Tom Roeder's Dry Yeast vs Liquid Yeast Experiment

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Seven said:
I noticed at 12:40 in the main video Tom used the same funnel to pitch the 1056 liquid yeast that he used seconds earlier for the US-05 dry yeast batch.

Is it possible that the Wyeast 1056 batch picked up some lingering US-05 yeast from the funnel and is really a mixed US-05 + 1056 hybrid because of this?

Regardless, it's still a cool experiment and I'm looking forward to the results.
Click to expand...

I noticed that too but didn't mention anything to avoid starting a whole new debate. Since the funnel was wet with the sanitizer there must have been a considerable amount of S05 stuck to it. Technically the 1056 was cross-contaminated even though it was a small quantity. I work in biotech and for me this is unacceptable. Regardless, I greatly appreciate Tom sharing his experiment with the rest of us and look forward to the results.

So, didn't Nige promise the video for this past Sunday? I wonder what happened. It seems he's stalling on purpose to gain more followers. Irritating if you ask me...
 
It's a reasonable topic for debate but I don't think it will affect the results in any significant way. How does the funnel being wet with sanitizer affect how much rehydrated slurry got stuck to it? I could see if he sprinkled dry yeast through the funnel, but he didn't. How many cells do you think got carried across? I'd estimate that the 1056 batch got around 300B cells. Do you think a cross contamination of 10M cells of US-05 is enough to matter? I don't know. If it did matter, both beers should taste more similar than they did.
 
I noticed it also, and remember thinking that I probably wouldn't have done that. But really, it's a relatively small amount of the US-05 mixed in and the beers ended up quite different as Bobby states - obviously it wasn't the same yeast fermenting both beers.
 
No one has answered my question about how he controlled pitching rates (or if he did) to get similar cell counts. Does anybody know?
 
that's a great question.. It looks like he used Mr Malty to estimate the size starter he'd need for the liquid to get it to be the same as a rehydrated yeast packet. No idea how accurate that is, nor do I have any idea how I'd have done it any different - but I do suspect that to be a possible cause of the more violent ferment in the liquid vs. the dry.
 
I'd imagine it's impossible to get an exactly equal yeast pitch in the context of this experiment. Sure you can approximate things with Mr. Malty, but IMO people here would still find a fault if the guy doing the brewing used a hemocytometer to get an accurate count...
 
bruin_ale said:
that's a great question.. It looks like he used Mr Malty to estimate the size starter he'd need for the liquid to get it to be the same as a rehydrated yeast packet. No idea how accurate that is, nor do I have any idea how I'd have done it any different - but I do suspect that to be a possible cause of the more violent ferment in the liquid vs. the dry.
Click to expand...

It's possible that it was an equal pitch but the liquid is more guaranteed to be healthy whereas some of the dry won't make it.

Alternately, it could be that the dry had already finished the violent portion of fermentation by the time he checked it.
 
bruin_ale said:
but I do suspect that to be a possible cause of the more violent ferment in the liquid vs. the dry.
Click to expand...

that, and possibly since the yeast in the starter is already fermenting and doesn't have to initiate the process.

but i feel like that is one of the differences in dry and liquid yeast. a starter is not recommended for dry yeast so i feel like, for this experiment, this difference in treatment of the two yeasts is allowable. since in brewing this is how the yeasts are supposed to be used.
 
bruin_ale said:
that's a great question.. It looks like he used Mr Malty to estimate the size starter he'd need for the liquid to get it to be the same as a rehydrated yeast packet. No idea how accurate that is, nor do I have any idea how I'd have done it any different - but I do suspect that to be a possible cause of the more violent ferment in the liquid vs. the dry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he used Mr. Malty. Mr. Malty is an application designed by Jamil Zainasheff, who is (was) a software developer at his day job.

From the website: "Mr Malty's Pitching Rate Calculator™ is the result of many months of laboratory experiments. It uses precise formulas based on months of experimentation and feedback from leading yeast suppliers. It can calculate the amount of starter wort needed, number of yeast packs required, amount of repitching yeast needed, the effect of stir plates, dry yeast rates, will estimate the viability of your yeast based on the date it was harvested, and lots more. Enjoy!"
 
