Top 5 Dry Yeasts?

Brewer's Friend 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.
Protos said:
dmtaylor above answered your question exactly as I would have answered, I think I've seen reports he mentions on this very forum.

Regarding the difference between the yeasts, you aren't kidding yourself, they are slightly different indeed. That's true for each and every yeast Mangrove Jack source from Lallemand. Their matching pairs (Nottingham/M42, Köln/M54, Windsor/M15, London/M10, Abbey/M47 etc.) are recognisably similar yet slightly different flavourwise, probably because MJ do not just repack but also blend their yeasts. To my liking, MJ's versions always taste a bit better.
Click to expand...

Maybe they really do know what they are doing, making custom blends. Maybe none of them are pure equivalents, but only partial. I myself ain't pulling out a microscope to know for sure.
 
BrewnWKopperKat said:
If some/many/most/all MJ yeasts are blends, would that have an impact on re-pitching or making a starter?
Click to expand...

It could indeed. Any yeast salespeople who know anything about anything will always tell you "oh you should never repitch, you need to buy new every time for the best consistency". Not just because it's true, which it is, but because they'll sell more yeast that way!!!
 
dmtaylor said:
It could indeed. Any yeast salespeople who know anything about anything will always tell you "oh you should never repitch, you need to buy new every time for the best consistency". Not just because it's true, which it is, but because they'll sell more yeast that way!!!
Click to expand...

Please help! We harvest our yeast with every batch. The yeast continues to perform very well, actually improving up through the 3rd or 4th harvest, and then it reaches it's peak performance. Regarding consistency, the yeast slurries are very consistent.

Wyeast has some info on their website about harvesting yeast, what to do, and what not to do.

Do you not harvest yeast?
 
@Oleson M.D. : MJ, in their product information (link to page with PDF download), has this section

1659096044692.png

It's their recommendation.

It could be a good starting point for understanding their strains of yeast.

Some people report mixed results when not following the recommendation.

Oleson M.D. said:
We harvest our yeast with every batch
Click to expand...
What strains are you using?
 
Once hydrated, dry yeast become wet yeast. If performance declines when repitching there's something wrong with the harvesting/repitching procedures or the yeast or both. It's known that dry brewer's yeast tend to perform better after repitching generation 1-2. The dry yeast cells at gen0 are adapted to commercial drying conditions, not to being molly-coddled by brewers. Beer from the first fermentation (with gen0 yeast) is usually blended, commercially, to maintain a level of consistency, because it's considered to be inferior compared with subsequent beers fermented by repitched wet yeast adapted to ferment brewery worts. My own observations fail to disprove this wisdom. The idea more consistency is achieved by pitching dry gen0 yeast every time is little more than marketing speil, I'm afraid. I suspect MJ's advice - if valid and not just sales motivated - has more to do with iffy repackaging procedures. That's not to say commercial yeast drying processes are necessarily consistent.
 
Oleson M.D. said:
Please help! We harvest our yeast with every batch. The yeast continues to perform very well, actually improving up through the 3rd or 4th harvest, and then it reaches it's peak performance. Regarding consistency, the yeast slurries are very consistent.

Wyeast has some info on their website about harvesting yeast, what to do, and what not to do.

Do you not harvest yeast?
Click to expand...

I do in fact harvest yeast. My comments above were somewhat facetious, spoken from the perspective of a yeast vendor. If you enjoy the results of subsequent batches from the same yeast as I do, then don't change a thing. :)
 
I suggest adding Omega Lutra to the dry yeasts to try, especially during the warmer months if you don't have temperature control. I was a fan of the liquid Lutra for this reason and I'm a fan of the dry Lutra. The dry Lutra is easier to ship, store, and lasts a year or two in the right conditions (in the refrigerator) and costs a little less too, depending on where you shop.

I harvested and split the gen 0 batch slurry into 4 pint sized jars and have re-pitched 3 of the 4. It's off and running within 4 hours of pitch at 75F. Done in 4 to 5 days if you're in a rush to keg / bottle, but it drops clearer if you give it a full 2 weeks. Results are great each time. I brought the liquid Lutra 3 generations deep without any perceivable variations after 20 or so batches. I'm sure the dry will perform the same.

~HopSing.
 
schmurf said:
Lallemand says Nottingham could be repitched just like any other yeast, but wort should be areated before repitching.
Click to expand...

I think it’s important to aerate the yeast slurry, more so than the wort. I have seen TV shows where the commercial brewers literally took a 5 gallon pail of yeast, and poured it back and forth between two buckets to induce O2.

Our wort picks up O2 during the run off.
 
