Rant about Yeast

[sasky7777]

I finished reading the Nov and Dec issues of BYO magazine, and one thing struck me as odd in a number of recipes. Safale 04 and 05 in many of the recipes. I know they have a lot of things going for them, but why go through all the trouble of using specialty malts and cool new hops and all of these other things, and then use the same yeast over and over?
The yeast character is so important to the final product, without the yeast all you got is sugar water, not beer. I think we should all try out the huge selection of yeasts as often as we would a new hop variety. Yes, if you are nailing down a recipe, or trying out new ingredients or processes, its great to take out some variables and go back to an old standby, but it seems that is the only yeast ever used.

 

[SilverZero]

I think that's because it's so reliable and consistent, not to mention cheap and readily available. They're also very "standard" yeast profiles, so people will know what to expect with one less variable in the mix.

I agree with you that people should experiment and find a yeast that suits them. It just may not be the top priority when compared with which hops or specials you're using to get a certain taste.

 

[heywatchthis]

The reason people use those yeasts is exactly what you mentioned in your first point. People experiment with new hops and new specialty malts, and US05 gives a very repeatable, very neutral background. When trying out a new hop, you likely wouldn't want to use a yeast that is overly estery or phenolic, as these yeasts can both mute the hop flavors/aromas and confuse them by producing fruity/spicy flavors/aromas of their own.

The price and ease of use for a dry yeast is also a plus for me personally. For $6 I can get two packs of US05 and have that be a pitchable amount for almost any beer, or I can pay $6 for a package of WLP or WY and have to make a starter. Its just easier.

I'm not a fan of using these yeasts where they don't belong though. I use witbier yeast for witbier, saison yeast for saison, belgian yeast for anything belgian, but when I'm making an APA, IPA, Stout, Porter, or Brown I always use US05.

 

[Revvy]

For probably 99% of American and British ales most folks folks brew, since the flavors are driven by the "specialty malts and cool new hops" and NOT THE YEAST in these cases, all you need is a clean, neutral yeast strain. In most cases using a yeast with a different flavor profile would DETRACT from those things, or muddy up the flavors.

I think you have the wrong take on yeast there. You use the RIGHT yeast for the job and for most of the 04-05 fit the bill.

I wrote this for the typical liquid vs dry yeast argument but it still fits the bill in this case.

If you're brewing a standard ale it's a waste of time and money to use other yeast. Dry yeast is fine for 99% of the brewing we do.

I have found that a lot of new brewers especially, THINK they HAVE to use liquid yeast for everything, but in reality most ales can be made with Notty, Windsor, Us-05, Us-04 and many lagers with basic Saflager.....7-8 bucks a pop for liquid as opposed to $1.50-2.50 for dry, with more cell count, is imho just a waste of money for the majority of a brewer's recipe bank...most commercial ales us a limited range of strains, and those liquid strains are really the same strains that the afore mentioned dry strains cover, for example Us-05 is the famed "Chico strain", so if you are paying 7-8 bucks for Wyeast 1056 American/Chico Ale Yeast, and you STILL have to make a starter to have enough viable cells, then you are ripping yourself off, in terms of time and money....

I use dry yeast for 99% of my beers, for basic ales I use safale 05, for more british styles I us safale 04 and for basic lagers I use saflager..

The only time I use liquid yeast is if I am making a beer where the yeast drives the style, where certain flavor characteristics are derived from the yeast, such as phenols. Like Belgian beers, where you get spicy/peppery flavors from the yeast and higher temp fermentation. Or let's say a wheat beer (needing a lowly flocculant yest) or a Kholsch, where the style of the beer uses a specific yeast strain that is un available in dry form. Or certain certain specific English ale strains like Yorkshire or Burton

But if you are looking for a "clean" yeast profile, meaning about 90% of american ales, the 05, or nottingham is the way to go. Need "Bready" or yeasty for English ales, then 04 or windsor. Want a clean, low profile lager yeast- saflager usually does the trick.

It's really a matter of what you're brewing....The majority of the beers we tend to brew (at least where ales are concerned) fit a narrow band- Amber ales, pale ales, ipas, browns, porters, stouts, even DIIPAS, and Barleywines are all basic ales and driven by the malt and hop bill and NOT the yeast profiles.

