So Why Use Anything but Dried Yeast

[Paddle_Head]

So, I haven't got alot of batches under my belt yet. And so far just extract ale kits. However, to date all the kits I've gotten seem to have the option of using dried yeast. I understand starters, and I understand that there are some beer styles that may require an exotic yeast. But other than that what's the advantage to not using a dried yeast? I'm assuming kicking off the Fermentation could take longer. What else?

 

[david_42]

nothing890

 

[boo boo]

I have been making a few brews using W34/70 lager yeast and find it just as good as WY2042.
When my inventory of liquid yeast dries up, I'll be using a lot of dry yeast.

 

[doggage]

I love dry yeast. Aside from what you mentioned, I know of no disadvantages to using dry yeast. There are some brews I like using a liquid yeast that I've found tastes better than the dry yeasts I've been able to find. For example, I like a liquid yeast (Wyeast S112 California Lager) for my Baltic Porter, and haven't liked the dry yeasts flavor as much. You're getting a TON of yeast in a dry pack and anytime I've used liquid I always make a starter.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Variety. Especially for Lager strains. And I am an exclusive dry yeast user.

 

[Yooper]

I use dry yeast, but I also use liquid yeast. It depends on what I"m making. Sometimes you want a Belgian profile, or a certain flavor from the yeast and it isn't available in dry strains. All of my lagers, my steam beer, and some of my English ales use liquid yeast because I like those particular strains. About 1/2 of my IPAs and APAs use dry yeast.

 

[malkore]

Well, there's no dry yeast out there for making a Kolsch. I wouldn't say that's a terribly exotic beer.

maybe someday Fermentis will make a dry yeast for every strain out there.

Though I'm not sure you can get brett or lacto in a dry form since they're bacteria.

 

[Bernie Brewer]

Dry yeast is great, if you like the idea of all your beers having that same flavor in the background. yeast has a huge impact on the final flavor of your beer, and if you brew with the same yeast every time, you're not getting the flavor profile that is meant to go with the style. I do use dry yeast, but not very often.

 

[Pappers_]

I'm with Yooper, it's about 50/50 for me, depending on the beer. On a recent stout, I used Danstar Windsor and it turned out fabulous - my favorite of all the stouts I've made.

 

[BenS]

yeast has a huge impact on the final flavor of your beer, and if you brew with the same yeast every time

I couldn't agree more. I really do love using dry yeast and use it by far the majority of the time but different yeasts do impart a different flavor. If you are hesitant about the cost like I was when trying liquid yeasts, just wash and reuse. Ziplock baggies are sterile from the factory and are great for freezing yeast because it won't break like glass will and they are cheap. Just remember to label the baggie.

 

[Ashz]

While I am by no means an expert I agree that there is a time and a place for Dry and a time and a place for liquid, w/ a starter.

I have tried my ipa's and my Ed's haus on liquid, and find that I prefer it on dry. Cali common I do is always on liquid. As is my porters and Stouts. I am interested in trying them on dry though. Perhaps I will try it on windsor as Pappers mentioned.

For me it's about what's on hand when I need it, what is tried and true, and whether I feel like experimenting a bit.

 

[Brew-boy]

I am a liquid guy and always use liquid 95% of the time. Should I want something fast of last minute I will use dry. I just think the quality and variety is better in the liquid form. Plus who will give you free yeast for empty packs of dry yeast? White labs customer club will for the labels returned to them.

 

[TipsyDragon]

well i know its not exactly a big woop but you don't have to go through the rehydration step with liquid yeast.

 

[Ashz]

Should I want something fast of last minute I will use dry. I just think the quality and variety is better in the liquid form.

I don't really want to start a debate but I am not in agreement with you on that statement. Specialized yeasts are much more widely available via liquid but I don't think saying that liquids are better quality is accurate. Again this is just my opinion but I think others would agree.

 

[Newbeerguy]

I seem to find myself using dry yeasts in most of my APA's and IPA's. I haven't used a dry lager yeast yet, but I wouldn't be objected to it. My personal experiances with dry yeast have all been good ones. I just purchased a Stir Starter so now I have been on a liqiud yeast kick.....have to show my SWMBO that I NEEDED that Stir Starter

 

[Clonefarmer]

I use this basic rule of thumb:

Dry yeast when the aroma/flavor comes mostly from malt, hops and other ingredients such as spice. Example: Pale ale, IPA, Brown Ale

Liquid yeast when the aroma/flavor comes mostly from the yeast. Example: Hefeweizen, Triple, Saison

I don't always follow this rule but it's a good base to start with.

 

[XXguy]

Can't get Pacman in a dry yeast - can't bottle harvest dry yeast (then again, wouldn't be worth the trouble).

That said - I use dry yeast about 50% of the time. It is cheap, it is easy.

