Questions about the Dry Yeast FAQ

[reim0027]

Great post man. Nice job of explaining this problem.

 

[sweetcell]

excellent & very complete write-up. worthy of a sticky - seems to me that these questions are asked on a weekly basis. mods?

i was thinking to myself, "what's missing here?" and came up with:
- can i re-use dry yeast? yes, after fermentation is complete it can be washed (rinsed) just like liquid yeast. lots of resources available on HBT about this, like this thread.
- what are the disadvantages of using dry yeast? the biggest one is limited selection: there is a far bigger variety or liquid yeasts.

 

[boydster]

Nice I added those to the first post. Thanks for the feedback, and I'd like to keep adding to it as needed.

 

[Calder]

Storage and viability might be a useful addition.

 

[duboman]

Nice job, agree on suggesting for a sticky.

I would add under the reuse: after washing and storing it would then be recommended to make a starter depending on the amount of slurry used since it really is no longer a dry yeast.

 

[BigJack]

+1 on a sticky.

 

[boydster]

Storage and viability might be a useful addition.

Nice job, agree on suggesting for a sticky.

I would add under the reuse: after washing and storing it would then be recommended to make a starter depending on the amount of slurry used since it really is no longer a dry yeast.

Thanks, I added in the suggestions from both of you.

 

[sweetcell]

After washing and storing it would then be recommended to make a starter depending on the amount of slurry used since it really is no longer a dry yeast.

SUGGESTED EDIT: use a calculator, such as http://www.mrmalty.com/calc/calc.html, to determine how much slurry to use (based on the date you washed, or harvested, the yeast). if you do not have sufficient slurry, make a starter.

 

[g-star]

Great thread, presented with clarity and sound reasoning. Nice job!

 

[Calder]

SUGGESTED EDIT: use a calculator, such as http://www.mrmalty.com/calc/calc.html, to determine how much slurry to use (based on the date you washed, or harvested, the yeast). if you do not have sufficient slurry, make a starter.

I have a problem with this one. I think Mr. Malty is way too conservative in viability numbers:

At 2 months old it gives the viability as 10%, which is clearly wrong. At 12 months it gives the same 10% viability, which is probably about right.

 

[boydster]

I included a link to yeastcalc as well since both calculators are widely used and respected, and if you know of a better resource I'm all ears. I think the important thing is to recognize that we need to be conscious of viability when considering pitch rate. Honestly we could probably have another entire thread discussing best practices with harvested yeast, whether originally from liquid or dry cultures. The focus here is really meant to be on using the yeast from the initial dry state. For the sake of completeness, we should be acknowledging that the yeast can be harvested and reused, and that you should have an awareness of viability before reusing - I think we hit those points. I'll restate it that way in the first post for clarity, though, along with keeping links to the pitching rate calcs

Edit: Just edited the reuse portion to emphasize that it is important to know viability of your yeast slurry before pitching harvested yeast, and to reflect that determining viability of a harvested yeast slurry falls outside the scope of this FAQ.

 

[boydster]

Added "Rehydration of Active Dry Brewing Yeast and its Effect on Cell Viability" from Journal of the Institute of Brewing on the Wiley Online Library.

Thanks duboman

 

[BigFloyd]

Excellent sticky boydster.

Now if people will actually READ it before posting questions to which you have already very clearly and concisely provided answers, the HBT world will be a better place.

 

[boydster]

Thanks BigFloyd, if it helps a few people out then it's a success. I have some yeast related reading to do after my family gets settled into the house we are moving into. I'll probably have some edits to make after that. Hopefully not too many complete retractions

 

[Jaug]

Can I use a safale 04 yeast in a cream ale

 

[boydster]

Can I use a safale 04 yeast in a cream ale

While the 04 would technically work to make beer, I would probably steer you more towards Safale US-05 for a cream ale. 05 tends to be a cleaner tasting yeast, while 04 will typically have more malt flavors and esters in the finish. 04 is great for English ales.

