What are the benefits of liquid yeast compared to dry?

[sethP]

On my 4th batch this weekend and I've only used liquid yeast. My next beer is the first I've felt the need to make a starter for and I really started to think what is the benefit of liquid yeast when you need to make a starter instead of just adding more dry yeast? Is it the variety? Flavors? Whats the deal?

 

[MalFet]

Variety, mostly. Some people don't like the dry yeasts as much as their liquid equivalents.

 

[PseudoChef]

Variety - because dry yeast, while convenient, is boring.

 

[MrSpiffy]

Are starters really necessary, though? I mean, the smack packs pretty much have the nutrients to do a starter right in them. So, it's not like it's a messy process. Just have to give it a little time to poof up and you're good. (Yep... that's the technical term... "poof up". LOL!)

 

[MalFet]

Are starters really necessary, though? I mean, the smack packs pretty much have the nutrients to do a starter right in them. So, it's not like it's a messy process. Just have to give it a little time to poof up and you're good. (Yep... that's the technical term... "poof up". LOL!)

Starter's aren't a question of nutrients but of cell count. Most would say that, yes, starters are necessary with liquid yeast, except perhaps with very small beers.

 

[MrSpiffy]

I went to the Wyeast site and noticed that it's recommended to use the liquid smack packs between 1.034-1.060, and to increase pitch rate after that. It makes sense, since you have so much more sugar to ferment. However, starters still aren't truly necessary, since you could just pitch two or three smack packs to increase your yeast count. However, starters will increase cell count, without having to spend double or triple the amount of money on yeast.

 

[SwampassJ]

However, starters still aren't truly necessary, since you could just pitch two or three smack packs to increase your yeast count. However, starters will increase cell count, without having to spend double or triple the amount of money on yeast.

I don't understand this about newer brewrs. Take a 2-6hour brew day and everyones having a blast. Throw in a 15 minute starter and **** hits the fan.

 

[PseudoChef]

Are starters really necessary, though? I mean, the smack packs pretty much have the nutrients to do a starter right in them. So, it's not like it's a messy process. Just have to give it a little time to poof up and you're good. (Yep... that's the technical term... "poof up". LOL!)

Smack packs don't propagate yeast. It's just nutrient.

 

[MalFet]

I went to the Wyeast site and noticed that it's recommended to use the liquid smack packs between 1.034-1.060, and to increase pitch rate after that. It makes sense, since you have so much more sugar to ferment. However, starters still aren't truly necessary, since you could just pitch two or three smack packs to increase your yeast count. However, starters will increase cell count, without having to spend double or triple the amount of money on yeast.

Sure, or you could just under pitch, or even just brew a small batch of beer. Heck, you can just leave the fermentor open by the window and let wild yeast do its thing, too. Or, you could just go to the store and just buy beer instead of making it.

Nothing we do here is necessary.

 

[cm02WS6]

I've often wondered about liquid vs dry, not because of quality or variety, but because of cell counts. I bet most liquid yeast is used from the pack or with a small "simple " starter. Basically way underpitched even on a low gravity beer. Compare that against an 11.5 gram pack of dry yeast having roughly the correct population for even a moderate gravity beer. What is better? Underpitch supposedly better quality fresh liquid or properly pitched supposedly inferior dry?

 

[MrSpiffy]

I don't understand this about newer brewrs. Take a 2-6hour brew day and everyones having a blast. Throw in a 15 minute starter and **** hits the fan.

It's not a big deal if you're paying attention to your process. But if you're distracted and drinking while you're brewing, it's easy to forget steps. I work with a guy that just started brewing, too, and he forgot to toss one of his hops packets into his wort. Making a starter isn't difficult. But when you're just starting out, I can see feeling a little overwhelmed by the process, until you've got a few under your belt.

 

[sweetcell]

What is better? Underpitch supposedly better quality fresh liquid or properly pitched supposedly inferior dry?

what about option C: create a starter with fresh liquid and pitch properly?

 

[PseudoChef]

It's not a big deal if you're paying attention to your process. But if you're distracted and drinking while you're brewing, it's easy to forget steps. I work with a guy that just started brewing, too, and he forgot to toss one of his hops packets into his wort. Making a starter isn't difficult. But when you're just starting out, I can see feeling a little overwhelmed by the process, until you've got a few under your belt.

