Tom Roeder's Dry Yeast vs Liquid Yeast Experiment

[SpanishCastleAle]

I stopped using S-05 because I don't like the flavor I get so I haven't considered them the same for a while. So I'm already biased. This post is really just a passive sub.

Go Nigel go!

 

[TheSeether]

My only issue with S-05 is that it gets such high attenuation. Otherwise I'd would probably use it exclusively outside of specialty styles. I've had no issues with undesirable flavors. For the same character and lower attenuation I typically look to WLP 001 or 007.

I definitely appreciate the simplicity of a dry yeast. I would not, however, expect a dry yeast and a liquid yeast of the same culture/strain to produce the same beer. I would expect this experiment to produce 2 remarkably different beers. I have no technical reasoning to add. I would just expect the dried form to go through an entirely different early stage of growth and therefore overall fermentation characteristic than the same yeast introduced as a liquid suspension (and never dried to begin with).

 

[remilard]

I've found dramatically different character between 1056/001 and US05. I'm generally borderline amazed when people say they don't. I may be doing something wrong but I pitch ostensibly the same amount of rehydrated dry vs a starter from liquid and use the same temperature scheme.

 

[bruin_ale]

are 1056 and 001 the same? Should I expect the same beer when using those?

 

[Bobby_M]

I can repeat the experiment with 40 members of a brew club evaluating the two samples. That certainly increases the sample size.

I've used both yeasts on the same recipe before, but I've never split the same batch and fermented in relatively controlled harmony like Tom has.

 

[dantheman13]

My only issue with S-05 is that it gets such high attenuation. Otherwise I'd would probably use it exclusively outside of specialty styles. I've had no issues with undesirable flavors. For the same character and lower attenuation I typically look to WLP 001 or 007.

Thanks for adding your personal experience. I find that quite interesting because, as Jake pointed out, both of Tom's beers had the same OG and FG, so they appeared to attenuate the same for his pale ale recipe. Were your beers a high gravity when you noticed the US-05 attenuating higher?

 

[TheSeether]

Thanks for adding your personal experience. I find that quite interesting because, as Jake pointed out, both of Tom's beers had the same OG and FG, so they appeared to attenuate the same for his pale ale recipe. Were your beers a high gravity when you noticed the US-05 attenuating higher?

I should qualify my statements with "I have never used a Wyeast of any variety".

Relative to what I was posting about; same beer at OG 1.068 attenuated to 1.022 with WLP 001 but 1.018 with US-05. The latter was too dry for my tastes and I preferred the lower attenuation of the WLP 001.

Edit: It's worth consideration that other properties of the yeast contributed to my impression than just the gravity difference but I attributed the overall perceived difference to the gravity.

 

[dantheman13]

I can repeat the experiment with 40 members of a brew club evaluating the two samples. That certainly increases the sample size.

I've used both yeasts on the same recipe before, but I've never split the same batch and fermented in relatively controlled harmony like Tom has.

Unless there is a Type I error, I don't really see the point of doing that. I really don't see the need for more than 3-4 respected pallets to taste this beer, at least for Tom's experiment. Had Tom's experiment produced two very similar beers, then I could see the "99 experiments" argument making some logical sense. But it appears that the beers are totally different.

It seemed to me (respectfully) that his brother and father had the most untrained pallets, and they still tasted the difference. The other three reviewers have homebrewer pallets. That's good enough for me.

I am willing to bet that Tom wouldn't have any different results whether he chose 4 respected tasters, or if he chose 40. of course, I didn't taste the beer, I am just going off of what I see on YouTube.

 

[IffyG]

Unless there is a Type I error, I don't really see the point of doing that. I really don't see the need for more than 3-4 respected pallets to taste this beer, at least for Tom's experiment. Had Tom's experiment produced two very similar beers, then I could see the "99 experiments" argument making some logical sense. But it appears that the beers are totally different.

It seemed to me (respectfully) that his brother and father had the most untrained pallets, and they still tasted the difference. The other three reviewers have homebrewer pallets. That's good enough for me.

I think your second statement highlights the need to increase the sample size for a test of this nature. Even then, it probably boils down to personal preference. I'll use the info in this thread and with my own side by side experiment on my equipment to decide if there is enough of a difference between the dry and the 2 roughly equivalent liquid strains.

 

[Denny]

are 1056 and 001 the same? Should I expect the same beer when using those?

Not exactly. They may have come from the same source, but they are subtly different now.

 

[Denny]

I've used both yeasts on the same recipe before, but I've never split the same batch and fermented in relatively controlled harmony like Tom has.

I did this years back when 05 first came out. There are differences, but I don't think they're huge differences.

 

[android]

I've found dramatically different character between 1056/001 and US05. I'm generally borderline amazed when people say they don't. I may be doing something wrong but I pitch ostensibly the same amount of rehydrated dry vs a starter from liquid and use the same temperature scheme.

totally agree. i'm always shocked when people say they can't tell any difference between them.

 

[Pennsyltucky]

totally agree. i'm always shocked when people say they can't tell any difference between them.

Android or Remilard (or anyone with input)... What are the differences you are seeing (er, tasting) between the dry and liquid yeasts??

I'm a newcomer to dry yeasts (my LHBS directs you to the liquid with their kits, but since I've been doing HBT / my own recipes I've been trying out the dry). I certainly can't claim expertise in either.

Just curious what your experiences have been, generally speaking, between these commonly used yeasts.

 

[truebe]

I'm thinking about doing a taste experiment like this. Would the chance of a type 1 error be low enough if the sample size was just me or should I get my roommate to taste them too?

