Who uses dry and who uses liquid

[Izzie1701]

How much of a difference in flavor does dry and liquid yeast have. Wanted to see who uses what and if you notice a difference in dry vs liquid. Love the cost of dry but have always been under the impression that liquid is better. Any commercial Brewers out there? What do you use? What do most brew pubs use?

 

[Gameface]

The biggest advantage of liquid is that there is a much greater variety. If you've got a dry yeast that works for the style you're making it isn't going to be a big step up going to liquid. But I've experimented with several liquid yeasts in my ESB and there are differences from one to the next for sure. So if you've got a beer style that you're trying to fine tune it might be worth it to try a variety of yeasts that fit that style until you find the one that behaves the way you want and gives you the flavors you want.

As a small side note, it can also be amazing that the same yeast treated differently can provide widely different results, so also consider that. And if you've got a special situation, like you can't get your fermenting beer lower than 72F or you can't get it above 58F, find a yeast that people report good success with under those conditions.

 

[WarmGas]

The biggest advantage of liquid is that there is a much greater variety. If you've got a dry yeast that works for the style you're making it isn't going to be a big step up going to liquid. But I've experimented with several liquid yeasts in my ESB and there are differences from one to the next for sure. So if you've got a beer style that you're trying to fine tune it might be worth it to try a variety of yeasts that fit that style until you find the one that behaves the way you want and gives you the flavors you want.

As a small side note, it can also be amazing that the same yeast treated differently can provide widely different results, so also consider that. And if you've got a special situation, like you can't get your fermenting beer lower than 72F or you can't get it above 58F, find a yeast that people report good success with under those conditions.

Some good advice here.

 

[hottpeper13]

I'm gonna put it out there with regards to Chico yeast, US05, BRY97,1056, 001. Of the dry I prefer BRY97, and of the liquid 001. Only drinking my first beer with BRY97 but that is a great yeast. I'm trying to see if it is like 1217pc, and so far the fermentation is the same,ya know long lag time and clears fast. Hard to do the taste without a side by side, but very tasty. So many yeasts, so little time, and the 200 gal limit doesn't help.

 

[BobOki]

If I am making high OG beers I always use Liquid. Another nice thing with liquid if if you make starters, you can siphon off some of that starter and use it for your next brew, so the cost can be considerably lessened this way. Everyone else pretty much said everything else already..... just remember to rehydrate your dry if you use a dry for anything.

 

[brewbama]

I use dry. I have been burned by liquid. I have never heard of anyone having an emergency pack of liquid just in case their dry doesn't work. IOW dry never fails. Ever.

BTW Bry 97 is not Chico. Bry 96 is. But I prefer Bry 97 over -05 (which used to be called -56)

For those who say you are limited by dry, I say I can brew 50+ styles of beer with the dozen or so avail dry yeast strains:

Abbaye Ale
Amer Amber Ale
Amer Barleywine
Amer Brown
Amer IIPA
Amer IPA
Amer Pale Ale
Amer Stout
Amer Wheat
Baltic Porter
Barleywine
Belgian Blonde Ale
Belgian Dark Strong
Belgian Double
Belgian Golden Strong
Belgian Triple
Belgian Wit
Blonde Ale
Bock
Bohemian Pilsner
Porter
Christmas/Winter Warmer
Classic Amer Pilsner (Pre-Prohibition)
Cream Ale
Dark Amer Lager
Dortmunder Export
Dry Stout
Dunkelweizen
Dusseldorf Alt
English Barleywine
English Bitter
English Brown
English IPA
English Mild
English Old Ale
English or Amer Strong Ale
English Pale
English Pale Ale
European Lagers
Foreign Extra Stout
German Ale
German Alt
German Pilsner
Irish Red
Kolsch
Munich Dunkel
Oatmeal Stout
Oktoberfest/Marzen
Robust Porter
Saison
Schwartzbier
Scottish shilling beers
Specilty Fruit
Spiced Beer
Sweet Stout
Vienna Lager
Weizen
Weizenbock

 

[arnobg]

Both but mostly liquid.