Did a quick search but couldn't find anything on this topic and I don't have the time to read through 17 pages of posts, so if this is a repeat question I apologize.

I'm not too worried about the pitching rates and the yeast itself. I'm more interested in other variables that could have played a role in this. More specifically how similar the different batches were PRIOR to adding the yeast. Which batch was siphoned into a carboy first? Did he siphon one entire batch into a carboy and then siphon the second?

To me this would cause lots of sediment and other "stuff" (still consider myself a n00b to brewing) to the second batch. What do you guys think?
 
rycov said:
that, and possibly since the yeast in the starter is already fermenting and doesn't have to initiate the process.

but i feel like that is one of the differences in dry and liquid yeast. a starter is not recommended for dry yeast so i feel like, for this experiment, this difference in treatment of the two yeasts is allowable. since in brewing this is how the yeasts are supposed to be used.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Really, just comparing the products themselves isn't exactly possible (or desirable) because the technique that we use the products is quite different. A starter was not made for the dry yeast because it is not desirable to make starters for dry yeast. A starter was made for the liquid yeast because you should make a starter for liquid yeasts. This means the liquid was "ready to rock and roll" while the dry lagged behind a bit, but that is how everyone uses those yeasts.

I suppose if you wanted a test that just compared the yeasts, you could pitch 2 fresh-out-the-factory 1056 smack packs vs 1 US-05 dry pack. By my math that is ~200 billion cells for liquid vs ~225 billion cells for dry (although the dry will probably lose some during rehydration/pitching). I'm not sure that test would be "better" then Tom's, though.
 
There is a lot of comparison between 05 and nottingham on this site. Nothing necessarily as scientific, but I think the conclusion is that at higher temperatures US05 is better, but notty can go much lower. Side by side they might have a lot of differences like these videos are showing, but IMO that can be attributed to other things. Consistency is something to strive for in homebrewing, but to me it seems somewhat unrealistic.
 
bill42 said:
i would like the sam experiment done with us05 and notty
Click to expand...

I'd recommend doing a split batch and playing with a bunch of yeast. I did 5 one gallon batches on the same day to learn the differences between some hops and I plan on doing the same with 5 or 6 different yeasts. It's easy and it will advance your homebrewing knowledge greatly.
 
Wakadaka said:
There is a lot of comparison between 05 and nottingham on this site. Nothing necessarily as scientific, but I think the conclusion is that at higher temperatures US05 is better, but notty can go much lower. Side by side they might have a lot of differences like these videos are showing, but IMO that can be attributed to other things. Consistency is something to strive for in homebrewing, but to me it seems somewhat unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Boy, I don't think those 2 are anything alike. Notty isn't anywhere as clean as 05. I've run 05 successfully at 50F. Re: consistency....one of the best exercises I've ever done in homebrewing is to brew exactly the same thing over and over until I can duplicate it exactly every time. When I was developing the Rye IPA recipe, I probably did 6-8 batches to get the recipe down, then did that recipe another 6-8 times to be sure it was repeatable. You learn a LOT about brewing by doing that.
 
Denny said:
Boy, I don't think those 2 are anything alike. Notty isn't anywhere as clean as 05. I've run 05 successfully at 50F. Re: consistency....one of the best exercises I've ever done in homebrewing is to brew exactly the same thing over and over until I can duplicate it exactly every time. When I was developing the Rye IPA recipe, I probably did 6-8 batches to get the recipe down, then did that recipe another 6-8 times to be sure it was repeatable. You learn a LOT about brewing by doing that.
Click to expand...

hmm my opinion on s-05 vs notty was based mostly on what I have read on here, and I have heard that notty was cleaner at lower temperatures. But wow 05 at 50 thats pretty impressive. Unfortunately I am stuck to the high end of temperatures now, so I wouldn't have that problem anyways.

