- Joined
- Jan 3, 2020
- Messages
- 2,621
- Reaction score
- 2,863
I'm wondering solely about the math...two steps with 250ml and 500ml is 750 ml isn't it? Was there some volume in the 2nd gen harvested?
Done with liquid yeast
- Thread starter apache_brew
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
I use liquid yeast with starter on all my beers nowadays
I find lag time too long with dry yeast
With active liquid starters I'm bubbling within 4 hours max
I find lag time too long with dry yeast
With active liquid starters I'm bubbling within 4 hours max
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2021
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 12
Lallemand munich classic is now my favorite yeast for hefeweizen.
I just mix it in when transferring to the fermenter.
Dry yeast is all I use. It’s cheaper, has longer shelf life and is so easy to use since I can skip the starter.
I just mix it in when transferring to the fermenter.
Dry yeast is all I use. It’s cheaper, has longer shelf life and is so easy to use since I can skip the starter.
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
From the AHA home page, it's under the "Events & Competitions" menu item.
Direct links:
I think I've only ever used maybe 10 liquid yeasts ever; it's always been dry otherwise. When I started all I could get in my LHBS was dry: Nottingham, Windsor, US05, and WB06, so that's when I got used to the ease of them. I just pitch straight on top of the wort, or sometimes I use a yeast cake. I just now kegged an IPA on top of a Cali yeast cake.
Thank you!
Looks like I have to re-up my membership to see it. No big deal. I've been meaning to do that anyways.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,656
- Reaction score
- 5,021
- Location
- At home, in the brewery in Maryland.
Yes, I only separated a portion of the supernatant, plus the initial bulk of the settled yeast cake. So, say the slurry was 400 ml, plus 250 ml 1.020, plus 500 ml 1.038, plus some undecanted supernatant is something ‘north’ of 1,000 ml but less than 1,500 ml.
Interesting, when I first started brewing 21 years ago I used dry yeast for the first several batches. I then tried liquid yeast and back then for my taste at least it was night and day so much better than dry. Since then I always use liquid yeast and I always make a starter on a stir plate. Maybe someday I will try today's dry yeasts and see if I still like liquid over dry. That is what makes this hobby so unique and personal, you do what you like and prefer and there is no only one right way to do things but many.
John
John
That's called an "overpitch".
lol! Well, maybe, but if he's pitching at high krausen it's possibly legit 
Cheers!
Cheers!
I see what you are saying DM - you need some growth for flavor development. It is a fine line and style dependent as well. I would say 8-12 hours for a 5 gallon batch is probably the sweet spot for most beer styles. 4 hours does show a lot of cells already going to town. But for a clean lager, might not be a bad thing at all.
I'm using beersmith yeast calculator for proper target cells. I usually do err on the side of pitching more than less. 2 liters for most ales or 3 liters for lagers (depending on gravity). If I'm making a Belgian or Heffe where I want to be less generous with pitch rate, I'll do a smaller starter.
I make a starter a few days before brewing, let it go about 12 hours on a stirplate, then crash in fridge, decant on brewday
I siphon the first bit of cooled wort into the pitcher with dacanted yeast and shake it up a bit before pitching the whole thing. I think this step probably gets it going a little quicker
I want to give my wort the least amount of time for staling reactions to occur as possible. Active yeast = quicker O2 pickup and less risk for staling
on a homebrew scale its pretty tricky to massively overpitch unless you're going directly on a cake. Also, the numbers on those calculators are probably a little low (unless the yeast is in perfect shape). Who knows what shape my bag of yeast is actually in after I receive it with an ice pack from morebeer. I generally aim for 1/3 more cells than what the calculators recommend to be conservative
Last edited:
I'm not totally pooping in dry yeast btw. There's many advantages to it especially larger cell count & longer shelf life, you can skip the extra work of a starter too.
Homebrewers should pick whatever is best suited for their process and goals in the hobby.
Dry yeast can make amazing beer too, it just doesn't meet my current goals for most of the styles I'm making nowadays. I've made many great beers with dry yeast in the past, including beers that have won ribbons.
I even made an all extract American Barelywine with dry yeast last year that took a 1st place ribbon in a local competition. I needed a vacation from all the LODO B.S. I've been doing and wanted a quick & painless brewday. This is a style that does well with some oxidation though. I used two packs of Notty in 1.090 OG wort
Less work (& less $$$) with still excellent beer is a definite advantage of dry yeast.