 

[fivehoursfree]

Dry yeast when the aroma/flavor comes mostly from malt, hops and other ingredients such as spice. Example: Pale ale, IPA, Brown Ale

Liquid yeast when the aroma/flavor comes mostly from the yeast. Example: Hefeweizen, Triple, Saison

Same here. Brewed a porter and a hefeweizen last week. Porter got powder, H.W. got liquid.

 

[Revvy]

I use this basic rule of thumb:

Dry yeast when the aroma/flavor comes mostly from malt, hops and other ingredients such as spice. Example: Pale ale, IPA, Brown Ale

Liquid yeast when the aroma/flavor comes mostly from the yeast. Example: Hefeweizen, Triple, Saison

I don't always follow this rule but it's a good base to start with.

That's pretty much the same rule of thumb I use. But it still comes out to be about 80% dry and 20% liguid for a typical year of my brewing.

 

[PT Ray]

I'm currently trying to find a house ale yeast or two and thought dried would be the ticket. So the past couple years I've been using Safale US-56, Nottingham and currently Windsor.

Don't know that I can say they're as good as liquid but definitely good enough for my purpose.

 

[NTOLERANCE]

I generally make ales, and use Safale 05.....honestly, I use it alot on those brews.

Specialty brews require special yeast..... plenty of people have stated as such in previous posts.

 

[BeerCrazy]

So, I haven't got alot of batches under my belt yet. And so far just extract ale kits. However, to date all the kits I've gotten seem to have the option of using dried yeast. I understand starters, and I understand that there are some beer styles that may require an exotic yeast. But other than that what's the advantage to not using a dried yeast? I'm assuming kicking off the Fermentation could take longer. What else?

If you go with dry yeast you can save a bundle by buying Turbo Yeast by the 25kg sack... No flavor just booze.

The main advantage of liquid yeast is variety. Our local club has done calibration tasting with diffrent yeast strands with the same batch split many ways. The result was astounding. I will sometimes split a 5 gallon batch and use diffrent yeasts. Right now I have a Northern English Brown by using Dry English Ale from White Labs and a Holiday Ale by using London Ale and adding spices.

 

[Bob]

Dry yeast is great, if you like the idea of all your beers having that same flavor in the background. yeast has a huge impact on the final flavor of your beer, and if you brew with the same yeast every time, you're not getting the flavor profile that is meant to go with the style.

Not necessarily, Bernie. Countless professional brewers use the same yeast strain for a dozen if not more styles in their breweries, and the flavor profile is just fine.

For years, in the beginning of the microbrewery Renaissance, Alan Pugsley acted like a Johnny Appleseed. He went all over the country selling breweries and training brewers to use them. He got all his training and equipment from the Ringwood Brewery in UK. Thus, many breweries continue to use Ringwood as the "house" strain to this day.

In my last full-time pro brewing gig, I used three strains: One generic ale (White Labs Cal V), one Belgian (Forbidden Fruit) and one lager (WLP820). I brewed at least two dozen different styles, from Oatmeal Stout to 80 Shilling to IPA to Old Ale with the Cal V, at least four Belgian styles with the Fruit, and three lagers with the 820.

So yeah, you can use a different strain for each style you brew. But it's not necessary. Hell, sometimes it's just plain dumb, like using "Irish Ale" for Dry Irish Stout.

I don't mind having three or four yeasts exclusively. It means I know their characteristics inside and out. I know how they taste, I know their fermentation characteristics under a variety of environmental conditions, I know how they operate. That means I can practice excellent yeast management at home, just like I used to do when the fermenters were exponentially larger. "Know your yeast", that's my motto.

You don't need to use a different strain for each style. You don't need to use a Scottish ale yeast for Scottish ale. Any clean-fermenting, low ester yeast can make excellent Scottish ales. Hell, I've brewed excellent, true-to-style Scottish ales with Ringwood, fer crissake. I'll admit you need a different yeast for Belgian styles and lagers, and it helps to have both estery and clean basic ale yeasts. But you need nothing more.

So I have four yeasts. One relatively underattenuative, fruity English strain (S-04), one relatively dry, neutral strain (S-05), one Belgian strain (Ardennes) and one lager (34/70). Notice 75% of the varieties is dry. I think I do just fine, thanks.

Okay, I tell a lie. Once a year or so I'll do a Hefeweizen.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

At the moment, I am limiting myself to just SO 4 and notty for my English Bitter because i want to keep it simple and easily available. Further experimentation with other strains is way down my list of priorities. Water profiling and malt roasting have still to be properly conquered before I will mess any more with yeast variety.

 

[stageseven]

There's some really good info in this thread. Honestly until I read through this I kind of had the impression that dry yeast was really more of a 2nd best option in most cases, and you'd get better results from a specialized yeast in most beers. Good to know that some more experienced brewers still use dry yeast for the majority of their brews. Prosted.

