Lets talk dry yeast

(someone play taps please)
I haven't used dry yeast since my very first batch back in '05. What I have been doing with some degrees of success with WL is saving yeast slurry/washing. Well lucky me I just had to dump three batches from two different strains of saved yeast! Dude, Bird and Bernie; sorry for the Rye... I owe you and Bernie don't drink it if you haven't opened it yet. Bird was not so lucky. It only got worse Bird .

I'm done with saving yeast other than the occasional on top of the slurry but am thinking I don't need to always put up $8 for some WL for every batch. I don't experiment too much with different styles of yeast and am usually using WLP002 - English Ale, WLP001 - CA Ale. I know some of you have been using dry with great success and I'm looking for some opinions for similar strains to what I've been using if they exist. I know Safale and Nottingham has been discussed but there really doesn't seem to be that much info that I could locate. My LHBS of course has a poor(?) selection of dry (Coopers, Munton, Nottingham & Windsor).

Every single one of my classic pale ale recipes use safale-56. Red Eye Rye this last time, LWPA, Pliny the Bastid. Bigger gravity beers I pitch 2 packets. I never make a starter or rehydrate it and I have fast starts within 4-6 hours. Sometimes I pitch on a cake but I never re-use it more than once.

I don't use the others much but I did recently buy an S-04.

I love Safale US-56 (now S-05). I haven't used WLP001, but I gather they are very similar, but the Safale yeast may not floctuate as much (no experience here though).

I used to be a big fan of Wyeast 1056, which is also a similar strain, but the dry Safale version is far cheaper and much more convenient, as Dude has pointed out. Using the Safale dry version over a similar liquid yeast is a no-brainer to me.

Love the US-56/S-05. The S-04 is good, too, just used it on a brown ale that came out very nicely (or maybe that was Windsor?). I've used Nottingham quite a bit.

Always had a very short lag time (usually less than 12 hours, always less than 24). I've gotten 85% attenuation out of US-56.

They're cheap, no started needed (or, arguably, desired). Clean. They last for ages in the fridge. US-56 is nice and clean...

Thanks for the feedback; I've seen that the Safale 56 is Chico like. Now where is Orfy to discuss my english style needs . My two most often made beers (Porter and IPA) use the english strain.

Not much info on these dry yeasts on the 'net that I can find unlike Wyeast and WL.

EDIT- Safale 04 is english in nature; gotta snoop for nottingham (they got multiple types?)

To be honest, Munton did the job for me. Used it with a brown ale and I have absolutely no complaints. I had 2-3 bubbles/sec after a few hours. Very productive yeast might I say. Didn't even hydrate it. No complaints about Munton here.

Nottingham is Danstar.

I have had great success with various safale strains, I would say I use dry yeast on atleast half of my batches and have never had a problem. I have even used saflager dry yeast to make a munich dunkel and it work fantasically.

When I use dry yeast I use safale 04 for all my british style ales and they come out great. I've recently been contemplating going back to dry unless my brew calls for something specific, less of a hassle and results are just as good.

Windsor is great if the style calls for lower attenuation. My current batch is on a Nottingham cake and it hit 81% after two days.

I've used Windsor but it flocculates too poorly for my taste. My favorite dry is S-04. It makes a nice dense cake in primary that is easy to siphon off of, and it makes good beer besides. I've used it in 5 of my thus far 9 batches.

Haven't tried Nottingham yet.

I personally like the flexability that Liquid strains give you, but I agree that they are a royal pain in the A$$, especially if they don't behave for you. I'm looking at possibly dumping a batch because of this.

I'm going to the LHBS today and pick up some dry strains to keep around. I think if I had one of these available, I wouldn't have F'd up my porter the way I did.

Biermann said:

I personally like the flexability that Liquid strains give you, but I agree that they are a royal pain in the A$$

Click to expand...

How so? If anything... they are easier to use. Let a vial sit out and warm up for a few hours, brew your beer, dump it into the primary. Thats actually easier to use than dry yeast which should be rehydrated.

Now if you want to make a starter, thats one additional step but its still only a few minutes worth of work.

I hope they keep improving dry yeast. I love it. I throw it in and it goes. I don't even rehydrate. I've always had fermentation within 3 or 4 hours tops.

sirsloop said:

How so? If anything... they are easier to use. Let a vial sit out and warm up for a few hours, brew your beer, dump it into the primary. Thats actually easier to use than dry yeast which should be rehydrated.

Click to expand...

This isn't even a contest. Dry yeast contains a billion (or more) cells vs. millions for a vial liquid yeast without a starter. I'd take the dry every time.

Dude said:

This isn't even a contest. Dry yeast contains a billion (or more) cells vs. millions for a vial liquid yeast without a starter. I'd take the dry every time.

Click to expand...

My point exactly.

I don't typically rehydrate my dry yeast. I just dump 'em in and swirl the carboy. I have good fermentation in no time flat.

I went to my homebrew shop today and bought like 5 different strains for backup purposes. I think I may actually brew tomorrow and use one of these.

I started using Nottingham based on a recommendation from David_42. I now use in my Haus Ale and I am very impressed with it. I have a Stone IPA which I used Safale 56, but it's still in the fermenter.

I'm very impressed with the quality of dry yeast today as apposed to a decade ago. I also like the convenience of keeping few in the fridge for when I feel the urge to brew where that does not work with the liquids due to time needed for a starter.

Nottingham Rocks!