Homebrewers should pick whatever is best suited for their process and goals in the hobby.
Dry yeast can make amazing beer too, it just doesn't meet my current goals for most of the styles I'm making nowadays. I've made many great beers with dry yeast in the past, including beers that have won ribbons.
I even made an all extract American Barelywine with dry yeast last year that took a 1st place ribbon in a local competition. I needed a vacation from all the LODO B.S. I've been doing and wanted a quick & painless brewday. This is a style that does well with some oxidation though. I used two packs of Notty in 1.090 OG wort
Less work (& less $$$) with still excellent beer is a definite advantage of dry yeast.
Last edited:
I may have jinxed myself on this one, LOL
My wyeast 2206 starter hasn't shown any signs of activity 12 hours after making the starter (been at room temp in the 70s)
First time using this yeast, but all my other starters are usually fully replicated between 12 & 18 hours
Bunk pack or just weird yeast? On another thread, I saw other folks have similar issues with this yeast being a slow start.
If I had some 34/70 on hand, I'd certainly use it to save the day
My wyeast 2206 starter hasn't shown any signs of activity 12 hours after making the starter (been at room temp in the 70s)
First time using this yeast, but all my other starters are usually fully replicated between 12 & 18 hours
Bunk pack or just weird yeast? On another thread, I saw other folks have similar issues with this yeast being a slow start.
If I had some 34/70 on hand, I'd certainly use it to save the day
Tough to tell without knowing the age and handling of the yeast packet through the supply chain. 2206 is a yeast that some think has changed from an earlier form for the worse. Used to be seen as a great starter and finisher with great flavor. Some think it is just less in all categories now. Hope it goes well for you.
The variability from shipping and handling is the big downside of liquid yeast. We are kind of powerless at the homebrew level outside of building up yeast cells ourselves.
The variability from shipping and handling is the big downside of liquid yeast. We are kind of powerless at the homebrew level outside of building up yeast cells ourselves.
Any opinion on WLP 820? They've got it at my LHBS
Think this one is the same origin as 2206 and this is in the description
"The first generation of this strain can be slow, so we encourage using a larger initial culture or scheduling longer fermentation and conditioning times."
https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-single?id=222&style_type=2&type=YEAST
I've used it for Märzens. Produces good flavor in malty lagers. It leaves a little extra sweetness that helps with their flavor profile, but nothing cloying.
As they say in the description (below), she can be a bit slow in her first generation. My notes say, it took over a week to get the first round starter from a single Perfect-Pitch pack, 2-3 months old. She's been progressing fine after that. Maybe she's just slow waking up from dormancy.
Fermentation itself was fine, typically what you'd expect with a Lager. No detectable sulphur.
Here's White Labs' description:
This strain is ideal for producing malty lagers. Residual sweetness further helps promote malt nuances while contributing to a balanced finish. The first generation of this strain can be slow, so we encourage using a larger initial culture or scheduling longer fermentation and conditioning times. Great for lagers with a wide gravity range including bocks, doppelbocks, märzens, Oktoberfests and American amber lagers.
Is it any better than 34/70?
Possibly! Just giving that extra, rich, complex maltiness maybe worth it. As long as you're not in big hurry to brew it.
I think 2206 would be cleaner, less malty than WLP 820. I have not used either very much but the 2206 beers I made were fine, just kind of 'boring' they were so clean.
I've used it for Märzens. Produces good flavor in malty lagers. It leaves a little extra sweetness that helps with their flavor profile, but nothing cloying.
As they say in the description (below), she can be a bit slow in her first generation. My notes say, it took over a week to get the first round starter from a single Perfect-Pitch pack, 2-3 months old. She's been progressing fine after that. Maybe she's just slow waking up from dormancy.
Fermentation itself was fine, typically what you'd expect with a Lager. No detectable sulphur.
Here's White Labs' description:
This strain is ideal for producing malty lagers. Residual sweetness further helps promote malt nuances while contributing to a balanced finish. The first generation of this strain can be slow, so we encourage using a larger initial culture or scheduling longer fermentation and conditioning times. Great for lagers with a wide gravity range including bocks, doppelbocks, märzens, Oktoberfests and American amber lagers.
Is it any better than 34/70?