 

[Jaug]

Thanks it's the only one I have right now only gave time to brew tomorrow I have an 05 but it's three years old

 

[drumuglyknuckles]

Thanks boydster, great write up

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[cheddarhed3]

From info gathered from different sources, the SAFALE US-05 strain (all I've used so far in two batches) actually is said to be more effective sprinkled dry and not rehydrated. Obviously I have little experience to draw from but the Wheat Beer that came with my Starter Kit turned out pretty good. Have a Chinook IPA that's still in primary but the verdict is still out. My plan was to brew the same Chinook IPA with liquid yeast and compare. Great thread here though as it gives us noobs some good advice. I know I personally tend to err on the side of caution since I'm simply trying to get the process down and comfortable with the times/temps needed to brew a successful batch. Cheers.

 

[g-star]

From info gathered from different sources, the SAFALE US-05 strain (all I've used so far in two batches) actually is said to be more effective sprinkled dry and not rehydrated.

What are your sources? Anecdotal forum/LHBS chatter, or scientific studies?

 

[boydster]

From info gathered from different sources, the SAFALE US-05 strain (all I've used so far in two batches) actually is said to be more effective sprinkled dry and not rehydrated. Obviously I have little experience to draw from but the Wheat Beer that came with my Starter Kit turned out pretty good. Have a Chinook IPA that's still in primary but the verdict is still out. My plan was to brew the same Chinook IPA with liquid yeast and compare. Great thread here though as it gives us noobs some good advice. I know I personally tend to err on the side of caution since I'm simply trying to get the process down and comfortable with the times/temps needed to brew a successful batch. Cheers.

If you look at Sean Terrill's experiments with US-05 linked in the first post, he showed pretty clearly that viability is substantially higher when rehydrated in warm water. More viable cells ferment more effectively than fewer viable cells as far as I can tell (except in cases of extreme overpitching) but if you care to share your sources I would be happy to read.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Its been quite a while since I used US-05 but it seems to me the last time I did the package instructions simply called for a direct dry pitch into the wort. A visit to their website gives that as an option, but also provides very precise rehydrating instructions:

http://www.fermentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SFA_US05.pdf

Cheddarhead may have simply been reading and trying to follow the instructions on the package.

 

[sweetcell]

the package instructions simply called for a direct dry pitch into the wort. A visit to their website gives that as an option, but also provides very precise rehydrating instructions

rehydrating is the way to go.

they offer the hassle-free, "just pitch directly into the wort" instructions because they think homebrewers won't use their products if they instruct them to go through the (only slightly) complex process of rehydration. if you look at the commercial literature, yeast manufacturers say that dry yeast *must* be rehydrated. according to Jamil, up to half the cells don't survive being rehydrated in wort. on a homebrew scale that isn't too bad, but on a commercial scale you don't want to waste half of your raw materials. the mrmalty.com pitch rate calculator assumes that dry yeast is rehydrated. double the amount if you're pitching directly.

 

[cheddarhed3]

Definitely not scientific as I'm new to the "art" of brewing. Following the guide lines on the package, calling customer service at Northern Brewer and just general articles I can find. Like I had mentioned though, I'm still in the experimentation phase and am going to try the same brew 2-3 different ways (dry, rehydrated, liquid) so I can taste the difference (if there is one) for myself. Cheers.

 

[Puddlethumper]

rehydrating is the way to go.

they offer the hassle-free, "just pitch directly into the wort" instructions because they think homebrewers won't use their products if they instruct them to go through the (only slightly) complex process of rehydration.

I totally agree that, based on everything I've read to date, rehydrating the yeast is the best procedure. I'm not so sure I accept your analysis of Safale Labs' motivations.

 

[boydster]

While none of us can claim to know what Fermentis' intentions are for certain, we can probably agree they want to make their product as attractive as the liquid alternative. Liquid yeast packs say to pitch without a starter, so you end up pitching 75-100 billion cells most times. Fermentis packs say to sprinkle on wort, resulting in roughly the same amount of live cells. They are at least consistent in giving advice that will work but may not be the most ideal on the packaging.

 

[cheddarhed3]

Well if I've learned one thing from this thread is that I've got ALOT to learn. Cheers and thanks for all of the advice.

