So Why Use Anything but Dried Yeast

[flyangler18]

I know I am in the minority by saying this (and thusly subjecting myself to a tar and feathering ), but I just don't like the flavor profile of commonly used dry strains. US-05, when fermented around 62°, throws an ester that I always perceive as peach, and there's always seems to be an unpleasant tartness in the final product. US-04 doesn't have enough English character for my personal tastes, and I've a growing library of slanted English strains that give me superior results compared to dry. And while US-05 is ostensibly the dry version of WLP001/1056, there's enough difference to me to warrant using the liquid strains. I happen to prefer Wyeast over White Labs.

Of course, this is my palate talking, so YMMV. I harbor no ill will or disdain for dry yeast, but simply prefer liquid varieties.

 

[Tonedef131]

I know I am in the minority by saying this (and thusly subjecting myself to a tar and feathering ), but I just don't like the flavor profile of commonly used dry strains. US-05, when fermented around 62°, throws an ester that I always perceive as peach, and there's always seems to be an unpleasant tartness in the final product. US-04 doesn't have enough English character for my personal tastes, and I've a growing library of slanted English strains that give me superior results compared to dry. And while US-05 is ostensibly the dry version of WLP001/1056, there's enough difference to me to warrant using the liquid strains. I happen to prefer Wyeast over White Labs.

Of course, this is my palate talking, so YMMV. I harbor no ill will or disdain for dry yeast, but simply prefer liquid varieties.

I completely agree with everything you posed here. I actually stopped using 05 completely because it overattenuates and I didn't like it's flavor profile. I started using an English liquid strain I usually had around in place of it and now I don't use cal ale at all. The English strain is clean when fermented low and fruity when warmer, so I just adjust the ferm temp to determine the flavor profile.

The one thing I love dry yeast for is lagers, W34/70- is used in 90% of my lagers.

 

[Synovia]

And while US-05 is ostensibly the dry version of WLP001/1056, there's enough difference to me to warrant using the liquid strains. I

They're the same yeast. Theres a very good chance that the difference you see is psychosomatic, or entirely related to pitching rates.

 

[flyangler18]

They're the same yeast.

I know the history of that strain. They may come from the same original stock in Chico, but there's bound to be drift based on localized processing and holding conditions.

My HB club has done tastings involving split batches, the same wort, with US-05 and one with 1056. Again, to my palate, the difference is pretty apparent.

I'm not hatin' on dry yeast, just giving my perspective.

 

[Synovia]

My HB club has done tastings involving split batches, the same wort, with US-05 and one with 1056. Again, to my palate, the difference is pretty apparent.

Was the tasting double blind?

 

[GOOCHY]

I know the history of that strain. They may come from the same original stock in Chico, but there's bound to be drift based on localized processing and holding conditions.

My HB club has done tastings involving split batches, the same wort, with US-05 and one with 1056. Again, to my palate, the difference is pretty apparent.

I'm not hatin' on dry yeast, just giving my perspective.

Was it a blind taste test or did you know which one was made with dry yeast and which was made with liquid beforehand?

 

[flyangler18]

Was the tasting double blind?

Was it a blind taste test or did you know which one was made with dry yeast and which was made with liquid beforehand?

They were blind tastings, yes.

I can't help but think I'm being unduly scrutinized here for expressing an unpopular opinion.

 

[mysterio]

My personal opinion, if you are after neutral yeast character then dried yeast is perfect. I would not use anything but Nottingham for a US hoppy ale. I'm not a big fan of US-05, I've never been completely happy with any beer I brew with it, I can't put my finger on why. A 'tartness' sounds familiar though. I also agree that S-04 is a bit on the 'boring' side for English ales.

For beer where yeast takes centre stage, or is at least a big contributor to the overall character, liquid yeast is the way to go.

- Bitters, belgian ales, hefeweizen are the three which immediately come to mind

Things like

- APA, IPA, stout, lagers, are fine for dried yeast most of the time, unless you're trying to produce something different from your everyday beer.

 

[Synovia]

We're not overly scrutinizing.

Its just, in my mind, and anyone with a scientific bend, any testing that isn't blind is absolutely useless. The senses are slaves to the mind.


If you could taste a difference in a double blind consistently, then there was a difference in the beers. How did you guys insure equal pitching rates? Identical temp control should be easy.

 

[mysterio]

If you could taste a difference in a double blind consistently, then there was a difference in the beers. How did you guys insure equal pitching rates? Identical temp control should be easy.

