liquid vs dry

[payton34]

i have been brewing for about three years i have made maybe 25 batches . 19 all grain the rest extract. i have made two bad batches. one was just plain infected and theother one has a sour taste that i hope comes out with time. both bad batches were liquid yeast. wlp 001 and wlp 002. can a starter get infected before you pitch? i think i am going to go back to dry until i get a bad one.

 

[dallasdb]

I like Dry because it is easy to hydrate, much cheaper, and works just as well. You will get those die hard liquid yeast fans that say you can't get the variance of flavors from dry yeast but for me Dry Yeast works great!

 

[thisjrp4]

Go dry. Its cheap and convenient and the results are great.

 

[norsk]

Sure a starter can get infected if the process isn't sanitary. I use liquid yeast maybe 98% of the time...nice having dry yeast as a back up. Both can make great beer.

That being said....I only had one liquid yeast fail to work properly in over 200 some odd brews. I brew often and keep my liquid yeasts going so I haven't had to purchase any in a long, long time.

 

[TTB-J]

I've only used liquid and I've never had any problems, and my sanitation practices aren't exactly perfect. That being said, I use dry yeast for meads and it works out fine. It's just a matter of personal preference, if you feel more comfortable with dry, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

 

[osagedr]

I'm starting to develop a strong preference for dry lager yeast just because I like knowing 100% for sure that I haven't underpitched. For ales I could go either way.

 

[bierhaus15]

This subject has been beaten to death a million times. However, I prefer liquid yeast every time over dry with the exception of S-05. And if you bottled with wlp002, the off flavors that developed in the bottle are not that uncommon. There seems to be some issues bottling with wlp002/wy1968, be it yeast related or due to some type of infection. I am still waiting to hear back from the labs about what it causing it, but just so you know.

 

[HomebrewMTB]

I would use the US-05 anywhere you can over wlp001/wy1056. It's all basically the same "Chico" strain. Dry yeast is more shelf stable, so much easier/faster than making a starter, works great, and half the price. No brainer!

 

[jsweet]

The dry vs. liquid controversy could go on all day, but as to the meat of the OP's question, yeah, a starter could become infected... The books I have read have been very paranoid about sanitation in regards to starter, but I'm a little confused as to why, since with all that yeast you'd think it would usually outreproduce any nasties that got in there...

How many of those ~25 batches were liquid yeast (approximately)? If they were half liquid and half dry, for instance, the odds of both of your bad batches being liquid just by pure chance would be 25%, i.e. it's probably a coincidence. OTOH, if those were your only two batches that used liquid yeast, then something might be up...

 

[Homercidal]

Yes you could infect a starter.

Your sanitation should be as good for that as it is for everything else: meticulous.

I use dry for most regular ales and liquid for anything that I cannot brew with dry yeast (some lagers, Belgians, etc.) I just like avoiding the starter phase and dry yeast works as well for most pales IMO.

There is nothing inherently wrong with either liquid or dry, but you do have to sanitize well. Even when using dry yeast I always spray the packet and scissors before rehydrating.

 

[optimatored]

this debate has been going on for a long time... and from what i have read from other HBTer's is and I do myself... unless you are brewing a style of beer that would require the flavor profile the yeast provides, dry is just fine for almost every beer. Dry yeast costs less money and does not require a starter... some proof dry yeast before pitching, but I just pour it right into my carboy.

 

[jsweet]

There was a guy who recently did an experiment brewing identical beers with comparable dry and liquid yeasts (I believe S-05 and WLP-001 IIRC) and then sending them to people for blind taste tests. There was no strong preference, but the liquid was believed to be a little bit of a cleaner profile.

That said, with the amount of other little details that can effect your brewing 1000x more than this, I generally agree with "use dry unless you need a type that is only available as liquid". Though I am thinking about trying WLP-001 with my next ale, but mostly just for larfs. I don't think it really matters as much as the bazillion other things I am probably screwing up...

 

[permo]

I use %100 liquid yeast, I used to use dry yeast but I have found the liquid strains to be more consistent and have less off flavors. US-05 is a great dry yeast, but i will take a nice, healthy, WLP001 starter over a package of dry US-05 any day of the week.

 

[BBKing]

Dry yeast. I'd bet 5 gallons of beer that most die hard liquid yeast guys wouldnt notice the difference between a beer made with dry yeast and one made with liquid.

 

[Saccharomyces]

While it is possible your infection is from the starter I would find it highly unlikely, as the pH and high concentration of yeast cells in a starter make it very difficult for any baddies to grow in such a hostile environment. I would examine your whole process to look for potential issues, especially on the cold side (post knockout in the kettle onwards).

I know a homebrewer here had infection issues for a long time, eventually he figured out it only happened in summer, and he was running a fan while chilling his wort with an IC. He stopped using the fan and covered the kettle with a towel -- problem solved. So until you find the source of the infection my suggestion is don't guess you have found it, keep looking.

 

[payton34]

i have made 6 liquid yeast starters 2 of them were bad. i dont like the tin foil on my flask i might get some of those foam stoppers and try them. i am very carefull about sanitation and this is the one thing i am not comfortable with

 

[jtakacs]

This subject has been beaten to death a million times. However, I prefer liquid yeast every time over dry with the exception of S-05. And if you bottled with wlp002, the off flavors that developed in the bottle are not that uncommon. There seems to be some issues bottling with wlp002/wy1968, be it yeast related or due to some type of infection. I am still waiting to hear back from the labs about what it causing it, but just so you know.

don't sell t-58 and s-04 short... both excellent yeasts... s-33 will likely never get used by me again, so boring. it's a belgian yeast for people that don't like belgian yeast.

 

[permo]

Dry yeast. I'd bet 5 gallons of beer that most die hard liquid yeast guys wouldnt notice the difference between a beer made with dry yeast and one made with liquid.

Maybe 1056/05/wlp001 are really close to the same, but one of the main problems with dry yeast is the complete and total lack of more specialized strains.

I have yet to taste a belgian or hefe made with dry yeast that turned out properly.

 

[Vance71975]

I like Dry because it is easy to hydrate, much cheaper, and works just as well. You will get those die hard liquid yeast fans that say you can't get the variance of flavors from dry yeast but for me Dry Yeast works great!

+1 I have used both and honestly my fav is Danstar Nottingham.