Does liquid yeast provide more complexity and options over dry yeast?

[fendersrule]

Just curious what everyone's thoughts are that use both. I brew almost entirely with dry yeast due to simplicity. I don't rehydrate because I haven't noticed any difference either way after doing it several times. I pitch healthy amounts however. With US-05 and S-04 I will pitch 1.5-2 packets of OG is 1.065-ish or above. Many times with many beers, 1 packet is all that's needed.

With Nottingham, the cell count is lower, so I will typically double in comparison.

I'm about to get into using more liquid yeasts, which means using a starter.

Here's my experience so far with my 3 main staple-mark dry yeasts:

US-05. Probably the most versatile yeast in the world. It attenuates well. It's very neutral. It creates fine, and easy beer without having to get too focused on fermentation temps. This is my go-to yeast for Sours, IPAs, Ciders, and Pale Ales. Basically, anytime where I don't want yeast to be a focal point. The fermentation temp range is wide. I heard through the grapevine that brewers in my area (let's just say there's more than a few) use US-05 the most. I don't ever see my usage of US-05 going away any damned time soon.

S-04. Similar to US-05, but just adds a bit of that bready character. It attenuates very similar to US-05 in that it will eat up everything and it will do it quickly as well. I typically use this if I want some sort of English character. However, I still consider S-04 to be more on the neutral side, just a tad bit less neutral than US-05. I've been using S-04 in stouts, porters, pales, or anything where I want some of that "bread" involved. HOWEVER, while it does add some of that "bread", my tasters consider S-04 to be a bit too clean and dry. You get a sensation of that "chew" at the very end, but then it quickly leaves.

Nottingham. Nottingham rules and I feel that it is somehow similar to both US-05 and S-04. Yes, it adds some slight bready feeling, but it is also clean at low to mid 60s fermentation. I consider Nottingham to be a hybrid of US-05 and S-04. It's clean without being overly clean. Works well with just about anything. Some ways, it's a better yeast than the other two mentioned. I haven't brewed enough with it to note if it dries things out more than US-05/S-04, but I feel like it may not as much so far...

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but even though I love these 3 yeasts, I feel that I am very limited by them. At a 10,000 ft view, they are all "clean ale" yeasts. The differences seem to be very slight at cold fermentations.

Am I correct to assume that liquid yeasts open the doors up to more of that "bread" and other varieties?

Or am I going to find myself making the same tasting beer with the liquid varieties while spending more effort and money?

 

[shoreman]

There’s certainly more strains available and that opens up to more exploration. You can make great beer with both but I like the variety in liquid cultures- especially Belgian and English strains.

 

[Miraculix]

The new verdant IPA strain seems to be a very decent new English dry yeast, I would certainly try out that one. Other than that, I found nothing comes close to Imperial yeast pub, this also comes in a cell count that can be pitched without a starter, best of both worlds imo.

Now there's even a dry kveik strain available with Voss, exciting times, only if I am looking for some very specific tastes I go with liquid yeast and only if it is simply not available in dried form, like pub for example. Otherwise dry is just too convenient and works as well as liquid.

 

[McKnuckle]

There are certain styles and individual beers that one really can't approach without using liquid yeast strains. If you don't go for those, then the standard dry yeast options are usually fine. I use dry yeast a lot, but the liquid variety of English and Belgian (as @shoreman notes above), and many lager strains, offers great depth for exploration in brewing authentic European beers.

If you have ever been to a place like England and enjoyed its beers in situ, then S-04 and Nottingham are not going to cut it for reproducing some of those at home. I'd say the same for German lagers. Ditto Belgian even though that's not my particular focus.

 

[OldDogBrewing]

They offer more complexity because they offer more variety which let's you play more with yeast

I use dry strains unless I need a specific strain that is only available through it's liquid form

 

[charlesbrewer]

10 years ago, liquid was far superior. Today both are so close that many experiment yielded result that either indistinguishable or a difference that cannot be determined which is better in definite terms. Although, these experiments are usually done for those few popular ale and lager yeast.

 

[McKnuckle]

I don't think of liquid vs. dry as a quality comparison. I simply think of the strains available in each form. The fact is that there are fewer dry yeast strains available, and none at all of certain types. If you want to make an authentic beer that requires one of those that are unavailable in dry form, you need to use liquid yeast.