 

[BrewmasterBahb]

Using Go-Ferm or equivalent products during the rehydration step is a great way to go. I use US-05 a lot and have observed significantly lower lag times when using Go-Ferm.

 

[lolznrofls]

The only time I bother rehydrating is for high gravity beer and always with my mead..us-05 I just sprinkle on a put the lid on the pale

 

[Puddlethumper]

The only time I bother rehydrating is for high gravity beer and always with my mead..us-05 I just sprinkle on a put the lid on the pale

Yup, that will work. But there is a big difference between what will work and what will work best. Rehydration of dry yeast will always work better than dry yeast sprinkled on the wort. If what you are doing works for you then you should continue doing it. The concern I would have is the implication that sprinkling dry yeast represents a "best practice" for new brewers, which it is not.

Cheers and all the best.

 

[boydster]

If you are targeting a specific pitch rate using a calculator, most online calcs assume you are hydrating the yeast first. There is simply no doubt that you pitch a greater number of viable cells by hydrating first. If you feel that your beer is better by not hydrating, do what works for you (or try hydrating and pitching half the amount you normally would...you double the amount of beer you can ferment for the same amount of yeast). As a best practice for someone getting acclimated to using dry yeast, how can there be any doubt about whether hydrating first is best? That is a serious question. If anyone has evidence that hydrating yeast per manufacturer instructions is in any way detrimental to the beer, I'm all ears. There is a lot of data showing the benefit of hydrating. By not hydrating, you are effectively (according to all empirical data I'm aware of) pitching at a rate similar to pitching a single vial or smack pack of liquid yeast. Whether that is the best thing for your beer is up to the brewer, but personally I prefer to keep excess dead yeast cells out of my brew and pitch mostly live, healthy yeast if possible.

I urge anyone interested in the topic to check out the Basic Brewing episode with Sean Terrill about yeast hydration. Or any of Sean Terrill's yeast hydration or pitch rate experiments. Or other relevant data on the subject. Better yet, do your own experiments with cell counts and blind beer tasting.

For a new brewer who is trying to nail their routine, I definitely recommend following manufacturer instructions and hydrating. Once you have your process dialed in, experiment with things like hydration, pitch rate, or anything else you feel like experimenting with. It's important to have a firm understanding of the fundamentals first, IMO, so you can be sure that any changes you notice in your beer can be attributed to the variable you are testing and not variations in other parts of your process that you are still fine tuning.

 

[lolznrofls]

Good stuff boydster!. Im pretty new at this..my yeasts so far that im using is just so-4, so-5, for beer..and redstar pasture champaign and nottingham ale for hard cider and meads..ive only rehydrated with one high gravity beer and my meads..I would also like to see the difference between using a stir plate and not.. ive seen one video on it so far..seems like the way to go if im going to ramp up my brewing.

 

[lolznrofls]

I also think stepping nutrient at the rate of 1/2 tsp every other day for the first week got my last mead off to a really good start..made a peach melomel.a month and a half in the primary straight to the bottle for conditioning..tasted like a slightly hot batch of peach white wine..I cant wait till its been in the bottle almost a year..its going to be great

 

[Puddlethumper]

I also think stepping nutrient at the rate of 1/2 tsp every other day for the first week got my last mead off to a really good start..

In response to your first reply re: use of a stir plate, I don't think use of one with dry yeast will be of any value. A stir plate comes into use when making a starter of liquid yeast. The starter needs to be oxygenated through the 18-24 hrs. it is building. That is where the stir-plate comes in since it keeps the starter spinning and oxygenated.

Dry yeast does not need oxygenated wort to work and the rehydration process only takes 20-30 minutes usually. So a stir plate is of no value there.

And definitely +1 to adding yeast nutrient to meads and ciders. Quite often these brews lack some of the basic nutrients required by the yeast. Those nutrients are usually present in beer wort. So adding nutrient to ciders and meads should almost always enhance the fermentation.

Good luck and cheers!

 

[MitDaseinBier]

For both dry and liquid yeast I got into the habit of tossing in some yeast nutrient into every brew. I've been away from brewing for a while (need to rebuild some equipment and didn't have the time) and can't remember the amount I put in but I think it was probably a tablespoon. Does a yeast nutriet help mitigate if you don't make a starter/rehydrate?