 

[m00ps]

If there were a greater variety of dry yeast strains (like Conan, good english ones, farmhouse ales, etc) I would not have switched to liquid. But one resulting aspect from my switch was that I started harvesting my own yeast cultures and making adequately sized starters for every beer. I never did this with dry yeast packs. My beer has improved noteably as a result

 

[chudsonvt]

To date, I have only used Wyeast Labs liquid yeasts. I have tried all of these so far.

1007 German Ale
1056 American Ale
1084 Irish Ale
1099 Whitbread
1272 American Ale II
1450 Denny’s Favorite
3068 Weihenstephan Weizen
3942 Belgian Wheat
4766 Cider (for cider, not beer, haha)

I have had good success with all of them. However, I have used the 1272 the most. I also use a lot of the 3942. I use it for my Witbier with great success.

That is an interesting side story. I came up with a Witbier recipe and went to get 3944 Belgian Witbier yeast but the LHBS was sold out so I went with the 3942 in its place. The results were so good that I have used it every time since. The only changes I have made to the recipe had to do with my protein rest and water profile. But now that it has been "perfected" in my eyes, I wouldn't mind trying the 3944, just to taste the difference. I should do a split batch.

Long story short, the Wyeast Labs has never failed me. The cell count is great for most 5 gallon batches. Although a starter SHOULD be used for higher gravity brews. I am yet to get supplies for making starters, but I did do a Double IPA with an OG of 1.088 and pitched just one pack of the 1272. It came out great anyway.

 

[zwiller]

I really think folks obsess too much about yeast. In 20 years of brewing I find yeast is pretty forgiving. Making the best starter in the world does not guarantee good beer or fix a poorly brewed beer. There are many other things to obsess about that will have a larger affect on your beer.

I prefer dry. The simplicity, convenience, and cost cannot be beat. Remember the cell count in a dry yeast packet is twice that of liquid... Sure, there is less variety and there are liquid only strains that I love and use (IE 3726). I never rehydrate for normal fare. I might if I am brewing a bigger beer or maybe just pitch 2 packets. All this being said, I've not tried them all but SO4 is basically my house yeast and will vouch it's as good as liquid.

 

[eadavis80]

Have made great beers with both. Generally, for APA's, ambers and IPA's I just use 05 or Bry-97 as I don't think those styles are "yeast driven" however for Belgians or wheats I enjoy liquid yeasts as I think those styles are most reliant on the yeast for their flavor. I harvest both liquid and dry yeasts to save on costs. For stouts or porters I've had good success with both dry and liquid - Safale 04 and Wyeast 1098.

 

[brewbama]

I really think folks obsess too much about yeast. In 20 years of brewing I find yeast is pretty forgiving. Making the best starter in the world does not guarantee good beer or fix a poorly brewed beer. There are many other things to obsess about that will have a larger affect on your beer.



I prefer dry. The simplicity, convenience, and cost cannot be beat. Remember the cell count in a dry yeast packet is twice that of liquid... Sure, there is less variety and there are liquid only strains that I love and use (IE 3726). I never rehydrate for normal fare. I might if I am brewing a bigger beer or maybe just pitch 2 packets. All this being said, I've not tried them all but SO4 is basically my house yeast and will vouch it's as good as liquid.

Well said.

 

[CascadeOK]

Lately I've only been using dry yeast. If you looking to replicate a specific style or love to experiment with seasonal yeasts liquid may be your only choice, but I made my choice for practical reasons

No starter needed (unless brewing a big beer or lager) - I dont like having to make my starter up a day early. More to clean, more to mess with

Clean fermenting chico strain - I like the dry SO-5. I discovered my personal preference is I like a clean fermenting yeast vs. various estery flavors in my beer. My close and extended friend groups seem to prefer the same.

 

[petrolSpice]

Use dry for the simplicity. Use liquid for the variety.

If the recipe doesn't require a fancy yeast strain, then use a simple dry yeast like US-05.

 

[Kharnynb]

my house beers and smashes all use dry, nottingham for good neutral flavour and ease of use(nice compact yeastcake, easy to siphon off).

for other beers, I might use liquid, you can't really brew belgian triples and quads well with dry yeast, as sadly both "trappist/abbey" dry yeasts are not great for those styles.

white beers and bock have a similar issue.

 

[zwiller]

I used WB06 a few times on hefes and did a decent job but I think it would make a great wit IMO.