Oleson M.D. said:
I think it’s important to aerate the yeast slurry, more so than the wort. I have seen TV shows where the commercial brewers literally took a 5 gallon pail of yeast, and poured it back and forth between two buckets to induce O2.

Our wort picks up O2 during the run off.
Click to expand...

Sounds similar to a Shaken, Not Stirred starter.
 
McMullan said:
Once hydrated, dry yeast become wet yeast. If performance declines when repitching there's something wrong with the harvesting/repitching procedures or the yeast or both. It's known that dry brewer's yeast tend to perform better after repitching generation 1-2. The dry yeast cells at gen0 are adapted to commercial drying conditions, not to being molly-coddled by brewers. Beer from the first fermentation (with gen0 yeast) is usually blended, commercially, to maintain a level of consistency, because it's considered to be inferior compared with subsequent beers fermented by repitched wet yeast adapted to ferment brewery worts. My own observations fail to disprove this wisdom. The idea more consistency is achieved by pitching dry gen0 yeast every time is little more than marketing speil, I'm afraid. I suspect MJ's advice - if valid and not just sales motivated - has more to do with iffy repackaging procedures. That's not to say commercial yeast drying processes are necessarily consistent.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that beer from the first fermentation (with gen0 yeast) is usually blended, commercially, to maintain a level of consistency ... because it's different, but not because it is necessarily inferior. The counterexample is Gordon Biersch, which only uses gen-0 yeast.
 
AlexKay said:
My understanding is that beer from the first fermentation (with gen0 yeast) is usually blended, commercially, to maintain a level of consistency ... because it's different, but not because it is necessarily inferior. The counterexample is Gordon Biersch, which only uses gen-0 yeast.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's described as inferior compared with subsequent brews fermented with repitched yeast. And my observations to date support it. If you study brewing science in the UK that's what you'll be taught and what you'll practice as a professional brewer. Mainly because that's what has been determined empirically by those who have bothered to consider it. Contrarianism is such a weak position, at best.
 
There are many commercial breweries that harvest yeast for use in the next brew.

Hoffbrau Brewery in Munich harvests the yeast until the 4th generation.
 
GoodTruble said:
Okay, thread has been officially hijacked.

It was my fault. I accept all responsibility. And I respectfully request we return to "5 Best Dry Yeasts" for future references sake. And start a "Dry Yeast Dopplegangers and Harvesting" thread elsewhere. (Just a suggestion).
Click to expand...

The best dry yeasts are not dry at all. They are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. generation of the yeast.

Our House Lager: Diamond

Our House Ale: S-04
 
McMullan said:
Nope, it's described as inferior compared with subsequent brews fermented with repitched yeast. And my observations to date support it. If you study brewing science in the UK that's what you'll be taught and what you'll practice as a professional brewer. Mainly because that's what has been determined empirically by those who have bothered to consider it. Contrarianism is such a weak position, at best.
Click to expand...
Vague appeals to authority, flavored with ad hominem attacks. I honestly don’t know why I replied.
 
BrewnWKopperKat said:
Which MJ strains were you successful with? which MJ strains behaved inconsistently?
Click to expand...
Well, from my experience of repitching various MJ yeasts, I divide them into three categories.
Most of the yeasts, I repitched multiple times in different conditions.

Mangrove Jack's yeasts that are likely to retain their flavour character in subsequent generations:
M36, M42, M41, M47, M20

Mangrove Jack's yeasts that are prone to changing their flavour character in subsequent generations:
M15 (loss of signature dark fruit flavour), M29 (loss of much of the phenolic character), M31 (acquiring prominent phenolic character), M54 (acquiring strong pear ester)

Mangrove Jack's yeasts that usually change their flavour character AND fermentation kinetics in subsequent generations:
M21 and M10 (secondary spontaneous re-fermentations after 2-3 weeks are frequent).

YMMV.
 
Thanks @Protos !

Hopefully others with experience re-pitching MJ strains will share their experiences with specific strains.

(FWIW, I'm still a sprinkle it on top, one-and-done dry yeast user. Eventually, re-pitching may become a serious interest and a priority - but for now, I just appreciate the insights that you and others provide. ).
 
BrewnWKopperKat said:
(FWIW, I'm still a sprinkle it on top, one-and-done dry yeast user.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest staying that way, if you can. For me, there's nothing fun or interesting in harvesting and repitching yeasts. I do that just to cut the costs, which I have to, because my incomes are far behind my brewing frequency, volume and scope. If I had yeasts for free, I'd ferment all my beers exclusively with the generation 0, which is always the best, and just dump those sloppy ugly slurries down the gurgler, instead of saving and reusing them.

Every time you repitch you add a risk into your process, and sometimes it does strike, however meticulous you are with your sanitation regimen. Ruining the meager savings you hoped to earn from reusing your yeasts.
 