Dude said:

This isn't even a contest. Dry yeast contains a billion (or more) cells vs. millions for a vial liquid yeast without a starter. I'd take the dry every time.

Click to expand...

Well, the statement was that liquid yeast was harder to use and implied that it took some magical skill or expertise to function properly, which imho is completely false.

I'll agree your statement about the yeast count. I'll also mention that all of my WL tubes that I pitched w/o a starter were chugging along nicely within 24 hours. At any rate, I can cook up a starter from start to finish is idk...15 mintues tops? Pretty much how fast I can heat up a liter of water to 180°F and cool it back down to 80°F

Dry yeast packs are much easier to store...thats for sure....

EdWort said:

I have a Stone IPA which I used Safale 56, but it's still in the fermenter.

Click to expand...

Love 56/05 for my IPAs!

I currently have a bitter fermenting with safale 04 whitbread. I have used 56/05, 33 and 58...excellent results with all.

Course for certain beers, there is no substitute for the "right" liquid strain and I dig plenty of the wyeast & white labs offerings.

Thanks guys for the replies. Ultimately I posed the question to figure out where I can be fruggle with the yeast expense since obviously I suck at saving yeast. Safale 56 sounds like an excellent replacement for WLP001 and only costs $1.50 or so. I'm going to try the 04 for my porter/IPA next go around as well.

WL will get my $ when necessary based on style (Hefe, Kolsch etc)

KISS

I Use Danstar Nottingham for all my English Style Ales and have found no reason to move away from it.
If you are looking to let the grain and hops do the work then it's a good all rounder for other brews as well.
Why go to the effort and cost of a liquid yeast if a dry will do?

No need to make a starter. If you're real lazy you can pitch from the pack. I rehydrate and feed on brew day before pitching.

The Safale sounds fine as well and then there is the Danstar Windsor.

Thanks Orfy.

Wonder why Brewpastor hasn't replied here?

Dude said:

Wonder why Brewpastor hasn't replied here?

Click to expand...

He's too busy in the I love Hefe thread. Don't know his stance; not a fan of dry I presume?

orfy said:

KISS


The Safale sound fine as well and then there is the Danstar Windsor.

Click to expand...

I picked up some of the Windsor the other day, and am curious about its profile?? Have you used this one as well??


I've decided that one thing that has been inhibiting my brews is the fact that I am probably grossly underpitching on my beers. I think, giving some of my recent mistakes, I am going to start using more dry yeast for beers that need a clean, healthy ferment. I'm not going to totally move away from liquid, but dry certainly has found a shelf in my ingredient fridge.

Thanks for educating me as well. I ordered Safale-56 in place of my usual Nottinghams. I was upset when I received Safale-05 and was sure I put in an order for 56. I checked the online receipt and it said 05, although I was positive I had order 56. I guess they must've just converted it to the new number before they sent it.

I'm glad I didn't call and complain, like I had planned!

Biermann said:

I picked up some of the Windsor the other day, and am curious about its profile?? Have you used this one as well??


I've decided that one thing that has been inhibiting my brews is the fact that I am probably grossly underpitching on my beers. I think, giving some of my recent mistakes, I am going to start using more dry yeast for beers that need a clean, healthy ferment. I'm not going to totally move away from liquid, but dry certainly has found a shelf in my ingredient fridge.

Click to expand...

One thing about dry yeast, you CAN overpitch with it.

I wouldn't ever use any more than 2 packets in a five gallon batch.

Biermann said:

I picked up some of the Windsor the other day, and am curious about its profile?? Have you used this one as well??

Click to expand...

Windsor doesn't attenuate as well as some other dry yeasts, like S-04. I used it in a batch of porter that had an OG around 1.052-1.054 (I forget exactly), and it stopped at 1.017. Granted, part of the reason is that I mashed at 156, but the combo of that and the Windsor left a high FG. It was good beer regardless. The thing I don't like about Windsor though is that it doesn't made a dense cake at the bottom of the fermentor, it leaves more of a soupy sludge instead.

Biermann said:

I picked up some of the Windsor the other day, and am curious about its profile?? Have you used this one as well??

Click to expand...

It has a nice fruityness to it imo. FG is high. Good for keeping thick body.

Dude said:

One thing about dry yeast, you CAN overpitch with it.

I wouldn't ever use any more than 2 packets in a five gallon batch.

Click to expand...

really, what happens when you overpitch??

I think Nottingham has a slightly cleaner profile than Windsor.
In optimal conditions I have never had a ferment take longer the 12 hours to get going and over 36 hours to finish.
I've never pitched more than 1 pack in a 6.5g batch. Most of my beers are 1040 to 1065.
I once pitched on a yeast cake and fermentation started (visibly) in under an hour and finished in just over 12 hours. The beer tasted fine.
I never use oxygen or make a starter.

delboy said:

really, what happens when you overpitch??

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was kinda curious as to this as well. I have heard that you shouldn't overpitch with any yeast. Something about crowding and straining yeast. .. I'm ignorant to that one though.

When I use dry yeast, I usually use 1-2 packet per 5 gallons, or 2-4 for 10 gallons.

Buford said:

Windsor doesn't attenuate as well as some other dry yeasts, like S-04.

Click to expand...

I kinda like that sometimes, though. I use WL 004 English Ale for that reason if I want a sweeter finish, or a heavier mouthfeel. I'm looking for a possible dry substitute for it, so the Windsor may fit the bill nicely.