Possibly! Just giving that extra, rich, complex maltiness maybe worth it. As long as you're not in big hurry to brew it.
Great feedback thank you! Since I'm planning to brew a malty fall lager on Sunday this one is out of the question
Any experience on WLP 920? This one seems promising from the description
https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-single?id=232&style_type=2&type=YEAST
-------------------
Old Bavarian Lager Yeast
ATTENUATION :
66% - 73%FLOCCULATION :
MediumALCOHOL TOLERANCE :
Medium (5-10%)FERMENTATION TEMPERATURE :
50° - 55° F10° - 13° C
STA1 :
NegativeBUY NOW
DESCRIPTION
From Southern Germany, this yeast finishes malty with a slight ester profile. Use in beers such as Oktoberfests, bocks, and dark lagers.The only way to know is to try them which takes some time, but you have firsthand knowledge. In the end, it will be nice homebrew, so you can't lose!
Gonna go with the 920, I'll report back!
Sorry, I've never used it.
You'd still need to make a fairly large starter. How are you going to get that ready by Sunday?
2 packs in a 2-3 liter starter, then pitch the whole thing on Sunday evening?
Make sure to oxygenate both starter and then your batch well before pitching the yeast.
Ended up grabbing WLP 838, they didn't have the 920 in stock
All of my starters are usually done in 12 to 18 hours on a stirplate when I let em go at room temp. Today is the first time in I've ever had one that slow
Plan is to make 3 Liter starter when I'm home let it go until tomorrow morning, stick in the fridge until pitching on Sunday and decant.
There was a video from a wyeast dude awhile back where he explained most starters are generally done in 18 to 24 hours and letting them go longer on a stirplate really just beats up the yeast
Should be plenty of time unless this pack is also bunk or ridiculously slow
Here's the video from that dude who looks official in his nurses outfit
https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-single?id=226&style_type=2&type=YEAST
Last edited:
Patience. 2206 is great stuff. Give it 24-36 hoursI may have jinxed myself on this one, LOL
My wyeast 2206 starter hasn't shown any signs of activity 12 hours after making the starter (been at room temp in the 70s)
First time using this yeast, but all my other starters are usually fully replicated between 12 & 18 hours
Bunk pack or just weird yeast? On another thread, I saw other folks have similar issues with this yeast being a slow start.
If I had some 34/70 on hand, I'd certainly use it to save the day
WLP820 is NOT the same. It is pretty much the worst lager yeast I have ever tried.
Anyway, this thread is going the wrong direction. Supposed to be discussing merits of dry yeast. But I guess I’m OK with trashing White Labs.
OK, done hijacking the thread
I just recently made a starter with 2206 and didn't see (or smell) any sign of activity for 36 hours on a stir plate, but then it picked up.
I think that is settled science - Dry is more convenient and a little lower cost but there is an end-beer quality loss compared to proper liquid which is in the eye of the beholder. Still more than fine for homebrewing and show not have any judgement attached to it. Use it happily if your needs are met.
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
You win. The "science" has been "settled".
For those (like me) who remain curious, appear to be new "frontiers" in dry yeast to "explore", including
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2022
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 146
I prefer dry yeast it's easy to store a variety of strains, and is ready to use when I want to brew.
It seems the main determent to dry yeast is that it is too clean for some yeast driven styles.
The main advantage of liquid yeast is that it's more work making starters and worrying about viability, therefore it must make better beer.
I doubt in a double blind tasting you would notice any perceptible quality loss using dry yeast vs liquid in most styles, homebrew or commercial.
It seems the main determent to dry yeast is that it is too clean for some yeast driven styles.
The main advantage of liquid yeast is that it's more work making starters and worrying about viability, therefore it must make better beer.
I doubt in a double blind tasting you would notice any perceptible quality loss using dry yeast vs liquid in most styles, homebrew or commercial.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2022
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 146
I was just looking through the AHA winning recipes in Zymurgy and wondering how much better the beers that used dry yeast could be.
I still need to watch the first half of that webinar, I jumped on during the Q&A and thought it was very interesting.
Every brewer I know that I respect has tried dry yeast and stuck with liquid. I have tried it myself a few times. Nobody is saying it is bad or beneath etc... The liquid yeast just makes a better end product all things being equal. But it involves more work. No need to defend territory or be offended. The drying process affects the cells. It is a deficit to overcome which the makers are trying to do and getting better at all of the time.