 

[RM-MN]

Apparently your schedule is more orderly than mine. I might enjoy brewing with just the right yeast sometime but there are days when I can fit in brewing a batch if I start at 6 in the morning but I don't know that the day before so I don't have time to make a proper starter and sometimes when I think I will have time to brew it doesn't work out and I don't get to brew for a month. Ordering in liquid yeast takes a couple days and then another day of making a proper starter just isn't going to happen but I can store several packets of dry yeast in the refrigerator for months and if they go bad, the cost to replace is so reasonable the it makes sense to me.

 

[Airborneguy]

I think we should all try out the huge selection of yeasts as often as we would a new hop variety.

Why do you care what yeasts or hops other people use?

 

[Pappers_]

Many people use 05, 04, Nottingham, WLP001, or WY1056 as their mainstay yeasts. Another interesting option is to get familiar with other yeasts that can also serve as good, general purpose yeasts, like East Coast, Denny's Favorite, or my current favorite, Edinburgh.

 

[sasky7777]

Why do you care what yeasts or hops other people use?

I don't care, we all do what we enjoy with this hobby. I have just found it odd that we can talk for hours on a new hop or how having chocolate malt make up 10% instead of 15% of the malt bill makes a huge difference, and then the majority of homebrewers ignore the contribution of the yeast.

 

[sasky7777]

For probably 99% of American and British ales most folks folks brew, since the flavors are driven by the "specialty malts and cool new hops" and NOT THE YEAST in these cases, all you need is a clean, neutral yeast strain. In most cases using a yeast with a different flavor profile would DETRACT from those things, or muddy up the flavors.

I think you have the wrong take on yeast there. You use the RIGHT yeast for the job and for most of the 04-05 fit the bill.

I wrote this for the typical liquid vs dry yeast argument but it still fits the bill in this case.


It's really a matter of what you're brewing....The majority of the beers we tend to brew (at least where ales are concerned) fit a narrow band- Amber ales, pale ales, ipas, browns, porters, stouts, even DIIPAS, and Barleywines are all basic ales and driven by the malt and hop bill and NOT the yeast profiles.

Due to the vast experience I know you have, and the awesomeness of your avatar, I won't argue with you. Yes, the right yeast for the right job, I just find it odd that with all the work that goes into recipes, no one explores the character that yeast can provide.

 

[bob1852]

Due to the vast experience I know you have, and the awesomeness of your avatar, I won't argue with you. Yes, the right yeast for the right job, I just find it odd that with all the work that goes into recipes, no one explores the character that yeast can provide.

That's why I did this experiment (combined with BJCP judging) and will be doing more in 2012!

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/a...-greenbelt-v-wlp001-experiment-begins-203256/

 

[Revvy]

Due to the vast experience I know you have, and the awesomeness of your avatar, I won't argue with you. Yes, the right yeast for the right job, I just find it odd that with all the work that goes into recipes, no one explores the character that yeast can provide.

You're missing the point, in MOST ales, you don't want or need the "character" that the yeast provides...in fact any yeast character would DETRACT from the flavors garnered from the malt or hops.

You don't use something just to use something....If it serves a purpose then fine, if it doesn't or you use it wrongly it overpowers or takes away from other characteristics that you're trying to bring out.

For example, if you're making vanilla icecream, and you want the understated, yet pure vanilla flavor to shine through, you don't suddenly decide that anchovies are an underrated flavor and decide to toss a few fishies in.

Maybe once in awhile you make a batch of anchovy vanilla ice cream...for a limited audience. BUT if you're making standard vanilla, or chocolate or strawberry, then you use only those ingredients that work in harmony with your intended flavor profile.

Something tells me you've not been doing this for very long....I betcha the folks creating these recipes that you don't think are all that good because they don't just throw any yeast in willy nilly, probably have a tad more experience in recipe creation that you do.

 

[sasky7777]

Then why so many different types of yeast? It can't all be marketing. I understand the point you are trying to make Revvy, but I would say that Wyeast 1332 Northwest Ale and Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley Ale both would work in an ESB and would produce different results. I am not advocating brewing an ESB or a cream ale and then using a Belgian yeast and hoping for the proper flavour profile.
If I am completely wrong then I will admit it, and hopefully we all learn something.

 

[bob1852]

I disagree revvy. In the thread I linked, I was shocked that a BJCP judge would score the exact same pale ale 7 points different when the only difference was WLP001 vs. Greenbelt; both of which ate purported to be clean, neutral yeasts.

My 2012 experiment will include pale ales with 1056 and us-05, as I don't believe they are as similar as reported...