And I'm not saying that consistency isn't something that you should be able to do, but I know for my brewery at least, its something that I can't expect to accomplish. I am doing BIAB and using a swamp cooler as temperature control, but AFIAK big breweries attain their exact consistency just by mixing all of their batches together.
 
Denny said:
What question would you be looking to have answered from that?
Click to expand...

the differences between the 2. i would also be interested in the reviews during the blind taste tests and if the tasters guess the right yeast.

a lot of people feel totally opposite on which is cleaner and smoother
 
bill42 said:
the differences between the 2. i would also be interested in the reviews during the blind taste tests and if the tasters guess the right yeast.

a lot of people feel totally opposite on which is cleaner and smoother
Click to expand...

well, they're just wrong.....:D
 
Alright, alright.....I am going to make a video and post it on Sunday of which beer is which, regardless of what the third taster is doing. I have waited, and made all of you wait entirely way too long, so it will be coming Sunday night!
 
tomroeder said:
Alright, alright.....I am going to make a video and post it on Sunday of which beer is which, regardless of what the third taster is doing. I have waited, and made all of you wait entirely way too long, so it will be coming Sunday night!
Click to expand...

Thank god!
 
tomroeder said:
Alright, alright.....I am going to make a video and post it on Sunday of which beer is which, regardless of what the third taster is doing. I have waited, and made all of you wait entirely way too long, so it will be coming Sunday night!
Click to expand...

Sweet. I look forward to hearing the results.
 
Zguy said:
I don't have the time to read through 17 pages of posts, ...

...how similar the different batches were PRIOR to adding the yeast. Which batch was siphoned into a carboy first? ... What do you guys think?
Click to expand...


Zguy - I think you need to read more - jus' sayin'

there was only one brew, one wort, one batch, not two.
 
I forget, what was this thread about? Lol just kidding , looking foward to it.
 
Zguy said:
Did a quick search but couldn't find anything on this topic and I don't have the time to read through 17 pages of posts, so if this is a repeat question I apologize.

I'm not too worried about the pitching rates and the yeast itself. I'm more interested in other variables that could have played a role in this. More specifically how similar the different batches were PRIOR to adding the yeast. Which batch was siphoned into a carboy first? Did he siphon one entire batch into a carboy and then siphon the second?

To me this would cause lots of sediment and other "stuff" (still consider myself a n00b to brewing) to the second batch. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

I was also wondering about which one was siphoned first. Not sure if you were implying there were physically 2 separate batches, because it was just one batch split, but I was also thinking how one of the carboys might have more sediment as it got down to the bottom of the kettle. Not sure that it would matter too much either way.
 
chapa said:
I was also wondering about which one was siphoned first. Not sure if you were implying there were physically 2 separate batches, because it was just one batch split, but I was also thinking how one of the carboys might have more sediment as it got down to the bottom of the kettle. Not sure that it would matter too much either way.
Click to expand...

That why, in my experiment, I chilled the wort through a CFC into two buckets; then mixed the wort between three total buckets to try and make sure the break material and hop sludge was pretty equal between both batches.
 
tomroeder said:
Alright, alright.....I am going to make a video and post it on Sunday of which beer is which, regardless of what the third taster is doing. I have waited, and made all of you wait entirely way too long, so it will be coming Sunday night!
Click to expand...

I gotta make sure I don't ascend on Saturday so I can find out which beer was which! Stupid rapture anyway!
 

Similar threads

J
Non-alcoholic homebrew - buzzed feeling?
Replies
7
Views
1K
mashdar
mashdar
mac_1103
Best dry yeast for an Old Speckled Hen clone?
Replies
6
Views
975
mac_1103
mac_1103
Drewski6949
Hi Everyone!
Replies
5
Views
294
ncbrewer
N
orgenomescii
Brewing like a Barbarian: Ancient Irish Descriptions of Malting & Brewing
Replies
3
Views
2K
Garage Brewer
Garage Brewer
mongoose33
Oxygenating Dry Yeast issue
Replies
9
Views
1K
Red over White
Red over White

Latest posts

Back
Top