Mixing homebrewing and science it tricky as this is a hobby for all of us. Experimenting, learning and exploring is all part of it. But the outcome is the outcome in the end. Yes it is subjective but if enough evidence piles up, a conclusion can be made for one's own purposes.
Mixing homebrewing and science it tricky as this is a hobby for all of us. Experimenting, learning and exploring is all part of it. But the outcome is the outcome in the end. Yes it is subjective but if enough evidence piles up, a conclusion can be made for one's own purposes.
I've never seen anybody say this.
Or this.
The main benefit to liquid yeast, and corresponding drawback to dry yeast, is that there is a far wider variety of yeast strains readily available in liquid form than in dry form. If you're making a style of beer that depends on a particular yeast character, you're more likely to be able to find the right kind of yeast in liquid form. Dry yeast has made major advances in this regard in the last ten years (which is as long as I've been paying attention), but there are still a lot more strains available in liquid form.
I'd agree here, presuming all other things are truly equal--same wort, same yeast strain, same pitch rate, same fermentation conditions, etc.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2022
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 146
Please do not take anything I say too seriously.
1. I am referring to people saying you can't make yeast driven styles like Hefeweizen with dry yeast, since it lacks some of the yeast characters.
2. There is a general mindset that if something is more difficult it will yield better results, and anything that is easier is seen as cheating or cutting corners. Example when some consider AIO systems as cheating since they stops heating strike water when it reaches a preset temperature. In some ways yeast starters are rituals that people will continue to follow since they are making good beer and do not want to risk changing from something that works. The problem I have is when anyone looks down at other methods as inferior.
3. I started responding to each quote but don't have anything to add here.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2012
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 373
I started with dry, never tried liquid. I've harvested for 4-6 batches, but then go back to a fresh pack, although I haven't been able to tell the difference between a new batch and a harvested one by taste.
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
What caught my attention was in the "presenation" part of the webinar (starting at about 23:00). There were no follow-up questions (that I remember). There was also not enough information to do anything "actionable" immediately - so further web search seems to prudent before saying much more.
Last edited:
I have a cake of S-189 awaiting a Red Rye Lager that's on deck. So this will be the third wort it ferments, I will pitch 1/2 the cake and O2 for 3 min at 1/8 l/min. So is it wet or is it dry? I'm pitching liquid yeast now.
It would be interesting to split between a 3 rd or 4 th generation and a new sachet.
It would be interesting to split between a 3 rd or 4 th generation and a new sachet.
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
There are a number of topics (2018-2019) over in AHA forums on inital pitch vs re-pitches of dry yeast. Generally, people doing it were noting some flavor differences.
Agreed that it would be interesting to see a "refresh" of anecdotal stories, especially with newer strains as well as with more detailed information on processes for initial pitch, harvesting, and re-pitch.
And on the other hand, people have been extrapolating the findings of some Brulosophy experiments (short and shoddy, etc) and concluding that you can cut almost every corner there is and still make a beer that people can't discern from a more traditionally (carefully) brewed version.
People don't tend to split their batches and put liquid and dry yeast strains head to head because it's a lot of work to make sure you're controlling for things like pitch count. There are two very different approaches one might take:
1. Pitch one pack of dry and one pack of liquid, no starters and no concern for liquid pack age. This would most accurately represent how a very casual brewer would make beer. The problem though is that a happenstance old pack of liquid yeast would likely drive a "dry yeast is better" conclusion by accident. The other pitfall here is if someone usually makes 5 gallons and they decide to split that into two 2.5g experimental batches, they'll be pitching twice the yeast as normal and skewing the results.
2. Calculate the pitch rates for both the dry and liquid yeasts paying close attention to OG and pack age, etc. This would product a result I'm much more interested in because I do calculate pitch rates and would never pitch liquid of some random age and just wing it. I do feel like sharing these results would have to come with the specific caveat that a certain rate was used via a specific calculator.
The other issue with making any conclusive decisions about ingredients and process choice is that nothing fully isolated. You use dry yeast and taste the beer. Yeah, it's great. Could it be better with a different yeast strain? Maybe. How about the liquid strain of the same? Maybe. What about a fermentation temperature + or - 3F? Maybe.
Similar threads