 

[Pappers_]

Then why so many different types of yeast? It can't all be marketing. I understand the point you are trying to make Revvy, but I would say that Wyeast 1332 Northwest Ale and Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley Ale both would work in an ESB and would produce different results. I am not advocating brewing an ESB or a cream ale and then using a Belgian yeast and hoping for the proper flavour profile.
If I am completely wrong then I will admit it, and hopefully we all learn something.

You're not wrong. Experimenting with different yeasts can be very rewarding.

 

[sudsmcgee]

I don't care, we all do what we enjoy with this hobby. I have just found it odd that we can talk for hours on a new hop or how having chocolate malt make up 10% instead of 15% of the malt bill makes a huge difference, and then the majority of homebrewers ignore the contribution of the yeast.

So, using your argument, we should argue over whether Evian or Poland Springs water is better I guess. Technically water is the single most important part of beer, right?

 

[sasky7777]

So, using your argument, we should argue over whether Evian or Poland Springs water is better I guess. Technically water is the single most important part of beer, right?

i know you weren't being serious, but let's not even start on the difference the mineral content of water can make on the final product.

 

[bob1852]

i know you weren't being serious, but let's not even start on the difference the mineral content of water can make on the final product.

True. To discount any of the ingredients and its effects on the final product is assinine.

 

[bottlebomber]

the majority of homebrewers ignore the contribution of the yeast.

This is nuts... those liquid yeast strains are only there in part because there is a demand for them among HOMEBREWERS. Run a search on any yeast strain available - several threads, sometimes dozens. If these recipes are calling for neutral yeast strains it's because that's what is appropriate for the beer. It's not because homebrewers aren't smart enough to use them. Any saison recipes calling for dry yeast? Sour ales? Tripels?

 

[Montanaandy]

You're not wrong. Experimenting with different yeasts can be very rewarding.

Without a doubt...

 

[GuldTuborg]

I just find it odd that...no one explores the character that yeast can provide.

You seem to be hanging out on the wrong sections of this forum. There's this neat one called "Fermentation and Yeast".

 

[dzlater]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one explores the character that yeast can provide.

How many this yeast vs. that yeast threads are on this forum?
The recipes in the mags. are just trying to pick the "right" yeast for the style. You can do whatever you want.

 

[Airborneguy]

They are there because of personal preference, not so we can experiment. I can tell you that I will never change the yeast in one particular recipe of mine. I have no need to "experiment" because that beer is damn near perfect with the ingredients I've been using for awhile now. If you are looking for something that you aren't getting from a beer - whatever ingredient it may be - then of course you should "experiment" until you find the right flavors for you. But some brewers, like me, are looking to "nail" a recipe to our preferences, and once there, we aren't looking to change anything.

 

[insubordinateK]

Then why so many different types of yeast? It can't all be marketing. I understand the point you are trying to make Revvy, but I would say that Wyeast 1332 Northwest Ale and Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley Ale both would work in an ESB and would produce different results. I am not advocating brewing an ESB or a cream ale and then using a Belgian yeast and hoping for the proper flavour profile.

This is what makes brewing fun for me. I never brew the same beer twice. There is too much experimentation (with yeast especially) to be done.

 

[bottlebomber]

This is what makes brewing fun for me. I never brew the same beer twice. There is too much experimentation (with yeast especially) to be done.

This is something that someone does early on in the hobby. There's actually a lot more to be learned about the brewing process by making the same recipe over and over. I like to experiment too, but I'm working on a couple recipes I've brewed several times now and I feel like I'm learning way more about the process this way. You can learn more about yeast strains this way too - hard to always pick out the yeast when you've changed up the brew.

 

[insubordinateK]

This is something that someone does early on in the hobby. There's actually a lot more to be learned about the brewing process by making the same recipe over and over. I like to experiment too, but I'm working on a couple recipes I've brewed several times now and I feel like I'm learning way more about the process this way.

Couldn't disagree more. How are you learning by making the same recipe over and over? Making the same style over and over is a different story. Side by side experiments with different yeasts and hops and conditions is much more conducive to learning.

 

[bottlebomber]

Couldn't disagree more. How are you learning by making the same recipe over and over? Making the same style over and over is a different story. Side by side experiments with different yeasts and hops and conditions is much more conducive to learning.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the ingredients you choose for your beer MAYBE account for half of the finished product, and are the part of the beer that is easy to control. Water, mashing temps, boil time, fermentation temps and times are where the real learning is to be had.