One generally should be making a starter well in advance of brew-day, so if they're drinking enough to have a problem for 30 minutes' of their time, then they have other issues more pressing than simply being "overwhelmed." :cross:

 

[osagedr]

I mostly use dry yeast for lagers and mostly liquid for ales. A few weeks ago I did my first 10g batch (an APA) and split into two fermenters, one with a single package of S-05 rehydrated and the other with a (IIRC) 1.5 litre starter of Wyeast 1056. The lag time on the 1056 was very short compared to the S-05 as one would expect. I'll be interested to see if there are any detectable differences in the finished beers.

 

[Yankeehillbrewer]

I think it mainly comes down to varieties available. For example, I was using S-05 on a particular beer, it always came out good but was lacking something and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. So I decided to switch up the Yeast and see what that would give me. I decided on Wyeast 1968 London ESB yeast, and this beer turned out much,much better. Had I stuck with Dry Yeast I wouldn't have had that option. I also think that the Dry Strains tend to attenuate too much for my taste, but with all that said I've pretty damn tasty American styles of beer with S-05.

You should always make a starter with Liquid Yeast, let them little guys get good and strong for the task ahead.

 

[BBL_Brewer]

Its all a matter of preference. You just have to try out some different yeasts (dry and liquid) and see what suits your tastes.

 

[Darwin18]

Making a starter isn't difficult. But when you're just starting out, I can see feeling a little overwhelmed by the process, until you've got a few under your belt.

If making a yeast starter is too overwhelming, then maybe brewing isn't the right hobby for you? You literally mix dry extract with water, boil for ten minutes, cool, and add the liquid yeast. From start to finish, with clean up/set up times, it takes less than 30 minutes. If you can't do this step then don't use liquid yeasts. Your beer will be inferior and you'll be wasting your money. Stick to dry yeast.

I personally like liquid yeasts for the variety and the feeling that I'm brewing "the right way". That's just how I feel - nothing like progating liquid yeast, making a great starter, and seeing it take off a couple hours after pitching. I never got that feeling sprinkling packets of dry yeast into the wort. There is nothing wrong with dry yeast and it makes excellent beer, just how I feel. Your opinions will vary.

 

[tom_gamer]

I don't think the point was the act of making a starter is overwhelming but that for the first two or so batches you want to keep the overall brewing process as simple as possible. Yes making a starter is the best way to go, but I have made plenty of very tasty beers with only a simple smack pack. You do not have to make a starter, but you should.

 

[stratslinger]

I don't think the point was the act of making a starter is overwhelming but that for the first two or so batches you want to keep the overall brewing process as simple as possible. Yes making a starter is the best way to go, but I have made plenty of very tasty beers with only a simple smack pack. You do not have to make a starter, but you should.

+1

I've even done an experiment with a buddy that suggested that starters aren't necessarily always the be all end all that we often believe they are. And I suggested the darned experiment in the first place to convince him to start using starters!

We made a bock - a big lager, for crying out loud. I made a big starter, as per MrMalty. He pitched a single smack pack. His lagged for just a hair over three days. Mine lagged something less than 7 hours. In the end? There was a minor difference in the taste of the two beers. But nobody in our brew club could pick out, in a blind taste test, which was which.

Granted, it was only one experiment... But it at least is enough to show that starters aren't ALWAYS all that we talk them up to be.

 

[Biobrewer]

Variety is a big reason to prefer liquid to dry.

However, the most practical reason is the fact that all dry yeast contain some contamination, due to the fact that the drying process is impossible to sterilize. This is in stark contrast to liquid yeast, for which the entire process can be completely sterile, from the initial streak to the filling. Basically, liquid yeast will always have fewer bacterial colony forming units (CFU) that dry yeast, and that makes brewers much more comfortable, knowing the process of making liquid yeast is more sterile and controlled than the process of making dry yeast.

To be fair to the dry yeasters out there, one must point out that:

1) The ease of use of dry yeast is much higher than that of liquid, in that to get more yeast, you simply have to just hydrate more instead of making a starter or buying multiple liquid packets (which can get pricy).
2) Dry yeast is cheaper.

 

[tom_gamer]

Variety is a big reason to prefer liquid to dry.

However, the most practical reason is the fact that all dry yeast contain some contamination, due to the fact that the drying process is impossible to sterilize. This is in stark contrast to liquid yeast, for which the entire process can be completely sterile, from the initial streak to the filling. Basically, liquid yeast will always have fewer bacterial colony forming units (CFU) that dry yeast, and that makes brewers much more comfortable, knowing the process of making liquid yeast is more sterile and controlled than the process of making dry yeast.

