Why use liquid yeast?

If there's no point in making a yeast starter with dry yeast, why not always use dry yeast? Why ever use liquid?

Given the popularity of liquid, I'm sure there's a reason. Is there a good FAQ/wiki somewhere?

 

There's much greater variety available with liquid yeasts.

 

One word, variety!








edit:
oops! too slow.

 

Most of the flavor in your beer is derived from the yeast. The liquid yeast strains have been propagated for use on specific styles and greatly lend to the proper flavor profiles of those styles.

 

why use dry yeast? :cross:

either question is kind of dumb....

 

Is this true? I always thought that most of the flavor was from the malt and the hops. I know that some Belgian beers get some flavors from the yeast, but I wouldn't say "most".

 

I was always led to believe that yeast comprised approximately 1/3 of the flavor in beer, where malt and hops each lent an add'l 1/3. Although obviously a very clean yeast will simply accentuate your malt and hop flavors... so... no correct answer?

 

you sir are incorrect. yeast have the overall bigest impact on the flavor of the beer (i mean it is creating alcohol). you can over-hop this sh*t out of something and this will eventually overpower the yeast flavors, but a balanced beer is heavily influenced by the yeast.

have you ever tasted your wort prior to fermentation? it tastes nothing like that after fermentation...

 

Agree with you. Saison, Belgian, Sours . . . possibly, but for "most" beers the yeast is only one of many flavor and aroma contributions. In fact, in a lot of beer you are looking for a neutral yeast to highlight the character from the hops or grain. For most beer styles the yeast profile is secondary to a proper balance of the different hops and malts used.

 

If you use a clean yeast strand then the yeast contribute little to flavor.
Like US-05 or WPL001.

Brew up a smash and split it into 2 fermenters using different yeast.
Do one with a US-05 and do the other with a something more exciting.
You will birth 2 very different beers from the same kettle. Yeast is very important to the taste of the beer.

 

LIquid yeast is the only option for some styles, and of course, as already mentioned, there are a great number of liquid yeasts compared to dry.

I tend to use dry a lot for what I brew. One reason is it's a lot easier to pitch a proper amount, and generally less expensive too.

Recently the price of some dry yeast has gone up, and since I started canning starter wort it's almost as easy to build a good starter of liquid yeast. So my incentive to use dry has gone down significantly.

It still works very well, though, so I see no reason to stop using it when it fits the recipe. It's just easier for me to build a starter when all I have to do is pop open a mason jar and pour yeast and starter wort into a flask and turn on the stirplate.

I've also recently started collecting my yeast from the fermenter, so there isn't much need for a starter as long as I pitch in a reasonable amount of time since the cake was collected.

It's always nice to have a few packets of dry yeast on hand for the rare (or not so rare in my case) instances when you find yourself unprepared on brewday too.

 

Liquid yeast is almost always younger, which means there are more viable yeast cells in the packet. Healthy yeast is very important to a brewer -- they can generate off flavors (ok -- sometimes desirable) if under pitched.

If you are ever brewing above 1.060 or so, then you need a larger quantity of yeast, and one way to get there is with a starter from a liquid culture.

--Jimbot

 

Liquid because most of my favorite yeasts can't be bought in dry form: 3787 Belgian, 2625 Kolsch, 3333 German, Bells, etc. So variety is my answer, along with most of the first posters.

Certainly dry is convenient and a little more forgiving without a starter.

 

From what I could find online, liquid yeast averages around 100 Billion cells per vial/packet.

The dry yeast packets contain about 230 Billion cells per packet.

One selling point for dry is that they generally have a better shelf life than liquid. In fact, I think most experts agree that when you consider the loss in viability of dry yeast during packaging, they are still at least as effective as liquid yeast and can maintain a higher viable cell count in less in more demanding conditions.

 

The brewing network guys always suggest liquid yeast. I believe their claim lies around the fact that the liquid yeast aren't completely dormant and keep themselves healthy. The dry yeast are totally dormant and can't use any of their reserves to replenish themselves.

 

Liquid yeast comes in vials.

Vials are cool.

You know you want to be cool

Use liquid yeast

Pure logic straight and simple. I mean who doesn't want a bunch of vials, but seriously when you buy liquid yeast, wash your yeast and save your strains and save a buttload of money if you are brewing your own.

Or, instead of buying liquid yeast, you can always culture from bottles.

 

Even a neutral yeast is going to add a lot of flavor to the beer. Heck, it creates the chemicals that make beer taste like beer.

 

Both types have their pros and cons. I like the convenience of dry yeast--I can wake up tomorrow morning, decide to brew, and know I have the dry yeast on hand to do that. It's possible to keep liquid on hand as well but the viability declines much more quickly.

I do mostly lagers, and I like the ease with which I can make sure I pitch enough cells with dry yeast. Two packs rehydrated for most normal gravity lagers is going to get me the cells I need at the sub-50 degree temperatures I often use. I can get there with liquid as well, but it's a huge starter, or steps, or multiple liquid packs. Liquid is something like $12 for a smack pack at my LHBS. Throw in the DME costs and the time to make the starter and it's not a cheap or particularly convenient option. For new lager brewers especially, fermentation problems tend to involve underpitching. So I strongly recommend dry yeast in those situations.

Liquid provides a marvelous array of options for your yeast. As others have noted, yeast strain selection can make a huge difference to your beer. Having said that, I've won gold medals this year with beers made using W-34/70 (doppelbock), S-189 (light and standard American lagers) and S-23 (bohemian pilsner), so I know they are all quality dry yeasts that, among them, give me huge flexibility to brew whatever lager I like. But I still really want to try a variety of liquid strains on my workhorse recipes to nail down that perfect flavour profile.

So like I said, they both have their pros and cons and most brewers develop a strong preference for one or the other. A buddy and I just did a side-by-side with S-05 vs. 1056 and both prefer the beer brewed during the latter. Our club is having our club brew tasting this Tuesday so we'll get to see what the BJCP folks have to say about one vs. the other.

If the time, cost, and convenience were all equal then I would always use liquid. But they aren't so I often use dry, especially for lagers.

 

If I were to use dry yeast I'd still use a starter.

I compare yeast to travelling a long distance on foot. If you don't have to go through any work, and don't go too fast or uphill, you won't break a sweat. But if you go too fast or have an uphill climb you're gonna get sweaty and that's going to make you stinky.

I feel this analogy works great for brewers because I have seen enough brewers to know that we know what being stinky is all about.

I picture the act of going from a dried up mouse turd to viable yeast as an uphill climb for the yeast. So I think of this putting off some "wake-up" off-flavors no matter how many billion cells I have.

I'm not sure if this analogy works that way, but it's how I see it. That's why I shy away from dry yeast.

 

There is a strong argument to rehydrate dry yeast, but you don't want to use a starter per se.