 

[specharka]

I have a few satchets of dry yeast available in case I encounter a stuck fermentation, but as a general rule I only pitch liquid yeast. It's not just the variety of liquid yeast strains available -- pretty much every dry yeast has an equivalent yet superior liquid strain (e.g. WLP001 v. US-05, WY3711 v. Belle Saison, etc.). The only dry yeast strain I'm liable to return to is W-34/70...one of the cleanest strains I've used.

 

[PorterHoarder]

So yeast is yeast. At the brewery I work at we use both dry yeast and rehydrate it, and liquid pitches to later crop from. Dry yeast becomes "liquid" once it's been rehydrated and is a completely viable way to inoculate your wort. Personally I prefer dry yeast as its shelf life is longer and tends to be more stable. The cell count is a little higher too. Rehydrate in 10x the weight of yeast of sterile water (boiled and cooled to 88F).

 

[kristiismean]

I use both. Depends on the kit an the style of beer. If I am doing an ESB, I flip flop between nottingham (dry) and wyest London ESB. But have used others.

If using a yeast Other than the style of beer I am making. like an IPA with a esb yeast, I always go liquid.

but have used the dry and common yeasts without any issues.

 

[secondbase]

Usually use liquid but always keep dry on hand for ease of use 'just in case'. I wash my yeast and reuse a few times before getting a fresh pitch. I haven't had the best results repitching the slurry from dry yeast.

 

[worlddivides]

I use both.

Depends on what I'm making. I tend to brew a lot of pale ales, IPAs, APAs, and so on with US-05, and I tend to brew a lot of stouts, brown ales, and porters with S-04 (or other dry yeasts such as Nottingham or Windsor).

On the other hand, if I'm making a Belgian ale or something more "interesting" (such as a blend of two different yeast yeast strains or something more unique/unusual), I'll use liquid yeast.

They both get great results. Just depends on what you're looking for. The main advantage of liquid yeast is variety. Dry has a much more limited range of yeast strains available, but there are some pretty good ones there.

I use dry. I have been burned by liquid. I have never heard of anyone having an emergency pack of liquid just in case their dry doesn't work. IOW dry never fails. Ever.

Not true at all. About a year or two ago, I bought a packet of S-04 from an LHBS and pitched it on my brew day two days later into well-aerated room temperature wort (around 68F) with Servomyces, and 4 days later, the fermentation still hadn't started. Up until then, I had just thought it was the slowest fermentation ever (normally fermentations for me start within 3-6 hours after pitching) so I went to the LHBS and grabbed a new pack of S-04, pitched it, and the fermentation started less than 4 hours later.

So, although dry yeast fails less often than liquid yeast, it does fail sometimes. (I'll note that I've never had a vial of liquid yeast fail, so if I was basing my conclusions on anecdotal evidence alone, I'd think liquid yeast is less likely to fail than dry -- not true, of course, but I think you get my point. Dry yeast can fail, and it does sometimes).

 

[brewbama]

I use both.

Depends on what I'm making. I tend to brew a lot of pale ales, IPAs, APAs, and so on with US-05, and I tend to brew a lot of stouts, brown ales, and porters with S-04 (or other dry yeasts such as Nottingham or Windsor).

On the other hand, if I'm making a Belgian ale or something more "interesting" (such as a blend of two different yeast yeast strains or something more unique/unusual), I'll use liquid yeast.

They both get great results. Just depends on what you're looking for. The main advantage of liquid yeast is variety. Dry has a much more limited range of yeast strains available, but there are some pretty good ones there.



Not true at all. About a year or two ago, I bought a packet of S-04 from an LHBS and pitched it on my brew day two days later into well-aerated room temperature wort (around 68F) with Servomyces, and 4 days later, the fermentation still hadn't started. Up until then, I had just thought it was the slowest fermentation ever (normally fermentations for me start within 3-6 hours after pitching) so I went to the LHBS and grabbed a new pack of S-04, pitched it, and the fermentation started less than 4 hours later.

So, although dry yeast fails less often than liquid yeast, it does fail sometimes. (I'll note that I've never had a vial of liquid yeast fail, so if I was basing my conclusions on anecdotal evidence alone, I'd think liquid yeast is less likely to fail than dry -- not true, of course, but I think you get my point. Dry yeast can fail, and it does sometimes).