Make Ed Worts Haus pale ale 3 times, mashing at 148, 152, and 158. Observe the difference this had on your beer. NOW you've learned something. A hell of a lot more than making an apricot ramen hefe, a chili cinnamon dubbel, and a cherry chocolate coffee porter. I used to brew something different every time as a new(er) brewer, and I noticed that I didn't really learn a thing about process, because its too varied to pick out differences or flaws.

Now make the same pale ale recipe with a new yeast. You are going to see the difference this yeast makes much more clearly. Doesn't this method make sense?

 

[SilverZero]

You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the ingredients you choose for your beer MAYBE account for half of the finished product, and are the part of the beer that is easy to control. Water, mashing temps, boil time, fermentation temps and times are where the real learning is to be had.

Make Ed Worts Haus pale ale 3 times, mashing at 148, 152, and 158. Observe the difference this had on your beer. NOW you've learned something. A hell of a lot more than making an apricot ramen hefe, a chili cinnamon dubbel, and a cherry chocolate coffee porter. I used to brew something different every time as a new(er) brewer, and I noticed that I didn't really learn a thing about process, because its too varied to pick out differences or flaws.

Now make the same pale ale recipe with a new yeast. You are going to see the difference this yeast makes much more clearly. Doesn't this method make sense?

I'll side with bottlebomber on this one for sure. Well said.

 

[insubordinateK]

I'll side with bottlebomber on this one for sure. Well said.

So not experimenting = learning way more? Did you learn that in science class? Using different mash temperatures IS experimentation.

My original post was a broad statement referring to the joy of using different ingredients, different mash temperatures, different techniques to create beer which I think was relevant to the OP. First off, I rarely take a recipe online or in a book and make it. I formulate my own beer, based on other recipes or past experience. I always take what I have learned and apply it.

I think we all agree that there is something to be learned from every batch. Every time you make beer, you have to choose mash temp, fermentation conditions, etc. I just don't see the benefit in brewing the same "recipe" unless that is what you like and that's fine. But suggesting my approach is for amateurs as bottlebomber did - is disingenuous.

For example, using wild yeasts has totally opened up a new way to look at the fermentation process for me. That would not have come about unless I started to experiment with lacto or other micro-organisms.

I'm not understating the importance of nailing a style. I do that. I try to make a really good porter or a really good standard IPA. And the science of mashing is important as well. But if someone comes up to me and tells me they just made their 5th batch of a creme ale they got from Jamil, then I just don't see the benefit in regards to learning.

 

[bottlebomber]

Couldn't disagree more. How are you learning by making the same recipe over and over?

This is actually what you did say, so now I feel like you're just being argumentative.

So not experimenting = learning way more? Did you learn that in science class?

How do you think scientists conduct experiments? But using a different test subject every time? Or do they run the same test sometimes thousands of times, searching for minute variables and making extremely small adjustments, in a way that takes exactly the same approach I mentioned to an extreme?

 

[Piratwolf]

This thread is starting to get confusing.

Both of you are advocating experimentation. Bottlebomber is focusing on tightly controlled process conditions, while insubordinateK is for seeking out new additions. The end results are going to be wildly different, but neither is inherently better.

The beauty of home brewing is that each can do what he likes and neither ever has to drink the other's beer. RDWHYOHB!

Cheers!

"All your home brew are belong to us!"

 

[insubordinateK]

This is actually what you did say, so now I feel like you're just being argumentative.


How do you think scientists conduct experiments? But using a different test subject every time? Or do they run the same test sometimes thousands of times, searching for minute variables and making extremely small adjustments, in a way that takes exactly the same approach I mentioned to an extreme?

Argumentative? I didn't contradict myself. I'm trying to meet you half way. I'm making a point, and YOU keep attacking me for what I'm saying. We all want to learn something from each batch of beer we brew. And there is a lot to learn using different yeasts (keeping the topic on the OP). I think the aforementioned posts concerning using "neutral" yeasts when the malt and hop flavors dominate are very good things to keep in mind. This realization has helped me tremendously.

