Dry yeasts really that good now?

[GilaMinumBeer]

I did note it because you said so earlier, and I responded that just
because some breweries use it doesn't mean that their beers wouldn't
be better if they pitched actively fermenting yeast. There's plenty of
mediocre microbrew out there, and maybe that's one reason why.

But even this Fermentis company appears to think that their dried
yeast is for special occasions, not regular use. This quote is from the
website you provided:

"Ready to pitch yeast from Fermentis offer significant benefits to the brewery depending on the application. Multiple site operations can achieve consistency by using the same yeast for pitching at all sites without the cost of transport or multiple propagations. Beers brewed infrequently such as beer brewed under licence or new products are often better suited to direct pitching rather than running the propagation plant for yeast that is not required for more than a few brews. Finally, the opportunity to replace the yeast at short notice is valuable to many brewers if accidental contamination of the yeast strain occurs."

They seem to be saying: "You can have better consistency with
dried yeast (maybe consistently mediocre); if you don't want to
bother propagating liquid yeast for just a couple of batches, use dry;
if your liquid yeast goes bad, use dry for a temporary replacement."

None of this means you won't get better beer if you use liquid instead
of dry.
Jim

what they are saying is depending on application dry yeast is a viable alternative to a prop plant. Make no sense on the scale of AB to procure, store, and rehydrate dried yeast. The handling and storage space alone would not warrant the application. But, if a brewery is producing on a much smaller scale say, less than a hectoliter per year, then it makes little sense to worry about propogation if the strain is available dried. Thus negating the need for the lab, the vessels, and the staff.

The rest is self explanatory. Propogate your Punkin Ale strain through the year or buy a dried strain?

 

[loganb]

DRY YEAST IS BETTER!! IN YO FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but for real just use what works for you. if you like dry use dry. if you dont like dry shut up and use liquid. that easy

 

[GeorgeH]

You are overreacting. There is no formatting by me going on, it's just that the line endings are folded over or not depending on whether or not I remember to hit the enter key at the end of the line.

You don't need to hit the enter key at the end of each line, unless you are typing on a typewriter. Typing, like yeast, has changed a bit in the past few decades.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

I totally disagree that jdc2 is a troll. He has asked some great questions, brought up great points with citation, and has not personally mentioned anyone. In fact I think the forum is acting like a bunch of jerks to him.

I have not been impressed by dry yeast either. Let it be known. I brewed a Helles recently and the half I fermented with liquid yeast was way better. Maybe I just need to learn how to use that strain better, but the fact is that the beer fermented with dry was not as good. I will continue to try dry yeast, but in the three beers I have made with it, I have not been impressed (Helles, Oktoberfest, and a pale ale).

I think dry yeast is a fine alternative, but I much prefer liquid in my experience so far.

Back off the new guy. I, for one, am very impressed by how he has questioned this and argued his points. Just because a bunch of anonymous guys say something on the internet doesn't mean anyone has to take us seriously.

 

[Yambor44]

You don't need to hit the enter key at the end of each line, unless you are typing on a typewriter. Typing, like yeast, has changed a bit in the past few decades.

Am I the only one that looked the book up he referenced to earlier? Unless I am reading it wrong, the book was written in 1936 with one revision in 2001??

I used to use liquid yeast exclusively and have now used dry yeast exclusively for porbably 6 months (mainly Safale US-05) with great results. I make all types of Ales from BMC and Pale to IPA, Browns, Porters, etc.

 

[Shooter]

I totally disagree that jdc2 is a troll. He has asked some great questions, brought up great points with citation, and has not personally mentioned anyone. In fact I think the forum is acting like a bunch of jerks to him.

I will respectfully disagree!

I don't think anyone is acting like jerks, well not most people. I do think there's some information he's twisting to show how it proves his point. The Fermentis quote in example is stating that there are many times you might not want to keep liquid yeast on hand, but that quote has NOTHING to do with the quality of the product or the quality of the final beer, just noting one of the up sides of dry yeast. There are many positive aspects of both dry and liquid yeast, but he twists it to note that, in his words:

"You can have better consistency with
dried yeast (maybe consistently mediocre); if you don't want to
bother propagating liquid yeast for just a couple of batches, use dry;
if your liquid yeast goes bad, use dry for a temporary replacement."