I stand corrected. You are the first I have ever heard having a dry yeast that failed. Now, I wonder how many folks have had liquid yeast fail? ..and why have I heard so many say to keep a spare pack of dry "just in case"?

 

[Double_D]

I stand corrected. You are the first I have ever heard having a dry yeast that failed. Now, I wonder how many folks have had liquid yeast fail? ..and why have I heard so many say to keep a spare pack of dry "just in case"?

I've never had either fail, maybe I'm just lucky. I'm pretty sure most people say to keep a dry pack around "just in case" because of it's very long shelf life with minimal deterioration in viability. And, because it's cheap insurance. I use and like both liquid and dry. I use us-05 frequently, but not other dry stuff.

 

[angrybits]

All dry all the time, and always new yeast. If I ever want to make a Kiwi Mint Lacto/Brett Imperial IPA I'll consider liquid, but until then dry yeast is where it's at for all of my house beers. It's absolutely bulletproof and I don't need a microbiology lab to use it.

 

[angrybits]

Not true at all. About a year or two ago, I bought a packet of S-04 from an LHBS and pitched it on my brew day two days later into well-aerated room temperature wort (around 68F) with Servomyces, and 4 days later, the fermentation still hadn't started.

Even an expired pack of dry has some viability. It's not that I don't believe you, but it seems so far out of the norm that I can't begin to imagine how you ended up with a pack of dead yeast. It's incredibly unlikely, you must have the worst luck in history.

 

[govner1]

I usually use Wyeat liquid but like Belle Saison & Abbaye for Saisons & Belgian PA's. I also occasionally use BRY/97 for Smerican IPA & PA's.
I always keep US-05, T58, etc on hand for stuck fermentations.

 

[Gameface]

I've never had either fail, maybe I'm just lucky. I'm pretty sure most people say to keep a dry pack around "just in case" because of it's very long shelf life with minimal deterioration in viability. And, because it's cheap insurance. I use and like both liquid and dry. I use us-05 frequently, but not other dry stuff.

I have a couple packs of dry yeast around for just that reason, only they are about 6 years old and I've never needed them. I have no idea if they're still good.

 

[Gameface]

All dry all the time, and always new yeast. If I ever want to make a Kiwi Mint Lacto/Brett Imperial IPA I'll consider liquid, but until then dry yeast is where it's at for all of my house beers. It's absolutely bulletproof and I don't need a microbiology lab to use it.

I make Strong Bitter (previously called ESB in the BJCP guidelines) about 70% of the time I brew. I've made ESB well over 100 times at this point. I have used about 7 different yeast strains. It makes a difference. Not a small difference, a real difference.

I cannot imagine limiting myself to the dry yeast options.

I also use 1768 Scottish Ale yeast a lot. It ferments well in the mid-50s. Is there a dry ale yeast that can do that?

It isn't like there are so many varieties of liquid yeast for no reason. It's another tool in our brewing toolbox that can make all the difference.

Of course, if dry yeast gets you where you want to go then there's no reason to use liquid yeast. One is not superior to the other.

 

[worlddivides]

Even an expired pack of dry has some viability. It's not that I don't believe you, but it seems so far out of the norm that I can't begin to imagine how you ended up with a pack of dead yeast. It's incredibly unlikely, you must have the worst luck in history.

I have no idea how it happened. I can imagine a few scenarios that might have resulted in a pack of mostly dead yeast.

I created the perfect environment for the yeast. It was 1.056 gravity wort with one pellet of Servomyces dissolved into it that was heavily aerated and cooled down to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. The pack of Safale S-04 (which had been stored at about 40F in my refrigerator for 2 days since I bought it) was rehydrated in 98 degree Fahreinheit water, left for 15 minutes before pitching, and the wort was slowly cooled to 64 degrees, where it stayed for 4 days. Even on the fourth day, there was zero airlock activity (i.e. zero CO2 produced) and the surface of the wort looked exactly like it before I pitched the yeast.

And, like I said, I bought a new pack of S-04 on the fourth day, pitched it when I got home, and fermentation started about 4 hours after that (airlock activity and a visible difference in the surface of the wort). From that point on, fermentation proceeded exactly as normal.

