Dry v. Liquid Yeast

[SRFeldman79]

Inspired by a comment in the Amarillo APA thread. I have never used a dry yeast, but it was pointed out that the dry yeast (i think Safale?) got someone a drier beer. Is that generally the case?

And more broadly speaking/a poll...

which do you prefer, if you have a preference?
if you use both, what is your basis for which one you pick to use with a beer?

other comments appreciated.

 

[Soulive]

I use dry for everything but Beglians/Weizens. Using dry yeast does not mean you'll get drier beer. The reason that beer may have ended up drier depends on several things. My guess is that they compared it with using liquid yeast without making a starter. In that case, the dry yeast will usually lead to better attenuation as it would contain more viable cells...

 

[SRFeldman79]

so dry might have better attentuation compared to a liquid yeast with no starter?

 

[SRFeldman79]

and why do you use dry for everything but belgians/wheats?

 

[Soulive]

so dry might have better attentuation compared to a liquid yeast with no starter?

Yes, that is why it is always recommended that you make starters for liquid yeast

and why do you use dry for everything but belgians/wheats?

I have not yet found dry yeast substitutes that are better than the liquid versions...

 

[Sean]

I use dry, because it is way cheaper, and I make mostly Pale ales. I don't think there is a difference in taste for whitbread, chino, etc.

 

[discgolfin]

I use dry for american ales, Ipas ect..those that the yeast just needs to give a nice clean profile..For wits, hefes, ect. I go with certain liquid strain that work great.

S-05 is my fav to use but they have some very good dry yeast on the market now

Jay

 

[DeathBrewer]

i also now use dry yeast for everything but belgians/weizens. they just don't have dry forms of the yeast that give the best flavors for the style.

i use nottingham 90% of the time now. it attenuates well and will get the beer quite dry...just how i like 'em

 

[freyguy]

For me, I did use starters for the Liquid California ale I compared the Safale dry yeast too. My liquid starters are normally 1400ml.

The biggest variation in my experiment was the last time I made it with Liquid yeast, it was extract. This past time with dry yeast, it was all grain. I mashed at 152, so that could have played a role, but I wouldn't think it would take out that much. Finished at 1.010 (not 1.012, i just checked my notes), and Beersmith said it will prob go to 1.016.

But, I normally use liquid any time I want a distinct flavor in my beer that cannot be achieved by the barley/hops. Anything that needs a nice clean profile, dry is great and cheap.

 

[McKBrew]

I've used dry yeast once with no problems. It is quite a bit cheaper, unless you start yeast washing/storing liquid yeast.

The main reason I use liquid is (strange or not), I enjoy making the starter. It's just one more step that lets me be involved in brewing.

 

[SRFeldman79]

so does everyone here using dry also do a starter for dry yeast?

 

[McKBrew]

A starter is not required for dry yeast. It should only be re-hydrated according to packet directions.

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

I use safbrew-33 for Belgians.
So-04, s-05 for ales and sometimes saflager for lagers.

Nottingham tends to be drier and cleaner especially around 14c.

Windsor is almost a hefe yeast. Not a true hefe yeast mind you but it it can pump out some similar esters.

Mauribrew is amazing for people with temp issues in the summer. That stuff works clean very warm. In fact seems to work better warm than at what is usually considered a normal yeast temp.

For me it's mostly about availability. I have ship in liquid yeasts and half the time they have been fried by the shipping company leaving them in hot warehouses.

 

[CBBaron]

Inspired by a comment in the Amarillo APA thread. I have never used a dry yeast, but it was pointed out that the dry yeast (i think Safale?) got someone a drier beer. Is that generally the case?

And more broadly speaking/a poll...

which do you prefer, if you have a preference?
if you use both, what is your basis for which one you pick to use with a beer?

other comments appreciated.

Dry yeast packets contain many more yeast cells than a single pack or tube of liquid yeast. So If everything else is equal including the yeast strain then you may get better attenuation with the dry yeast. In general however mash temps, recipe and yeast strain will play a bigger role in attenuation especially if proper pitching rates are achieved.

There are several good dry yeast available. I use SafAle S-04, US-05 an Danstar Nottingham. S-04 is a good yeast for lower gravity English ales such as Bitters, Browns, and some stouts. Nottingham is as dryer English yeast good for IPAs, Barley wines and big stouts. US-05 is a clean yeast good for most American styles.