Note the mediocre addition there? He doesn't like dry yeast...that seems to be the point. Okay, point taken.

It seems he finds that there is a lot of lag time with dry yeast. I haven't noticed a significant lag time with properly rehydrated yeast. I've had liquid yeast that was quicker to ferment, but also some that was slower. However, jdc2 seems to think his experience should be taken as dogma and he casually waves away anyone else's experiences.

I don't agree with how jdc2 is arguing his point, I think he's misrepresenting a few things and certainly didn't ask this question to be convinced of anything. I do agree that, despite being a bit bull headed, he has been relatively professional in his responses. I think jdc2 is a big boy and can take care of himself!

 

[Shooter]

Also, of interest, jdc2 raises the point that dry prices should increase if it's in such demand. When the fact that prices have gone up recently is brought to his attention, he simply ignores it as it is counter to his arguement.

Sir, it's not that we don't like a contrary opinion, it's that you make contrary points and then fail to follow up on them, instead jumping on to your next argument without addressing many counterpoints or simply blowing them aside.

EDIT: I guess my main point is that he see's no convincing evidence that dry yeast can make consistently good beer. I would counter that he has presented no convincing evidence that it cannot.

 

[GeorgeH]

Back on the subject of discussion (which is supposed to be dry vs. liquid yeast) according to http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php you need 180 billion cells for 5.25 gallons of 1.048 wort.

According to the same link (I couldn't find a reference on Wyeast's or White Labs' sites) the most a tube of liquid yeast has is 120 billion cells, 66% of what you'd need for that wort.

According to http://www.danstaryeast.com/tds/nottingham.pdf dry Nottingham yeast has 5 billion cells per gram, and it comes in 11 gram packets, which works out to 55 billion cells (30% of our pitching rate). To achieve 180 billions cells you'd need a bit more than 3 packets of Nottingham.

 

[jdc2]

I totally disagree that jdc2 is a troll. He has asked some great questions, brought up great points with citation, and has not personally mentioned anyone. In fact I think the forum is acting like a bunch of jerks to him.

Thank you BK, I am not a troll. This place is like any newsgroup,
there are always people who want to be the "expert" and control
the conversation.
Jim

 

[jdc2]

I will respectfully disagree!

I don't think anyone is acting like jerks, well not most people. I do think there's some information he's twisting to show how it proves his point. The Fermentis quote in example is stating that there are many times you might not want to keep liquid yeast on hand, but that quote has NOTHING to do with the quality of the product or the quality of the final beer, just noting one of the up sides of dry yeast. There are many positive aspects of both dry and liquid yeast, but he twists it to note that, in his words:

"You can have better consistency with
dried yeast (maybe consistently mediocre); if you don't want to
bother propagating liquid yeast for just a couple of batches, use dry;
if your liquid yeast goes bad, use dry for a temporary replacement."

Note the mediocre addition there? He doesn't like dry yeast...that seems to be the point. Okay, point taken.

I'm not twisting anything. I gave the original quote and then told
you what I thought it meant. Nowhere do they say that you would
make beer as good as liquid yeast, but one of the other posters
supplied the link to that quote as evidence that dry yeast is just as good as
making a starter, when it isn't evidence for anything other than
that dry yeast may be an *adequate* substitute.
Jim

 

[Shooter]

Back on the subject of discussion (which is supposed to be dry vs. liquid yeast) according to http://www.mrmalty.com/pitching.php you need 180 billion cells for 5.25 gallons of 1.048 wort.

According to the same link (I couldn't find a reference on Wyeast's or White Labs' sites) the most a tube of liquid yeast has is 120 billion cells, 66% of what you'd need for that wort.

According to http://www.danstaryeast.com/tds/nottingham.pdf dry Nottingham yeast has 5 billion cells per gram, and it comes in 11 gram packets, which works out to 55 billion cells (30% of our pitching rate). To achieve 180 billions cells you'd need a bit more than 3 packets of Nottingham.

I see what you're saying, but, note, that Mr. Malty states that, for the parameters listed above you need to pitch 0.9 11.5gm packets of dry yeast for the same wort.

 

[jdc2]

Am I the only one that looked the book up he referenced to earlier? Unless I am reading it wrong, the book was written in 1936 with one revision in 2001??