I didn't know that about dry yeast.

 

[Biobrewer]

I didn't know that about dry yeast.

Yup. The process used to dry the dry yeast can't be "sterile", but it is a "sanitized" process. The distinction between "sterile" and "sanitized" is important though. "Sterile" implies the complete eradication/bioinertness of all of the bacteria, yeast, molds, spores, viruses and their proteins & DNA, while "sanitized" implies the reduction, but NOT the complete eradication/bioinertness, of all of the bacteria, yeast, molds, spores, viruses and their proteins & DNA.

 

[Denny]

Are starters really necessary, though? I mean, the smack packs pretty much have the nutrients to do a starter right in them. So, it's not like it's a messy process. Just have to give it a little time to poof up and you're good. (Yep... that's the technical term... "poof up". LOL!)

I've brewed 416 batches. My experience is that if the OG is over 1.040, you will always make a better beer using a starter.

 

[SwampassJ]

I've brewed 416 batches. My experience is that if the OG is over 1.040, you will always make a better beer using a starter.

Or buy two packs of Wyeast 1450

 

[slarkin712]

I don't understand this about newer brewrs. Take a 2-6hour brew day and everyones having a blast. Throw in a 15 minute starter and **** hits the fan.

I find this to be ridiculous as well. The only real drawback with making starters is that you must do them at least one day in advance. So no spur of the moment brewer would consider using a starter. And another thing about newer brewers - they'll spend 1-2 hours racking to an unnecessary secondary, but not make a yeast starter. Oh well, live and learn.

 

[tom_gamer]

I find this to be ridiculous as well. The only real drawback with making starters is that you must do them at least one day in advance. So no spur of the moment brewer would consider using a starter. And another thing about newer brewers - they'll spend 1-2 hours racking to an unnecessary secondary, but not make a yeast starter. Oh well, live and learn.

1-2 hours? Really?

 

[stikks]

You can harvest and wash liquid yeast and get a few batches out of 1
smackpack or vial for about 7 bucks.That`s the advantage if there is any
plus diversity.But US-05 is the cheapest most reliable yeast I have ever used
at about 3 bucks a pack,also fits many styles.

 

[osagedr]

If making a yeast starter is too overwhelming, then maybe brewing isn't the right hobby for you? You literally mix dry extract with water, boil for ten minutes, cool, and add the liquid yeast. From start to finish, with clean up/set up times, it takes less than 30 minutes. If you can't do this step then don't use liquid yeasts. Your beer will be inferior and you'll be wasting your money. Stick to dry yeast.

I personally like liquid yeasts for the variety and the feeling that I'm brewing "the right way". That's just how I feel - nothing like progating liquid yeast, making a great starter, and seeing it take off a couple hours after pitching. I never got that feeling sprinkling packets of dry yeast into the wort. There is nothing wrong with dry yeast and it makes excellent beer, just how I feel. Your opinions will vary.

Pretty arrogant. Unless you have a big stack of brewing awards I wouldn't get into suggesting others' beer is "inferior" because they use dry yeast. I'm pretty sure someone spending a brewday with you would find something about your process that wasn't brewing "the right way."

Having said that, I agree with your point that starters are both easy and beneficial. It does puzzle me why some people refuse to make them.

 

[eastoak]

If making a yeast starter is too overwhelming, then maybe brewing isn't the right hobby for you? You literally mix dry extract with water, boil for ten minutes, cool, and add the liquid yeast. From start to finish, with clean up/set up times, it takes less than 30 minutes. If you can't do this step then don't use liquid yeasts. Your beer will be inferior and you'll be wasting your money. Stick to dry yeast.

I personally like liquid yeasts for the variety and the feeling that I'm brewing "the right way". That's just how I feel - nothing like progating liquid yeast, making a great starter, and seeing it take off a couple hours after pitching. I never got that feeling sprinkling packets of dry yeast into the wort. There is nothing wrong with dry yeast and it makes excellent beer, just how I feel. Your opinions will vary.

this is funny, i'll give you that much.

 

[tknice]

I don't think the point was the act of making a starter is overwhelming but that for the first two or so batches you want to keep the overall brewing process as simple as possible. Yes making a starter is the best way to go, but I have made plenty of very tasty beers with only a simple smack pack. You do not have to make a starter, but you should.

I like to keep things as simple as possible as well.

Why not make lots of them in advance so making one takes 5 minutes? Like This.