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Android or Remilard (or anyone with input)... What are the differences you are seeing (er, tasting) between the dry and liquid yeasts??

I'm a newcomer to dry yeasts (my LHBS directs you to the liquid with their kits, but since I've been doing HBT / my own recipes I've been trying out the dry). I certainly can't claim expertise in either.

Just curious what your experiences have been, generally speaking, between these commonly used yeasts.

An apple/pear type of flavor (but not bitter apple/acetaldehyde) for me but just with S-05. With the liquid versions (1056/WLP001) I just get 'clean/neutral'. I've had pretty good luck with S-04, Nottingham, and W34/70.

Maybe that the flavor would be OK in certain styles but I don't know which one(s).

 

[remilard]

An apple/pear type of flavor (but not bitter apple/acetaldehyde) for me but just with S-05.

Yep. I'm not saying this is a dry vs liquid thing, just a US05 vs 1056/001 thing.

 

[IffyG]

I'm thinking about doing a taste experiment like this. Would the chance of a type 1 error be low enough if the sample size was just me or should I get my roommate to taste them too?

IMO the sample size doesn't really matter. It's going to be all about what you think produces the superior beer (I mean you are going to be the one drinking most of it).

 

[remilard]

I'm thinking about doing a taste experiment like this. Would the chance of a type 1 error be low enough if the sample size was just me or should I get my roommate to taste them too?

Type I error is a false positive basically. So in a difference test (you are trying to determine if you can tell the samples apart) it means the chance that the people who got the difference right did so by accident.

A common difference test which works with fairly small sample sizes in sensory analysis is the triangle test. Small in the professional sensory analysis world for this type of test means 20 people or so. In a triangle test you get three coded samples, 2 are the same and 1 is different. You are asked to pick the different sample. If you can't tell them apart, you are correct 1 time out of 3.

If you do this test with 2 people and you were both right, that would happen randomly 1 out of 9 times (1/3 * 1/3). That means that alpha (the probability of a type I error) is 1/9 which is fairly large. Usually alpha is below 1/20 (it should be declared before the test begins, it is the probability of type I error that you will find acceptable, not what you observed). If you have 4 people and all 4 get it right then you have alpha = 1/84, which is pretty good. The problem is, what if not everyone gets it right? Someone has a high threshold for some off flavor or is having a bad day etc. That's why you want a lot of people. 10 people picking the right odd sample out of 20 is much more convincing than 2 out of 4 or 1 out of 2. That is the problem with small sample sizes, 1 or 2 people miss and alpha explodes.

Now, I falsely thought this experiment was a difference test. I still haven't watched the videos (would rather watch them all at once), but it appears that only two samples were provided. So not a difference test but a consumer preference type test. Basically, tell me which qualities these two samples have and which you prefer. If only you and your roomate drink your beer, then that is the perfect sample size for you to say which techniques you prefer. If you are selling beer to thousands of people, or want to claim to the broader home brewing community that a certain ingredient or technique is better, then IMO you want a much larger sample size. Again 20 would be considered small if you approach this from the POV of what is ideal and professional breweries (big ones) and food companies will pay 20 people to participate. As homebrewers we have to get 20 volunteers and then pay maybe $8 each to ship the beer. That gets expensive (the pitching rate write up in the current Zymurgy that Sean Terrill did had a decent sample size, he had people interested enough in the experiment that they paid for their samples to be shipped, that is the way to go IMO).

 

[Bobby_M]

I think the reasonable expectation of anyone running this type of thing is to just be clear about what they did. Misinterpretation of the results is the onus of the audience who cares to read about it. No one is being paid. Tom could have just as easily made a video of tasting the two beers by himself and making a claim to which yeast appears to produce a beer with these qualities "in his personal opinion". He went a step further and involved a few extra people to make it more meaningful to whoever deems it so. There's a significant difference between a youtube VLOG type channel and a brewing publication like Zymurgy and BYO as far as how scientifically accurate an experiment should be.

 

[jerseystout]

next he should do a test just like this with nottingham and us05 and send out blind samples of those for comparison

 

[bwomp313]

So was there ever actually an answer as to which sample was which?

 

[jerseystout]

no, not yet, last tester is supposly testing tomorow

 

[bruin_ale]

So was there ever actually an answer as to which sample was which?

Still waiting for the last taster...

 

[duckmanco]

Sometimes the over-analytical-ness of some of the comments on this board (this thread included) can get over the top.

This experiment is anecdotal, and for me, extremely informative regardless of how it turns out. I won't base my brewing life on it, but will absolutely learn from it.

 

[themurph]

I think the reasonable expectation of anyone running this type of thing is to just be clear about what they did. Misinterpretation of the results is the onus of the audience who cares to read about it. No one is being paid. Tom could have just as easily made a video of tasting the two beers by himself and making a claim to which yeast appears to produce a beer with these qualities "in his personal opinion". He went a step further and involved a few extra people to make it more meaningful to whoever deems it so. There's a significant difference between a youtube VLOG type channel and a brewing publication like Zymurgy and BYO as far as how scientifically accurate an experiment should be.

This is the by far the most enlightened post on this very interesting thread!

 

[jimsnewbrew]

I want to follow this till we get the answer!

 

[mcaple1]

Look people....dry yeast.... liquid yeast...who cares....I love 'em either way.

 

[chapa]

Awesome!! Can't wait to hear the results!!

 

[brewit2it]

Awesome!! Can't wait to hear the results!!

I wouldn't hold your breath on that. The experiment and video was done 3 months ago.

 

[IffyG]

I vote that they forget about the last guy that has bottles from this experiment and post up the results.