Protos said:
I'd suggest staying that way, if you can. For me, there's nothing fun or interesting in harvesting and repitching yeasts. I do that just to cut the costs, which I have to, because my incomes are far behind my brewing frequency, volume and scope. If I had yeasts for free, I'd ferment all my beers exclusively with the generation 0, which is always the best, and just dump those sloppy ugly slurries down the gurgler, instead of saving and reusing them.

Every time you repitch you add a risk into your process, and sometimes it does strike, however meticulous you are with your sanitation regimen. Ruining the meager savings you hoped to earn from reusing your yeasts.
Click to expand...
If repitching's about cost it's because it's priceless - you can't buy the best fresh yeast to pitch, you have to collect it fresh and reuse as soon as.
 
That's true, yet I'm still to find a dry yeast that would improve past Gen. 0.
M54, maybe. The only exception I know.

The idea more consistency is achieved by pitching dry gen0 yeast every time is little more than marketing speil, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
That's what I think too. Using Gen.0, I can predict exactly what I'll get from the fermenter.
After that, it's more or less of a lottery. The beer may or may not come out like I expect.
 
Protos said:
That's true, yet I'm still to find a dry yeast that would improve past Gen. 0.
M54, maybe. The only exception I know.


That's what I think too. Using Gen.0, I can predict exactly what I'll get from the fermenter.
After that, it's more or less of a lottery. The beer may or may not come out like I expect.
Click to expand...
I like the first pitch of Verdant the best myself. A 500ml vitality starter with Verdant gives me 6-8 points in the first 24 hours with no oxygen or aeration and gives the best ester expression vs subsequent pitches on my gear and SOP.
 
Huh, i've direct pitched dry, re-hydrated and pitched, and harvested anywhere from 2-5 generations and can't say I noticed any difference in any style of my beers. If you use a single strain of yeast and harvest it I'm curious how it would be different than simply pitching the same amount of yeast cells from a first generation (except for the fact it will be in a different state or stage of life).

With dry yeast being cheap, me being lazy, I now only re-use yeast for certain situations - rare yeast strains, or brewing a low gravity beer to then pitch a high gravity beer on top of.

Buuut back on topic:
- Diamond Lager
- S-04
- US-05
- Belle Saison
- 34/70

I'm a basic *****
 
Last edited:
McMullan said:
Nope, it's described as inferior compared with subsequent brews fermented with repitched yeast. And my observations to date support it. If you study brewing science in the UK that's what you'll be taught and what you'll practice as a professional brewer. Mainly because that's what has been determined empirically by those who have bothered to consider it. Contrarianism is such a weak position, at best.
Click to expand...
Can you link where you've read that yeast is inferior if used first generation? Because that sounds like bull to me, or at least the truth is more nuanced and depends on certain things
 
I have two Bo Pils made with 34/70 on tap right now; one is generation 0 and the other generation 1. To my palate they are identical. I am planning on bringing them to my next homebrew club meeting and doing a triangle test with a dozen+ people.

I just read “Serial Repitching of Dried Lager Yeast”, Serial Repitching of Dried Lager Yeast

It’s out of Lallemand, but it’s in a peer-reviewed journal. The gist seems to be — at least for Lallemand Diamond — that you can repitch dry yeast pretty much exactly as you would liquid. It gets more consistent but a little less clean with subsequent generations, which I would find less than ideal.
 
AlexKay said:
I have two Bo Pils made with 34/70 on tap right now; one is generation 0 and the other generation 1. To my palate they are identical. I am planning on bringing them to my next homebrew club meeting and doing a triangle test with a dozen+ people.

I just read “Serial Repitching of Dried Lager Yeast”, Serial Repitching of Dried Lager Yeast

It’s out of Lallemand, but it’s in a peer-reviewed journal. The gist seems to be — at least for Lallemand Diamond — that you can repitch dry yeast pretty much exactly as you would liquid. It gets more consistent but a little less clean with subsequent generations, which I would find less than ideal.
Click to expand...

Good article. It confirms our experience in yeast harvesting.

The yeast has remained clean throughout. Not a real difference in flavor between gen 1 and gen 4. But a large difference in yeast viability with associated decrease in lag time.
 
AlexKay said:
It’s out of Lallemand, but it’s in a peer-reviewed journal.
Click to expand...
Nice article from 2018.

Current Lallemand Technical Data Sheets recommend aeration when re-pitching with Diamond Lager. And Nottingham. And maybe your favorite Lallemand strain as well.

Lallemand also has a "best practices" download on making a starter with Diamond Lager.