Virtually impossible without lab equipment I would say, then theres things like yeast health, activity of yeast when pitching, temperature differential between yeast and wort at pitching, etc.

 

[Coastarine]

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.

K-97 is supposed to be a kolsch yeast, and I'm going to try it in an oktoberfest and a munich smash soon. We'll see how it does.

Also, brett is a yeast, or have I lost my mind?

 

[mysterio]

Yes, Brettanomyces ('British Funghi') is a yeast.

 

[GOOCHY]

They were blind tastings, yes.

I can't help but think I'm being unduly scrutinized here for expressing an unpopular opinion.

Not at all, I don't have any practical experience in comparing two same yeast strains - one liquid and one dry. I was just wondering.

 

[flyangler18]

K-97 is supposed to be a kolsch yeast, and I'm going to try it in an oktoberfest and a munich smash soon. We'll see how it does.

I'm unfamiliar with that strain personally, but I look forward to your results. A Kölsch ain't a Kölsch without a proper Kölsch yeast.

Also, brett is a yeast, or have I lost my mind?

Yes, Brettanomyces is yeast.

 

[Bob]

I know I am in the minority by saying this (and thusly subjecting myself to a tar and feathering ), but I just don't like the flavor profile of commonly used dry strains. US-05, when fermented around 62°, throws an ester that I always perceive as peach, and there's always seems to be an unpleasant tartness in the final product. US-04 doesn't have enough English character for my personal tastes, and I've a growing library of slanted English strains that give me superior results compared to dry. And while US-05 is ostensibly the dry version of WLP001/1056, there's enough difference to me to warrant using the liquid strains. I happen to prefer Wyeast over White Labs.

Of course, this is my palate talking, so YMMV. I harbor no ill will or disdain for dry yeast, but simply prefer liquid varieties.

This for you, my friend!

Seriously, to each his own. In reference to your later posts, I'm not going to slam you for tasting an off-flavor. I agree that blind, triangular tastings with control groups are important to generate useful data. But your palate is your own, as is the money you spend on your hobby; if you object to the result of a particular ingredient - whether the result is psychosomatic or "real" - there's no one can force you to blow money using it.

You keep a yeast bank and that's great. I don't, because I'm simply too busy and scatterbrained to be arsed to look after it. The overriding fact for me is I'm my only "customer", so mine is the palate I must satisfy. Dry yeast work for me in that regard. I'm satisfied with the brewing and flavor results I get. I'm also satisfied with the convenience. I hate building starters. Plus, I'm so busy that when I find time to brew it's generally NOW - there's no time to build a starter. Sometimes I can get round that by brewing two half-batches 24 hours apart, but very infrequently; then I can pitch an XL smack-pack and be done. That's how I do Belgians with Ardennes.

Now if only there was a dry Belgian yeast that's worth two nickels. I'd be all over that.

 

[mr_clean]

I use dry sometimes,but will only use Fermentis if i go dry.

 

[flyangler18]

You keep a yeast bank and that's great. I don't, because I'm simply too busy and scatterbrained to be arsed to look after it. The overriding fact for me is I'm my only "customer", so mine is the palate I must satisfy. Dry yeast work for me in that regard. I'm satisfied with the brewing and flavor results I get. I'm also satisfied with the convenience. I hate building starters. Plus, I'm so busy that when I find time to brew it's generally NOW - there's no time to build a starter. Sometimes I can get round that by brewing two half-batches 24 hours apart, but very infrequently; then I can pitch an XL smack-pack and be done. That's how I do Belgians with Ardennes.

Funny, I love making starters.

Maintaining the yeast bank and fiddling with starters, slants, plates and canned wort is part of the enjoyment to me. I'm a planner.

 

[Synovia]

I hate building starters. Plus, I'm so busy that when I find time to brew it's generally NOW - there's no time to build a starter.

You sound like a good candidate for no-chill. It lets you separate the brewing process and the fermenting process, because it allows you to store sterile wort.

You can set up the starter/whatever while you're brewing, and pitch a couple days later.

 

[Bob]

Thanks for the tip, Synovia, because I truly do appreciate it, but...

Nope. Not me, nuh-uh. I mean, there's innovation and everything, but then there's stuff like this.

I don't buy any of the protagonists' blithe dismissal of such things as haze, stability, yeast nutrition, complete lack of cold-break formation and other side-effects associated with no-chill brewing.