I am a scientist, and we conduct experiments trying to control as much as possible. So in a process like brewing, you have multiple confounding factors that could influence each other. You can't run the same test thousands of times in complex systems. You do it more intelligently and efficiently using statistical frameworks such as Design of Experiments. We are currently employing this technique because we work with biological systems. So no, we don't take your approach "to the extreme". However, the home brewer can do as he or she chooses. I'm not saying my way or your way is the "right" way. I'm just saying that you shouldn't buy into that either. Your approach may be very helpful for some people, however, I get tired of drinking the same beer after awhile. And I would hope I could meld some creativity into the experimentation process.

 

[BBL_Brewer]

I agree with the OP. The only way we are going to know what yeasts make better beer is to try them out ourselves. That's not to say that a lot of us arent' doing that already. Everyones tastes are different and taking someone elses word for it won't make the beer that best suits your own taste. I've been using liquid almost exclusively for the past couple years because I was put off initially on dry yeast by the crappy dry yeast packets that came with my first couple beer kits. Here recently, I've tried using dry yeast like S-05 and S-04, and while it does make good drinkable beer, I like the taste of 1272 or Denny's Favorite better. I don't think there is such a thing as truly "Neutral Yeast" as Revvy makes it sound like. No matter what the yeast, it will have an impact on flavor. Granted, some more than others. Boycotting liquid yeast on the basis of "Neutrality" is just crazy. If you said you like the flavor of beer fermented with dry yeast over liquid then fine. But to say that using a "Neutral Yeast" whether dry or liquid makes absolutely no difference in taste is just horse chnit. There are a bunch of different yeasts to choose from out there and while I may never try them all, I will continue to experiment with new ones as much as possible in an attemp to make beer that better suits my taste.

 

[bottlebomber]

The beauty of home brewing is that each can do what he likes and neither ever has to drink the other's beer.

This one.

 

[beergolf]

I think you guys are saying pretty much the same thing in different ways.

A good scientific experiment changes ONE variable at a time so the difference can be noted.

I have done a few recipes only changing the yeast to see the taste difference. For example I did an IPA using US-05, 1056 and 1272. It seems for MY TASTE I like 1272 best and as a result use it in a lot of other brews.

 

[Hoodweisen]

A hell of a lot more than making an apricot ramen hefe, a chili cinnamon dubbel, and a cherry chocolate coffee porter.

Ramen noodles? thats hilarous!

 

[Piratwolf]

I think you guys are saying pretty much the same thing in different ways.

A good scientific experiment changes ONE variable at a time so the difference can be noted.

I have done a few recipes only changing the yeast to see the taste difference. For example I did an IPA using US-05, 1056 and 1272. It seems for MY TASTE I like 1272 best and as a result use it in a lot of other brews.

Hey, beer golf (great name, by the way!), what'd you like most about the 1272? I'm getting ready to try new yeasts on my "house IPA" and would love suggestions.

"All your home brew are belong to us!"

 

[fastricky]

All I will say is the more I experiment with all the liquid yeasts out there, the more I like 05 & 04.

 

[BBL_Brewer]

Hey, beer golf (great name, by the way!), what'd you like most about the 1272? I'm getting ready to try new yeasts on my "house IPA" and would love suggestions.

"All your home brew are belong to us!"

1272 is a great yeast. One of my mainstays. It attenuates well, and flocculates great. I never have to cold crash, not even starters. A couple hours off the stir plate it's ready to decant. It has a great clean flavor and if you ferment low enough it has a bit of a citrusy character to it. Makes a great IPA.

 

[Glossolalia]

I think it's a matter of personal taste preference. A large proportion of the craft beer drinking population prefers hop forward beers. For those people, yeast byproducts may detract from the hop profiles they seek. These are the same people who are always pushing the dogma that all beers need to be fermented in the 60s, with a large pitch, and with always the same oxygenation, or else the finished product be rendered undrinkable. For other's like myself, I prefer yeast-forward beers. I usually prefer to moderately hop my beers and often stick to the use of a small set of hop types. I also tend to favor rather simple grists. Instead, I experiment with different yeast types and different ambient conditions to coax different flavors from the yeast or I purposely introduce other microorganisms to the brew. Sometimes, I even try to see the effects of a population of multiple yeast strains.

 

[beergolf]

Hey, beer golf (great name, by the way!), what'd you like most about the 1272? I'm getting ready to try new yeasts on my "house IPA" and would love suggestions.

"All your home brew are belong to us!"

Pretty much the same thoughts as BBL Brewer has. It just works great. Nice smooth flavor, pretty neutral.Attenuates well. Flocs out great for nice clean beer.