1659228213724.png
 

Attachments

  • 1659228377360.png
    1659228377360.png
    84.8 KB · Views: 0
BrewnWKopperKat said:
Nice article from 2018.

Current Lallemand Technical Data Sheets recommend aeration when re-pitching with Diamond Lager. And Nottingham. And maybe your favorite Lallemand strain as well.

Lallemand also has a "best practices" download on making a starter with Diamond Lager.
Click to expand...
I also notice the say aeration isn't needed on 1st use. And they do recommend rehydration, but mention for some styles it may not be noticeable (not enough stress placed on the yeast) but for others, i.e. high gravity, it becomes more highly recommended.

Just info in case anyone using it didn't know.

https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/docs/products/tds/TDS_LALBREW_PREM_NOTTINGHAM_ENGLISH_DIGITAL.pdf
 
Pehlman17 said:
I hear a lot of good things about Verdant. I know most people seem to be using it for NEIPA but that’s not really my thing. I would love to try it out for a Best Bitter or something though if you think it would be a good choice. I assume it’s similar to London Ale III which I believe is the Boddinton’s strain, yeah?
Click to expand...
Sorry for the late response!

I've used Verdant now quite a few times in different beers. It is the same strain as 1318 but it was isolated from the yeast at the Verdant brewery in Cornwall in SW England. It doesn't taste like an English yeast though. I can only imagine that this is because Verdant makes American style hoppy Beers, lots of IPAs, so the yeast has been repeatedly subjected to American fruity hops. Hence the Verdant IPA moniker. It's good for American IPA. It's fruity in a stone fruit way.

In other regards it behaves and feels like an English strain. I use it in American pales but also in brown ales and porters where it does really well for me. I like how it treats the malt.

I'm drinking an English pale with English hops that was made with Notty and Verdant and I like the beer but it doesn't really feel English. Sort of hybrid. Like a dash of fruit juice was added.

We need Lallemand to do the same job with a non tainted English strain, methinks.
 
duncan_disorderly said:
Sorry for the late response!

I've used Verdant now quite a few times in different beers. It is the same strain as 1318 but it was isolated from the yeast at the Verdant brewery in Cornwall in SW England. It doesn't taste like an English yeast though. I can only imagine that this is because Verdant makes American style hoppy Beers, lots of IPAs, so the yeast has been repeatedly subjected to American fruity hops. Hence the Verdant IPA moniker. It's good for American IPA. It's fruity in a stone fruit way.

In other regards it behaves and feels like an English strain. I use it in American pales but also in brown ales and porters where it does really well for me. I like how it treats the malt.

I'm drinking an English pale with English hops that was made with Notty and Verdant and I like the beer but it doesn't really feel English. Sort of hybrid. Like a dash of fruit juice was added.

We need Lallemand to do the same job with a non tainted English strain, methinks.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts.

That would be sooooo lovely.
 
Protos said:
5. Random one you just really love. - Lalbrew Koln aka M54 Californian Lager. For a desert island with the only yeast available, I'd choose this one.
Click to expand...
What's your experience been like with Lallemand Koln? I love Kolsch and have heard pretty mixed reviews on K-97 (powdery, tart, general weirdness), but I watched a YouTube video the other day of somebody brewing with Lallemand Koln and that thing seemed to drop pretty bright in the fermenter. Seems like something I'd likely give a shot before K-97, if not for impatience alone.
 
Pehlman17 said:
What's your experience been like with Lallemand Koln? I love Kolsch and have heard pretty mixed reviews on K-97 (powdery, tart, general weirdness), but I watched a YouTube video the other day of somebody brewing with Lallemand Koln and that thing seemed to drop pretty bright in the fermenter. Seems like something I'd likely give a shot before K-97, if not for impatience alone.
Click to expand...
I've used Koln quite a bit, and I like it. It makes a nice kolsch, mostly clean with just a touch of fruitiness, apples and citrus. It isn't brilliantly clear, though. In fact, it can be hazy. It is definitely better than K-97 for the reasons you stated, and I think it's better than WLP 029, which can also be a bit hazy.
 

Similar threads

Architect-Dave
Cream Ale All Grain Kit - Bad Yeast
Replies
7
Views
1K
Miraculix
Miraculix
mongoose33
Oxygenating Dry Yeast issue
Replies
9
Views
1K
Red over White
Red over White
corncob
Is Imperial A09 Pub a top-cropper?
Replies
3
Views
505
DBhomebrew
DBhomebrew
Gadjobrinus
WLP025 (Southwold) - any profiles close? (Adnams Broadside-esque)
Replies
13
Views
978
McMullan
McMullan
G
Kolsch recipe - need help
Replies
31
Views
2K
superiorsat
S
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top