The whole "no-chill" discussion is one I absolutely refuse to enter, because it's a complete no-win for either "side". This is the one and only time I'll break that rule.

I'll stick with trusted, proven techniques and procedures learned from thousands of years of empirically-derived experience backed up by lots and lots of extremely smart people with multiple doctorates in brewing science, thanks.

Call me old-fashioned.

I'm glad no-chill brewing works for some people. However, I find it neither a particularly useful nor particularly wise technique. Like knocking out onto a yeast cake in a dirty fermenter, I think it's just an excuse to not do things properly. No evidence of complications arising from the technique is not support for the technique being wise. The two are not necessarily connected.

Jason,

More power to you, my friend! Different strokes for different folks. You're very process-oriented; I am mainly result-oriented.

Cheers to you both,

Bob

 

[Revvy]

You sound like a good candidate for no-chill. It lets you separate the brewing process and the fermenting process, because it allows you to store sterile wort.

You can set up the starter/whatever while you're brewing, and pitch a couple days later.

*Giggle* Suggesting a brewing process to NQ3X is sorta like telling Picasso to try pointillism.

Synovia, I don't know if you've ever noticed the link in Bob's sigline that says "Brewery Consultant," but you may enjoy clicking on it. He's been around the block a few times.

By the way Bob, you never got that 1860's era ale recipe to me. We're having the Vintage Base Ball Association Convention in town this year, and I'd LOVE to have an authentic beer on tap.

 

[waldoar15]

I wish I could use nothing but dried yeast. Either that or I wish they would really sell an honest to god pitchable liquid yeast. I hate having to plan a brew day around a starter.

 

[Bob]

*Giggle* Suggesting a brewing process to NQ3X is sorta like telling Picasso to try pointillism.

But imagine if Picasso had tried some of the techniques that made Manet famous - we might have seen some very interesting Cubist images of Bass bottles!

By the way Bob, you never got that 1860's era ale recipe to me. We're having the Vintage Base Ball Association Convention in town this year, and I'd LOVE to have an authentic beer on tap.

Darn it, I knew there was something I was forgetting. I've got the file around here somewhere; I've been working on Elizabethan-era hopped beer lately, so I've got that on the brain. Let me figure out where I put it and I'll PM you.

Bob

 

[Revvy]

Darn it, I knew there was something I was forgetting. I've got the file around here somewhere; I've been working on Elizabethan-era hopped beer lately, so I've got that on the brain. Let me figure out where I put it and I'll PM you.

Bob

Thanks bro!

That Elizabethan sounds interesting. I was watching yourube videos of Heston Blumenthal 's attempt at creating feasts from various historical and mythological periods. Pretty cool.

You ever think of writing a book of historical recipes?

 

[KopyKat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

K-97 is supposed to be a Kolsch yeast, and I'm going to try it in an oktoberfest and a munich smash soon. We'll see how it does

.

I have done the blind testing on the K-97 Vs WLP 029 with a Kolsch recipe and the difference was so slight that my best taster could not for sure say there was a difference. I know I certainly couldn't and that surprised me. I assumed there would be a distinct difference and I would choose one yeast over the other.

The K-97 was hydrated per instructions and the liquid was pitched from a starter using the MrMalty calculations.

Both were a split of a 10 gallon batch into two 5 gallon fermentations at 62° for two weeks, raised for 2 days to 68° and kegged. I lagered both for 4 weeks at 36° before testing.

Results may vary.

 

[northernlad]

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.

Perhaps this is why I find New Belgium and Alaskan to be shyte, generally speaking.

I wish I could use nothing but dried yeast. Either that or I wish they would really sell an honest to god pitchable liquid yeast. I hate having to plan a brew day around a starter

I have had no problems opening a bag of liquid yeast and pouring it right into the fermenter.

 

[TexLaw]

I have had no problems opening a bag of liquid yeast and pouring it right into the fermenter.

. . . yet.

So many folks seem to forget that last word when explaining their experience.


TL

 

[MeatyPortion]

Interesting thread. I've wondered a bit about the differences too ever since my home brew shop sold me my first kit and gave me the option to upgrade to liquid saying that it had a "cleaner" taste. I'm definitely going to be switching it up a bit when I get home, see what the taste differences are and what not.

 

[Bob]

You ever think of writing a book of historical recipes?

Maybe someday. For this project, I'm hoping to net a magazine article out of it. Gonna have to totally change the stye, though: I've never seen footnotes in BYO.

Bob