So, sure, there might have been some viable yeast in there, but not enough to actually start fermentation (like maybe only 1 or 2 billion cells instead of the typical 200 billion). If I'd left it for another 4 days, a very weak fermentation might have started. Of all the brews I've made, the longest I've ever had to wait before fermentation started was 24 hours with 90% or more of my brews starting fermentation within 3-6 hours after pitching).

So, even if there was some viable yeast in there, the pack was not usable for fermenting 5 gallons, even if it were really low gravity wort.

 

[Calder]

Mostly liquid yeast for me. I like the variety of strains and have a number of Belgian strains going. I re-use yeasts. I buy maybe 1 a year, and generally have 4 different strains going at any one time. I store from Starters and reuse slurry; I probably get 20 beers from most yeasts .... except the ones I find boring (like 3711).

I've never had a bad liquid or dry yeast.

I stand corrected. You are the first I have ever heard having a dry yeast that failed. Now, I wonder how many folks have had liquid yeast fail? ..and why have I heard so many say to keep a spare pack of dry "just in case"?

Even an expired pack of dry has some viability. It's not that I don't believe you, but it seems so far out of the norm that I can't begin to imagine how you ended up with a pack of dead yeast. It's incredibly unlikely, you must have the worst luck in history.

Nottingham had a bad batch of yeast about 6 years ago. A LOT of people had bad experience with dry yeast at that time. It happens.

People keep dry yeast as a back-up as it stores well in the fridge (think years - maybe 10 at fridge temps), and can be pitched immediately if required - it is for emergencies. Liquid yeast loses viability fairly quickly, even at fridge temps, so is no good for long-term storage. Sure liquid can be stored for a year or longer, but no-one would straight pitch a liquid of that age; you would need to make a starter.

 

[toestothesun]

Use dry for the simplicity. Use liquid for the variety.

If the recipe doesn't require a fancy yeast strain, then use a simple dry yeast like US-05.

I agree.

 

[beerinthebloodco]

Oddly enough, I have had an issue with S-04 as well. It didn't get going at all for me. I pitched another pack and I still experienced under attenuation. When I use liquid I make starters. As long as I make a starter I have no complications.

 

[masonsjax]

I use liquid and dry. I harvest and store both, and repitch on the cake for 8-12 generations before repropagating with a fresh starter. So I don't buy new yeast often. I've even racked fresh wort onto yeast cakes that were months old, dried to the bottom of the carboy and they've fermented out clean and healthy as if it was a big starter pitched at high krausen. It's all good!

 

[Double_D]

I have no idea how it happened. I can imagine a few scenarios that might have resulted in a pack of mostly dead yeast.

I created the perfect environment for the yeast. It was 1.056 gravity wort with one pellet of Servomyces dissolved into it that was heavily aerated and cooled down to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. The pack of Safale S-04 (which had been stored at about 40F in my refrigerator for 2 days since I bought it) was rehydrated in 98 degree Fahreinheit water

If you rehydrated your yeast in 98 degree water you made the perfect environment for dead yeast. I think this scenario was the problem with your dry yeast.

 

[worlddivides]

If you rehydrated your yeast in 98 degree water you made the perfect environment for dead yeast. I think this scenario was the problem with your dry yeast.

Uh, what? Are you joking? Do you think it should be hotter or what?

Every single book I've ever read on brewing and every online post I've seen on the subject has said the optimal range for rehydrating yeast is 95F to 105F.

How to Brew by John Palmer is online, so here:

http://howtobrew.com/book/section-1/yeast/preparing-yeast-and-yeast-starters

Dry yeast should be re-hydrated in water before pitching. Often the concentration of sugars in wort is high enough that the yeast can not draw enough water across the cell membranes to restart their metabolism. For best results, re-hydrate 2 packets of dry yeast in warm water (95-105°F) and then proof the yeast by adding some sugar to see if they are still alive after de-hydration and storage.

and

Re-hydrating Dry Yeast
1. Put 1 cup of warm (95-105F, 35-40C) boiled water into a sanitized jar and stir in the yeast. Cover with Saran Wrap and wait 15 minutes.
2. "Proof" the yeast by adding one teaspoon of extract or sugar that has been boiled in a small amount of water. Allow the sugar solution to cool before adding it to the jar.
3. Cover and place in a warm area out of direct sunlight.
4. After 30 minutes or so the yeast should be visibly churning and/or foaming, and is ready to pitch.

