K-97 is supposed to be a kolsch yeast, and I'm going to try it in an oktoberfest and a munich smash soon. We'll see how it does.
Also, brett is a yeast, or have I lost my mind?
So Why Use Anything but Dried Yeast
- Thread starter Paddle_Head
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
K-97 is supposed to be a kolsch yeast, and I'm going to try it in an oktoberfest and a munich smash soon. We'll see how it does.
Also, brett is a yeast, or have I lost my mind?
mysterio
Well-Known Member
Yes, Brettanomyces ('British Funghi') is a yeast.
GOOCHY
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 12
They were blind tastings, yes.
I can't help but think I'm being unduly scrutinized here for expressing an unpopular opinion.
Not at all, I don't have any practical experience in comparing two same yeast strains - one liquid and one dry. I was just wondering.
flyangler18
Well-Known Member
I'm unfamiliar with that strain personally, but I look forward to your results. A Kölsch ain't a Kölsch without a proper Kölsch yeast.
Yes, Brettanomyces is yeast.
Bob
Well-Known Member
I know I am in the minority by saying this (and thusly subjecting myself to a tar and feathering
Of course, this is my palate talking, so YMMV. I harbor no ill will or disdain for dry yeast, but simply prefer liquid varieties.
This for you, my friend!
Seriously, to each his own. In reference to your later posts, I'm not going to slam you for tasting an off-flavor. I agree that blind, triangular tastings with control groups are important to generate useful data. But your palate is your own, as is the money you spend on your hobby; if you object to the result of a particular ingredient - whether the result is psychosomatic or "real" - there's no one can force you to blow money using it.
You keep a yeast bank and that's great. I don't, because I'm simply too busy and scatterbrained to be arsed to look after it. The overriding fact for me is I'm my only "customer", so mine is the palate I must satisfy. Dry yeast work for me in that regard. I'm satisfied with the brewing and flavor results I get. I'm also satisfied with the convenience. I hate building starters. Plus, I'm so busy that when I find time to brew it's generally NOW - there's no time to build a starter. Sometimes I can get round that by brewing two half-batches 24 hours apart, but very infrequently; then I can pitch an XL smack-pack and be done. That's how I do Belgians with Ardennes.
Now if only there was a dry Belgian yeast that's worth two nickels. I'd be all over that.
flyangler18
Well-Known Member
Funny, I love making starters.
Maintaining the yeast bank and fiddling with starters, slants, plates and canned wort is part of the enjoyment to me. I'm a planner.
Synovia
Well-Known Member
You sound like a good candidate for no-chill. It lets you separate the brewing process and the fermenting process, because it allows you to store sterile wort.
You can set up the starter/whatever while you're brewing, and pitch a couple days later.
Bob
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the tip, Synovia, because I truly do appreciate it, but...
Nope. Not me, nuh-uh. I mean, there's innovation and everything, but then there's stuff like this.
I don't buy any of the protagonists' blithe dismissal of such things as haze, stability, yeast nutrition, complete lack of cold-break formation and other side-effects associated with no-chill brewing.
The whole "no-chill" discussion is one I absolutely refuse to enter, because it's a complete no-win for either "side". This is the one and only time I'll break that rule.
I'll stick with trusted, proven techniques and procedures learned from thousands of years of empirically-derived experience backed up by lots and lots of extremely smart people with multiple doctorates in brewing science, thanks.
Call me old-fashioned.
I'm glad no-chill brewing works for some people. However, I find it neither a particularly useful nor particularly wise technique. Like knocking out onto a yeast cake in a dirty fermenter, I think it's just an excuse to not do things properly. No evidence of complications arising from the technique is not support for the technique being wise. The two are not necessarily connected.
Jason,
More power to you, my friend! Different strokes for different folks. You're very process-oriented; I am mainly result-oriented.
Cheers to you both,
Bob
Nope. Not me, nuh-uh. I mean, there's innovation and everything, but then there's stuff like this.
I don't buy any of the protagonists' blithe dismissal of such things as haze, stability, yeast nutrition, complete lack of cold-break formation and other side-effects associated with no-chill brewing.
The whole "no-chill" discussion is one I absolutely refuse to enter, because it's a complete no-win for either "side". This is the one and only time I'll break that rule.
I'll stick with trusted, proven techniques and procedures learned from thousands of years of empirically-derived experience backed up by lots and lots of extremely smart people with multiple doctorates in brewing science, thanks.
Call me old-fashioned.
I'm glad no-chill brewing works for some people. However, I find it neither a particularly useful nor particularly wise technique. Like knocking out onto a yeast cake in a dirty fermenter, I think it's just an excuse to not do things properly. No evidence of complications arising from the technique is not support for the technique being wise. The two are not necessarily connected.
Jason,
More power to you, my friend! Different strokes for different folks. You're very process-oriented; I am mainly result-oriented.
Cheers to you both,
Bob
*Giggle* Suggesting a brewing process to NQ3X is sorta like telling Picasso to try pointillism.
Synovia, I don't know if you've ever noticed the link in Bob's sigline that says "Brewery Consultant," but you may enjoy clicking on it. He's been around the block a few times.
By the way Bob, you never got that 1860's era ale recipe to me. We're having the Vintage Base Ball Association Convention in town this year, and I'd LOVE to have an authentic beer on tap.
Bob
Well-Known Member
*Giggle* Suggesting a brewing process to NQ3X is sorta like telling Picasso to try pointillism.
But imagine if Picasso had tried some of the techniques that made Manet famous - we might have seen some very interesting Cubist images of Bass bottles!
Darn it, I knew there was something I was forgetting. I've got the file around here somewhere; I've been working on Elizabethan-era hopped beer lately, so I've got that on the brain. Let me figure out where I put it and I'll PM you.
Bob
Thanks bro!
That Elizabethan sounds interesting. I was watching yourube videos of Heston Blumenthal 's attempt at creating feasts from various historical and mythological periods. Pretty cool.
You ever think of writing a book of historical recipes?
KopyKat
Well-Known Member
I have done the blind testing on the K-97 Vs WLP 029 with a Kolsch recipe and the difference was so slight that my best taster could not for sure say there was a difference. I know I certainly couldn't and that surprised me. I assumed there would be a distinct difference and I would choose one yeast over the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by malkore
Well, there's no dry yeast out there for making a Kolsch. I wouldn't say that's a terribly exotic beer.
maybe someday Fermentis will make a dry yeast for every strain out there.
Though I'm not sure you can get brett or lacto in a dry form since they're bacteria.
.
The K-97 was hydrated per instructions and the liquid was pitched from a starter using the MrMalty calculations.
Both were a split of a 10 gallon batch into two 5 gallon fermentations at 62° for two weeks, raised for 2 days to 68° and kegged. I lagered both for 4 weeks at 36° before testing.
Results may vary.
northernlad
Well-Known Member
Perhaps this is why I find New Belgium and Alaskan to be shyte, generally speaking.
I have had no problems opening a bag of liquid yeast and pouring it right into the fermenter.
. . . yet.
So many folks seem to forget that last word when explaining their experience.
TL
Interesting thread. I've wondered a bit about the differences too ever since my home brew shop sold me my first kit and gave me the option to upgrade to liquid saying that it had a "cleaner" taste. I'm definitely going to be switching it up a bit when I get home, see what the taste differences are and what not.
Bob
Well-Known Member
Maybe someday. For this project, I'm hoping to net a magazine article out of it. Gonna have to totally change the stye, though: I've never seen footnotes in BYO.
Bob