I used to use liquid yeast exclusively and have now used dry yeast exclusively for porbably 6 months (mainly Safale US-05) with great results. I make all types of Ales from BMC and Pale to IPA, Browns, Porters, etc.

No 1990, revised 2002:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0306472740/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

I'd be surprised if the authors were even born by 1936.

I find it amusing that I'm the one being accused of twisting issues.
Jim

 

[giligson]

Honestly I'm surprised that all of you are wasting time debating this point.

Why can't we talk about something important - like why fly sparging is superior to batch sparging

 

[Shooter]

I'm not twisting anything. I gave the original quote and then told
you what I thought it meant. Nowhere do they say that you would
make beer as good as liquid yeast, but one of the other posters
supplied the link to that quote as evidence that dry yeast is just as good as
making a starter, when it isn't evidence for anything other than
that dry yeast may be an *adequate* substitute.
Jim

You want THEM to say it will make beer as good as liquid. For who to say? The manufacturers?? You've already attempted to discredit them. You seem to be wanting a scientific argument to show the improved capabilities of dry yeast, particularly when it comes to lag time.

A scientific reason for improved yeast quality, such as:
"Oh yeah, the Acme yeast company has bioengineered
a strain that eliminates the long lag time."

Ok, now a question for all those people claiming to have
great beer with dry yeast: are you making light lagers
or pale ales with them, or only dark beers with half a pound
or more of dark malts to cover up the flavor defects?
Jim

...and seem to feel that is a reason dry yeast cannot make good beer. I am not convinced with the argument that the lag time of properly hydrated yeast is significantly different, on average, than liquid yeast. In saying this, I will say I have used far more dry than liquid, but do not note a massive difference. Now, this is my anecdotal argument. It is based on my experience. You seem unwilling to be convinced by this, fair enough, but, note, many of your posts have used the same "based on my experience" argument. What I'm saying is, you are making a counter argument against dry yeast. If you're not willing to take others experience into account, why are we required to place yours on an untouchable pedestal?

 

[Shooter]

Honestly I'm surprised that all of you are wasting time debating this point.

Why can't we talk about something important - like why fly sparging is superior to batch sparging

Now what would be the point of that?!?! We all know fly sparging is VASTLY superior!!!

 

[jdc2]

Am I the only one that looked the book up he referenced to earlier? Unless I am reading it wrong, the book was written in 1936 with one revision in 2001??

More info about one of the authors: Lewis:
"Lewis graduated from the University of Birmingham in England in 1957 and subsequently earned his doctorate there in 1960. He was a research biochemist at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in New York before coming to UC Davis as a researcher in 1962. Although lecture classes in brewing science were offered in the 1950s, it wasn’t until Lewis’ arrival that a comprehensive brewing program began to take shape. Under his leadership, the program emphasized yeast fermentation science and the study of the complex processes involved in converting malted barley and hops into beer.

Lewis has authored more than 100 scholarly papers and co-authored the flagship text, Brewing. He has been honored by the Award of Merit of the Master Brewers Association of the Americas and is a fellow of the Institute of Brewing in London. Lewis received a UC Davis Distinguished Teaching Award in 1989. He retired in 1994 but remains active as the lead instructor on the brewing classess offered through University Extension."

So maybe he WAS born by 1936.
Jim

 

[jdc2]

... I am not convinced with the argument that the lag time of properly hydrated yeast is significantly different, on average, than liquid yeast. In saying this, I will say I have used far more dry than liquid, but do not note a massive difference. Now, this is my anecdotal argument. It is based on my experience. You seem unwilling to be convinced by this, fair enough, but, note, many of your posts have used the same "based on my experience" argument. What I'm saying is, you are making a counter argument against dry yeast. If you're not willing to take others experience into account, why are we required to place yours on an untouchable pedestal?

I have no desire to take these posts as seriously as you and
others do. Some of you seem to be intent on having the last
word no matter what. You don't have to take my opinions
seriously or at all. But my question has been answered, and for that
I thank you.
Jim

 

[Shooter]

I have no desire to take these posts as seriously as you and
others do. Some of you seem to be intent on having the last
word no matter what. You don't have to take my opinions
seriously or at all. But my question has been answered, and for that
I thank you.
Jim

Actually, I hope you have noted the good natured, if spirited, manner in which I've tried to respond to you. It's important to have a bit of a tough hide when dealing with the internet. No great offense was intended. If you were offended, I apologize. That being said, if I did call you to task on certain items, it was not meant to be spiteful. I didn't agree with your argument and tried to make it clear where I felt you were being unsound. It wasn't about egging you on or trying to have the last word.

