Dry yeast question

[mighty_moe]

So I have a pack of Fermentis S-04 and a packet of Danstar Munich yeast. Wondering if it is possible to turn this into a liquid yeast, and put into a vial then refrigerate. Is something like this possible? I've not used dry yeast before, so not sure what its potential is.

thanks!

 

[Pappers_]

Hi Moe. Why do you want to do this? What advantage are you looking for?

Jim

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

the whole point of dry is it's longer storage and viability. To liquify the yeast would be pointless unless you are pitching it within an hour.

Those are both nice yeast.

 

[mighty_moe]

Just thought that it might be possible to convert it into a liquid yeast that's easier and maybe more reliable to pitch when I brew. I'd hate to let them go to waste, but I have used liquid exclusively thus far and not sure if I'd get around to using them.

 

[mezak1gd]

It seems you think dry yeast is inferior to liquid yeast. Which is not the case. I only use dry yeast (usually S-05). At least give it a shot all you have to do is pour into the wort. Or rehydrate if you want. Either way it will give you a great beer, its much cheaper, and easier/more convenient to store.

 

[lyacovett]

If you want to "convert" to a liquid yeast, just use as normal, then harvest it after/during fermentation. You now have it in a liquid version. This is what I have been doing, I am on my 6th batch from one S05 sachet.

I usually top crop to harvest, then make a starter after the yeast has settled, decant, and pitch it in my flask, and on the the stir plate. This will usually give me enough for at least one batch + enough for another starter.

 

[Pappers_]

Just thought that it might be possible to convert it into a liquid yeast that's easier and maybe more reliable to pitch when I brew. I'd hate to let them go to waste, but I have used liquid exclusively thus far and not sure if I'd get around to using them.

Thanks for explaining. Your assumptions are incorrect - dry yeast stores much longer than liquid yeast and is more convenient to pitch (best practices for liquid yeast call for a starter, dry yeast only needs hydration).

Liquid yeast is available in many more strains and varities than liquid yeast, but dry yeast is more convenient. Pluses and minuses!

 

[Bacchus]

Plus there are many, many more viable yeast cells in a packet of dry yeast.

 

[firebird77]

So other than selection of strains, why is it that most people seem to use liquid on here? I don't see why I would make a starter and use a more expensive yeast when my beers are turning out fine with dry yeast.

 

[passedpawn]

So other than selection of strains, why is it that most people seem to use liquid on here? I don't see why I would make a starter and use a more expensive yeast when my beers are turning out fine with dry yeast.

Sooner or later, you will want to make a Wit or something and you will find that there isn't a suitable dry yeast. Then you'll know why.

 

[samc]

Sooner or later they will expand the selection of dry yeasts. It's so much cheaper in the long run for the manufacturers to ship & store dry yeast. If people would keep requesting it from them eventually they will show up.

 

[passedpawn]

Sooner or later they will expand the selection of dry yeasts. It's so much cheaper in the long run for the manufacturers to ship & store dry yeast. If people would keep requesting it from them eventually they will show up.

It's been explained to me that some strains just aren't "dryable".

Of course, putting a man on the moon seemed like fantasy not long ago.

 

[Bacchus]

So other than selection of strains, why is it that most people seem to use liquid on here? I don't see why I would make a starter and use a more expensive yeast when my beers are turning out fine with dry yeast.

Because a Belgian ale isn't a Belgian ale without the proper yeast! LOL! Dry yeasts, although great, are very limited in their selection.

 

[joex444]

I don't think that's what firebird was asking.

It seems to me that US-05, WLP001, and Wyeast 1056 are all the same strain. Further, I think firebird was wondering why people seem to choose the liquid varieties over the dry, all else being equal. It's fairly obvious you can't make a Belgian with US-05, but for your standard pale ale... lots of us use US-05 or WLP001 or 1056, but which would you choose and why?

I'm actually wondering this myself, as I would choose WLP001 or 1056 depending on freshness. Apparently with dry yeast, freshness isn't as big of a concern and it is cheaper, notably so at my LHBS.

 

[Bob]

It seems to me that US-05, WLP001, and Wyeast 1056 are all the same strain.

As far as I'm aware, they are.

Further, I think firebird was wondering why people seem to choose the liquid varieties over the dry, all else being equal. It's fairly obvious you can't make a Belgian with US-05, but for your standard pale ale... lots of us use US-05 or WLP001 or 1056, but which would you choose and why?

Some people just have no faith in dry yeasts, even though that lack of faith is demonstrably faulty.

I think it stems from years ago, when dry yeasts were inferior to liquid slants. Guys who learn from brewers who come from those days (or were themselves taught by brewers from those days) tend to perpetuate the lack of faith.

For my brewery, there ain't no way I'm using liquid if there's an appropriate dry yeast available. The convenience far, far outweighs any benefit. The only exception is for styles - like Belgians - which absolutely require a specific strain I can't get in dry form.

I'm actually wondering this myself, as I would choose WLP001 or 1056 depending on freshness. Apparently with dry yeast, freshness isn't as big of a concern and it is cheaper, notably so at my LHBS.

You're really overpaying and making a huge PITA for yourself if you opt for 1056 or 001 over S-05. Unless, of course, you (unlike me) actually enjoy brewing starters. If (like me) you brew a stable of core styles which are excellent with dry yeasts, you may (like me) only need to go to liquid strains a few times per year.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Pappers_]

It seems to me that US-05, WLP001, and Wyeast 1056 are all the same strain. Further, I think firebird was wondering why people seem to choose the liquid varieties over the dry, all else being equal. It's fairly obvious you can't make a Belgian with US-05, but for your standard pale ale... lots of us use US-05 or WLP001 or 1056, but which would you choose and why?.

Well, there is another aspect to this question - its not just belgian yeast and other very specialized yeasts that are available in liquid but not dry forms.

Using the pale ale example above - in dry yeast, you can use US-05 for american pale ales, as I have done. Or you can use its counterpart, WLP001. Fair enough. Or, you could say that you want something similar to WLP001/US-05 but with a little more malt profile - so how about the East Coast Ale yeast (WLP008)? Or maybe you want a yeast similar to WLP001 but with some more lager-like characteristics - like American Ale Yeast Blend (WLP060).

For example, I just brewed a beer loosely based on an American Red, but its not going to be within any style guidelines (definitely an experimental beer) and decided to use the Edinburgh strain (WLP028) to accentuate the malt with less fruitiness and esters than english strains and less attenuation than american strains.

My point is - there's more variety and room for nuance in choosing strains from the liquid yeasts. All of that being said, I often use US-05 when I want a clean, attenuated beer and, for my cream stout, dry Windsor is my yeast of choice. Like Bob said, if it fits what you're trying to brew, dry is very convenient and less work.

 

[mezak1gd]

To the OP, if there's a dry yeast available suitable for your beer, use it. Saves money and is more convenient. If your uncomfortable, sure use S-05 liquid equivalent. Its your money and time. But I would never even consider liquid if a similar dry is available.

 

[mr_clean]

S-05 is the only dry yeast ill use