 

[Puddlethumper]

For both dry and liquid yeast I got into the habit of tossing in some yeast nutrient into every brew. I've been away from brewing for a while (need to rebuild some equipment and didn't have the time) and can't remember the amount I put in but I think it was probably a tablespoon. Does a yeast nutriet help mitigate if you don't make a starter/rehydrate?

If you don't make a starter/rehydrate you are starting your beer behind the curve a little on viable yeast cell count at pitching. Feeding the yeast that is present may be of some value but I doubt it could completely offset the loss of viable cells.

There are several different yeast nutrients available. GoFerm and Fermaid should be used at the maximum rate of 1 tsp. per 5 gal of wort. Servomyces tablets are usually used at one tablet per 5 gal. According to most sources it isn't necessary in beers with an OG below 1.055. On the other hand, if you are making mead or cider a yeast nutrient is often considered necessary since the must is usually deficient in some of the vital nutrients required by the yeast.

Cheers!

 

[FlyBoyKnight]

http://brulosophy.com/2014/09/15/sprinkled-vs-rehydrated-dry-yeast-exbeeriment-results/

Interesting exBEERiment conducted on the very topic of Rehydrating vs No-Rehydrating.

I have done both and both have yielded great beer however, my process is not yet to the point where I can attribute one single off flavor to one single aspect of my process / recipe.

Once I get my chest freezer, maybe then

 

[Puddlethumper]

http://brulosophy.com/2014/09/15/sprinkled-vs-rehydrated-dry-yeast-exbeeriment-results/

Interesting exBEERiment conducted on the very topic of Rehydrating vs No-Rehydrating.

I have done both and both have yielded great beer however, my process is not yet to the point where I can attribute one single off flavor to one single aspect of my process / recipe.

Once I get my chest freezer, maybe then

A very interesting read. Thanks for posting it. There is probably something to be learned here and perhaps there is no difference between rehydration vs sprinkling. (Sounds like an argument between a Presbyterian and a Baptist.) I did notice that when a person adds up the total number of people involved in the exBEERiment we get a total of no more than 7 participants. To me, that seems like an extremely small sample. I'm still inclined to buy the data from the lab coats with PhD's at Fermentis but it would be very interesting to follow this discussion further.

 

[boydster]

That was an interesting exBEERiment. I agree that a larger sample would be better. I think both sides of the hydrate/don't hydrate argument suffer from drawing conclusions using small samples. The most reliable data out there is cell count, and there's really no dispute that you'll have more viable yeast if you hydrate in warm water instead of wort. As has been the case for the history of this particular debate, personal preference holds the trump card. Some people like the ease and results of pitching dry yeast into wort, while others prefer the beer made with hydrated yeast. From a purely yeast-focused perspective, though, hydrating in warm water is the healthiest way to reconstitute your dry yeast and I would still recommend that as a standard practice for anyone new to either brewing in general or just simply new to dry yeast. As with anything, once you have a solid process with predictable results, it's great to tweak certain parts of the process and see how that impacts your beer. That is part of what makes home brewing so fun!

 

[aking]

I am a few years and about 50-60 batches into my brewing career. I do all grain, fermentation control, and the whole nine yards. I usually make IPAs and PAs and I would like to think I have my process down pretty good, and that my beer tastes pretty dang good.

Being said, I have always used liquid yeast except for my first batch or two. With beers such as IPA/PA at their best using a neutral yeast, am I wasting my money and time buying WLP001 and making a starter vs. half the cost and time of rehydrated US-05? Have I been brainwashed by Jamil and other's by thinking only the best beers can be made with liquid yeast? If there are no disadvantages to using dry yeast vs. liquid yeast other than less selection/variety, then why do all the pro breweries use liquid yeast for their beers vs. dry yeast when it would cost them much less to do the latter?

I realize that the answers to my questions are best found by my own trial and error, and shame on me for drinking the liquid yeast cool aid. I am not always in the quest to make "the best beer I can," but if I am going to spend 5-6 hrs on brew day it better taste good right?!