
Views
494
hotbeer
hotbeer
mongoose33
Oxygenating Dry Yeast issue
Replies
9
Views
939
Red over White
Red over White
hilljack13
First try at collecting yeast
Replies
2
Views
275
odie
odie
F
Liquid yeast - am I missing something?
2 3
Replies
98
Views
3K
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
Zippy123
Yeast starter for pressure lager (~68 F ferm)
Replies
10
Views
629
rallenhall
rallenhall

Latest posts

Back
Top