However for Belgian and Wheat Ales most people go with a liquid yeast. There are a wider range of yeast available and most people have better luck with them for these styles.

Craig

 

[McCall St. Brewer]

I've been gradually migrating to dry yeasts. Reasons? 1. Much, much cheaper. 2. I get good results. 3. Easy to use. No need for starters.

I still use liquid if there's not really an equivalent dry yeast to use for a recipe. But mostly I'm must happy with dry.

 

[Soulive]

so does everyone here using dry also do a starter for dry yeast?

No, they're not necessary and actually counterproductive...

 

[CBBaron]

so does everyone here using dry also do a starter for dry yeast?

A starter is usually counter productive for a dry yeast. A 2qt starter does not provide enough food for a 11.5g packet of dry yeast to grow. For most beers there is plenty of yeast cells in a single packet to achieve a good pitching rate. If you are doing a really big beer a second packet is a pretty small price.

Dry yeast are packaged for maximum viability. By pitching them in a starter they will exhast themselves with little growth due to the limited resources. A liquid yeast package contains many fewer yeast cells and to achieve proper pitching rates you usually need to get them to increase the cell count. A starter is very effective with liquid yeasts.

Craig

 

[nl724]

For all but two homebrews I have use Muntons Dry active brewing yeast. I typically brew on saturdays, and by tuesday primary fermentation is basically complete. I never rehydrate or use a starter...just dump it in the bottom of the carboy before siphoning in the cooled wort. Its cheap, quick, reliable...and best of all it produces beer that I enjoy.

 

[SRFeldman79]

thanks a ton guys.
im not trying to cut costs or the need for starters, but some very useful tidbits of knowledge on this thread.
I've got a lot of packets of dry from kits where i substituted liquid.

so nottingham would be good for an english bitter with target, challenger, and crystal hops?

 

[Soulive]

thanks a ton guys.
im not trying to cut costs or the need for starters, but some very useful tidbits of knowledge on this thread.
I've got a lot of packets of dry from kits where i substituted liquid.

so nottingham would be good for an english bitter with target, challenger, and crystal hops?

For an English beer use Windsor or S-04. Nottingham will make a drier beer which isn't indicative of English Bitter...

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

I used safbrew 33 last year for a brew belgians. The first time I used it because paddockwood shipped me the wrong liquid yeast so I popped in a packet of 33 instead. Turned out great.

I really wish there were some decent HBS's locally. hwen I lived on the Island or Vancouver, it was pretty easy to get anything you wanted. There's craploads of brits and germans on the Island, so HB supplies are always in demand.

 

[McCall St. Brewer]

thanks a ton guys.
im not trying to cut costs or the need for starters, but some very useful tidbits of knowledge on this thread.
I've got a lot of packets of dry from kits where i substituted liquid.

so nottingham would be good for an english bitter with target, challenger, and crystal hops?

If you've got some Nottingham, make a batch of EdWort's Haus Pale Ale. You will not be disappointed.

 

[431brew]

Hey, folks! I made my first batch of AW yesterday and used liquid yeast with it. This was also my first time using liquid yeast and am not sure what to expect.

A couple of hours after putting the carboy in the closet, I checked it and it looked like the yeast or the sugar had settled to the bottom. I shook it hard for a minute or so and mixed everything up again.

Today, it looks like it has settled to the bottom again. Is this normal behavior for liquid yeast? Could it be the sugar? I am used to dry yeast and seeing it float for awhile, so not sure what to expect from liquid yeast. I am getting a few bubbles in the airlock, so I guess things are working.

I am a noob, so I would appreciate any comments on liquid yeast behavior compared to dry yeast.

Thanks.

 

[WBC]

A lager sits on the bottom at first and when it get's going can have a head but that quickly goes away. There can be a lot of crusty deposits on the fermenter at the top after the first fermentation and so that is evidence that it had a nice krausen. You also see a lot of debris going up and down in a glass carboy just like an ale yeast does. Being that the yeast is on the bottom a lot of the CO2 stays in the beer and if you shake it some CO2 bubbles will rise out of the beer. When I first made a lager starter I thought that nothing was going on but then I shook the flask and sure enough I saw lots of bubbles.