However, I do disagree, in the great scheme of things, this is on a level of seriousness only one step removed from what type of socks I'm going to wear tomorrow. If you can be civil, and do understand that I'm not saying you haven't been to this point, I give you the last word, if you will take it. Here is your dime. You, sir, have a free call!

 

[boo boo]

Now what would be the point of that?!?! We all know fly sparging is VASTLY superior!!!

Of course this quote only applies if using an orange coloured round cooler.
If using any other colour or shaped coolers as a mash/lauter tun, then batch sparging rules.

 

[northernlad]

If anyone here is looking for factual information on which makes better beer, you are going to be here a long time.
If the OP does not like dry yeast, let him use liquid with the comfort of knowing it is purely opinion and personal taste. Each of us is entitled to those, no?

 

[dale1038]

Obviously dry and liquid both make good beer. It's the brewer who makes good beer!!!....not the yeast....or the water....or the container size...etc....etc...:rockin:

What I want to know is why 90 minute boils are seemingly making me such good beers lately???

 

[loganb]

Now what would be the point of that?!?! We all know fly sparging is VASTLY superior!!!

how dare you! scientifcaly studies have shown many times that batch sparging is the bees knee and fly sparging is not cool. IN YO FACE!! anyway chuck norris batch sparges

 

[pnearing]

Whatever you use I am sure you will have a great beer!

Amen! RDWHAHB

 

[Yambor44]

More info about one of the authors: Lewis:
"Lewis graduated from the University of Birmingham in England in 1957 and subsequently earned his doctorate there in 1960. He was a research biochemist at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in New York before coming to UC Davis as a researcher in 1962. Although lecture classes in brewing science were offered in the 1950s, it wasn’t until Lewis’ arrival that a comprehensive brewing program began to take shape. Under his leadership, the program emphasized yeast fermentation science and the study of the complex processes involved in converting malted barley and hops into beer.

Lewis has authored more than 100 scholarly papers and co-authored the flagship text, Brewing. He has been honored by the Award of Merit of the Master Brewers Association of the Americas and is a fellow of the Institute of Brewing in London. Lewis received a UC Davis Distinguished Teaching Award in 1989. He retired in 1994 but remains active as the lead instructor on the brewing classess offered through University Extension."

So maybe he WAS born by 1936.
Jim

Yeah but can he make good beer??

 

[Yambor44]

No 1990, revised 2002:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0306472740/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

I'd be surprised if the authors were even born by 1936.

I find it amusing that I'm the one being accused of twisting issues.
Jim

Yeah, thats the one I looked up. Click on the "look inside" link and scroll down and read.

 

[jdc2]

Yeah, thats the one I looked up. Click on the "look inside" link and scroll down and read.

Right, so born in 1936. The book wasn't written in the '30's, as someone tried
to claim. Anyway, here's a more recent opinion from a book that came out
in 2007:

The Home Brewer's Answer Book by Ashton Lewis 2007


"Liquid yeast is also less likely to carry contaminants.
The process used to dry yeast is set up for relatively
long run times, and any bacteria that may be in the
drier can grow and contaminate the yeast. In the late
'80s and early '90s, many brewpubs were using dry yeast.
Occasional problems with contaminated dried yeast gave
dry yeast a bad name, and many brewers quit using it.
I know some really good dry yeast suppliers who are
using improved methods, and I would not hesitate to use
dry yeast because of some problems more than 15 years
ago. With that said, I believe liquid yeast is probably
cleaner than dry yeast because of the drying step. I buy
liquid yeast from a yeast lab and use it for 10-15
generations before discarding the yeast and buying fresh
yeast. I would not feel comfortable doing the same with
dry yeast, because any contaminants increase when yeast
is used over several generations."

In the accompanying table, he says you can propagate liquid
yeast 10-15 times, dried yeast 2-3 times.

Jim

 

[Synovia]

. Nowhere do they say that you would
make beer as good as liquid yeast

And nowhere did they say it wouldn't.

 

[yeoldebrewer]

If anyone here is looking for factual information on which makes better beer, you are going to be here a long time.

I was and you were correct.