 

[Golddiggie]

You typically get more detailed information about liquid yeast (at least Wyeast) than dry yeast strains. Along with if different fermenting temperatures will give different end results.

I've used liquid yeast for all my beers (Wyeast). I've used dry yeast (Lalvin Labs) for most of my batches of mead. Had solid results with both. I also make starters for my beers to ensure I have the correct amount of active yeast cells going into the fermenter (or as close as I can get). Saves me from buying multiple smack-packs of liquid yeast. Also allows me to buy yeast ahead of time and not worry about viability reductions. If you REALLY want to save $$ on yeast, start harvesting what you use from batches. The yeast will tend to mutate after you've used it enough times (not sure the parameters there, but it does happen). That's how breweries develop "house" strains of yeast that started out as the same we all use.

 

[mattdee1]

I'm not sure how anybody could consider S-04 to be "similar" to S-05. I've made a few dozen 10gal batches where I'd ferment half with each of these yeasts, and IMO the differences are extremely obvious for most recipes; sometimes it's hard to believe they're even the same beer.

For the "clean tasting" dry yeasts, I'd throw in BRY-97 which I've had a lot of success with, but it's a very slow worker so these days I usually just stick with S-05 as my go-to clean-tasting dry yeast.

For dry yeast I'm also a fan of T-58, which I find imparts hints of spicy complexity to beers and does some tasty things with fruity late hops. Probably not for everyone, but it sure is a handy way of getting two entirely different beers from a split 10gal batch.

I don't think of liquid vs. dry as a quality comparison. I simply think of the strains available in each form. The fact is that there are fewer dry yeast strains available, and none at all of certain types. If you want to make an authentic beer that requires one of those that are unavailable in dry form, you need to use liquid yeast.

^^ this is the long and the short of it right here.

Another one for me is wheat beer yeast - there is a dry one available (forget what it's called... WB-06?) and it's "OK" I guess but I strongly prefer the results I get from the liquid variants on the market.

 

[fendersrule]

S-04 and US-05 are similar because they are both clean yeast, and they both attenuate well. Yes, the S-04 adds some bread character, but also like US-05, dries it too much.

My two stout/porter dark beer beer snobs do not like S-04 in their stouts at all, and they love "teh bread".

S-04 isn't different "enough" from US-05.

I'm hoping that Wyeast 1098 will crush S-04 for a darker beer. I do like S-04 in IPAs when I want them to be on the dry side.

 

[Golddiggie]

I used 1098 for the previous brewing of my English IPA. It did well.
https://wyeastlab.com/yeast-strain/british-aleKeep in mind, 1098 is a medium flocculation yeast, so it will take a bit longer to settle than a high flocculation yeast.

I normally use 1335 for most of my lower ABV brews. I've also used 1882-pc for several recipes also with solid results. 1728 is also really good for recipes. Just be sure to reference the temperature ranges for what it will give you for the end result. I used that for my Wee Heavy that I brewed several years ago. It ended up at 12.5% ABV. I also fermented in the lower half of it's temperature range. End result was really good.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

You typically get more detailed information about liquid yeast (at least Wyeast) than dry yeast strains.

Might be interesting to apply a (quantative) scoring rubric to the information available from various yeast providers.

For dry yeast from the brands that I use, the information available continues to improve over time. For some brands, that information can be in a couple of different places.

 

[Golddiggie]

Might be interesting to apply a (quantative) scoring rubric to the information available from various yeast providers.

For dry yeast from the brands that I use, the information available continues to improve over time. For some brands, that information can be in a couple of different places.

Given that the dry may be offering more information as time progresses, I've always had the information for Wyeast strains (since I started brewing over 10 years ago). Since I've used the same few strains for pretty much all of my recipes, they're very well known items as well. I also trust (proven over time) what Wyeast lists for information.

Use what you like for yeast. I've always used the yeast selection as part of the recipe design stage. Taking what the yeast will do for the brew into account. I know there are plenty of people that just toss any old yeast into the batch. Or use what a kit/published recipe lists. I only used kits for the first two batches. After that, it's been all my design.