Either you don't know much about rehydrating yeast or you made a very odd joke...

 

[angrybits]

I have used about 7 different yeast strains. It makes a difference. Not a small difference, a real difference.

Most people (myself included) couldn't make the same beer twice if their lives depended on it. Similarly, most people (myself included) don't have the palette or training to know how close to style one yeast strain gets you vs another. For many home brewers and certainly for newbies, fretting over subtly different ale strains is unnecessary precision and a waste of time and capital.

All of that said, I've made tons of good beers with single infusion cooler mashes and yet I've blown a grand this year upgrading gear and I'm not anywhere near done. It's going to be a similar waste of capital because the beers will not get enough better to justify the spend. So to each their own, since I have no room to cast judgement.

And for what it's worth, I genuinely envy the people with the time, skills and equipment to use liquid in an effective and consistent way. Brew on, sir!

 

[Gameface]

Most people (myself included) couldn't make the same beer twice if their lives depended on it. Similarly, most people (myself included) don't have the palette or training to know how close to style one yeast strain gets you vs another. For many home brewers and certainly for newbies, fretting over subtly different ale strains is unnecessary precision and a waste of time and capital.

All of that said, I've made tons of good beers with single infusion cooler mashes and yet I've blown a grand this year upgrading gear and I'm not anywhere near done. It's going to be a similar waste of capital because the beers will not get enough better to justify the spend. So to each their own, since I have no room to cast judgement.

And for what it's worth, I genuinely envy the people with the time, skills and equipment to use liquid in an effective and consistent way. Brew on, sir!

ESB is very much a yeast dependant style. It is somewhat high in esters and those come from the yeast and how you handle the yeast. You, me and anyone else could tell the difference from one yeast strain to the next.

If you're making beers that benefit from a clean fermenting yeast (most beers) then it doesn't matter as much and there are clean fermenting dry yeasts out there.

 

[Double_D]

Uh, what? Are you joking? Do you think it should be hotter or what?

Every single book I've ever read on brewing and every online post I've seen on the subject has said the optimal range for rehydrating yeast is 95F to 105F.

How to Brew by John Palmer is online, so here:

http://howtobrew.com/book/section-1/yeast/preparing-yeast-and-yeast-starters



and



Either you don't know much about rehydrating yeast or you made a very odd joke...

I base my rehydration of dry yeast on the manufacturer's recommendation which is 80F +/- 6 degrees for both us-04 and us-05.

I've attached the spec sheet for you from fermentis so you can read it instead of assuming I'm just talking out my ass.

View attachment SFA_S04.pdf

 

[mattdee1]

Most people (myself included) couldn't make the same beer twice if their lives depended on it. Similarly, most people (myself included) don't have the palette or training to know how close to style one yeast strain gets you vs another. For many home brewers and certainly for newbies, fretting over subtly different ale strains is unnecessary precision and a waste of time and capital.

You don't have to make the same beer twice; you simply make one large batch and ferment it in two different vessels using two different yeast strains.

I do this every batch. It's great because the beers are different enough that you get a bit of variety out of a single brew day. Do a stout with S-04 vs. S-05. Or a wheat beer with WB-06 vs. T-58. Tasting is believing; the difference can be huge.

 

[jddevinn]

Liquid 90% of the time. Overbuild the starter by 100mil or so cells then save for the next starter. The selection is not there in the dry yeasts.

Based on some reading I've done lately I've modified my pitching slightly.. after growing the yeast I cool and decant most of the liquid. I've now started removing the yeast from the fridge around the middle of the brew to allow time to return to room temp, once the wort is cooled and transferred to the fermenter I will pull 5-10% volume out and add it to the yeast. After a couple hours when the krausen has formed I will pitch the yeast into the fermenter. Then oxygenate 3 times at 30 minute intervals with 60 second bursts.

Most people (myself included) couldn't make the same beer twice if their lives depended on it. Similarly, most people (myself included) don't have the palette or training to know how close to style one yeast strain gets you vs another. For many home brewers and certainly for newbies, fretting over subtly different ale strains is unnecessary precision and a waste of time and capital.

I really hope that most brewers can make the same beer repeatedly!!!!!