Tom Roeder's Dry Yeast vs Liquid Yeast Experiment

[Bobby_M]

Don't be so sensitive Tom, geez. The experiment sucks, get over it.

 

[remilard]

HI never made the claim that I was going to put the "liquid vs dry" debate to rest, and that this would be the end all be all of the yeast debates.

Other people made that claim for you. They were being refuted, not you. Don't take it personally.

 

[Xcorpia]

Hey Tom thanks a lot for doing this. Can't wait to see which yeast enhanced the hop profile. Mmm hops...

 

[dantheman13]

Hey everyone, I had no idea that there was this much buzz on here about my videos! I knew that dantheman13 had linked my videos on here, but I had no idea that they had caused such a stir, I finally just checked this thread for the first time this morning! Thanks to dantheman13 for the links.

Glad you finally showed up, Tom! Your work has been quite entertaining, and so has this thread (which has grown a third leg). Thanks for sharing it with us on YouTube!

 

[cblack85]

Interesting experiment, I am curious to see the final results posted

 

[ekjohns]

really the biggest problem I had with this experiment was that I didnt get the beers too

 

[Special Hops]

And the results?????????

 

[eanmcnulty]

Subscribed and patiently waiting.

 

[Bobby_M]

I hope Nige is just having some trouble editing the video or finding time to do it.

 

[Seven]

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.

 

[Xcorpia]

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.

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...

 

[Bobby_M]

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.

 

[bruin_ale]

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.

 

[Denny]

No one has answered my question about how he controlled pitching rates (or if he did) to get similar cell counts. Does anybody know?

 

[bruin_ale]

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.

 

[IffyG]

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...

 

[bovineblitz]

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.

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.

 

[rycov]

but I do suspect that to be a possible cause of the more violent ferment in the liquid vs. the dry.

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.

 

[dantheman13]

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.

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!"

 

[Zguy]

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?

 

[RIT_Warrior]

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.

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.

 

[bill42]

i would like the sam experiment done with us05 and notty

 

[Brasco20]

Results?

 

[Denny]

i would like the sam experiment done with us05 and notty

What question would you be looking to have answered from that?

 

[Wakadaka]

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.

 

[IffyG]

i would like the sam experiment done with us05 and notty

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.

 

[Denny]

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.

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.

 

[Wakadaka]

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.

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.

 

[bill42]

What question would you be looking to have answered from that?

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

 

[Denny]

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

well, they're just wrong.....