 

[Revvy]

So I have four yeasts. One relatively underattenuative, fruity English strain (S-04), one relatively dry, neutral strain (S-05), one Belgian strain (Ardennes) and one lager (34/70). Notice 75% of the varieties is dry. I think I do just fine, thanks.



Bob

Hey bro, is your Ardennes strain a dry version? I can't find seem to any info on dry Ardennes.

Oh I just re-read this paragraph....3/4 are dry, so the Ardennes is liquid...

Not awake yet.

 

[Bob]

Hey bro, is your Ardennes strain a dry version? I can't find seem to any info on dry Ardennes.

Oh I just re-read this paragraph....3/4 are dry, so the Ardennes is liquid...

Not awake yet.

Go brew some coffee, my dear fellow.

:cross:

Honestly until I read through this I kind of had the impression that dry yeast was really more of a 2nd best option in most cases, and you'd get better results from a specialized yeast in most beers.

In the former case, that was true at one time. For years, dry yeast wasn't very good at all, compared to liquid cultures. But about a decade ago someone at the dry yeast companies started paying attention to all these home brewers and vintners. They wanted a bigger slice of that pie. So they improved their products.

The trouble is that the prejudice against dry yeasts is sustained by "veteran" hobbyists who refuse to admit they might be wrong. They've preached the "dry yeast is crap" gospel for so many years, they continue to preach it. N00bs take the veterans at their word, even though that word is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete bollocks.

In the latter, "better" is relative. Say two brewers are brewing the exact same Wee Heavy recipe. The brewer who conscientiously pitches the correct amount of Ringwood and properly manages his ferment will achieve far better results than the brewer who just tosses in an XL smack-pack of Scottish Ale yeast. It's not the selection of a strain from a list that makes the beer "better"; it's the brewer and his skill/technique.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Revvy]

Go brew some coffee, my dear fellow.

:cross:

Bob

I got all excited, I thought maybe there WAS actually a good dry belgian yeast out in the ethers somewhere.

 

[BeerCrazy]

Not necessarily, Bernie. Countless professional brewers use the same yeast strain for a dozen if not more styles in their breweries, and the flavor profile is just fine.

For years, in the beginning of the microbrewery Renaissance, Alan Pugsley acted like a Johnny Appleseed. He went all over the country selling breweries and training brewers to use them. He got all his training and equipment from the Ringwood Brewery in UK. Thus, many breweries continue to use Ringwood as the "house" strain to this day.

In my last full-time pro brewing gig, I used three strains: One generic ale (White Labs Cal V), one Belgian (Forbidden Fruit) and one lager (WLP820). I brewed at least two dozen different styles, from Oatmeal Stout to 80 Shilling to IPA to Old Ale with the Cal V, at least four Belgian styles with the Fruit, and three lagers with the 820.

So yeah, you can use a different strain for each style you brew. But it's not necessary. Hell, sometimes it's just plain dumb, like using "Irish Ale" for Dry Irish Stout.

I don't mind having three or four yeasts exclusively. It means I know their characteristics inside and out. I know how they taste, I know their fermentation characteristics under a variety of environmental conditions, I know how they operate. That means I can practice excellent yeast management at home, just like I used to do when the fermenters were exponentially larger. "Know your yeast", that's my motto.

You don't need to use a different strain for each style. You don't need to use a Scottish ale yeast for Scottish ale. Any clean-fermenting, low ester yeast can make excellent Scottish ales. Hell, I've brewed excellent, true-to-style Scottish ales with Ringwood, fer crissake. I'll admit you need a different yeast for Belgian styles and lagers, and it helps to have both estery and clean basic ale yeasts. But you need nothing more.

So I have four yeasts. One relatively underattenuative, fruity English strain (S-04), one relatively dry, neutral strain (S-05), one Belgian strain (Ardennes) and one lager (34/70). Notice 75% of the varieties is dry. I think I do just fine, thanks.

Okay, I tell a lie. Once a year or so I'll do a Hefeweizen.

Cheers,

Bob

Excellent post. You gave me a great bit of knowledge in simplifying my home brew. If using fewer strands is it worth propagating yeast at home to keep price per batch low? I always make about a 1.5L starter and pitch the whole volume at high kraussen, but am certainly up for suggestions. Could I make a 5 gallon 1.040 unhopped wort and pitch a 1.5L starter, add glycerin and freeze?

I don’t mean to hijack thread, but I feel it is the next step. People select dry yeast because it is cheap and easy. This is obviously not as easy as rehydrating a pack of Mutons, but it certainly is cheap. Any input? I brew lagers in the winter and ale’s in the summer since I live in Florida and only have one cooler. I also brew a lot. Keeping a seasonal house yeast or two certainly would simplify the brew.

MODS: If this should be in a new thread, please move. I won’t be offended. Just thought it would be the next question.

 

[Lcasanova]

Most dry yeasts are gluten free while the liquid yeasts are not. A better option for us gluten free brewers