Wyeast vs. White labs vs. dry

[eastoak]

i buy dry yeast and get yeast slurry for free from a local brewery.

 

[downtown3641]

The dry yeast suits my needs most of the time. However, I'm not quite at the point where I'm finicky about specific levels of attenuation and flocculation. I can see that being an issue if I find a recipe that I really want to refine.

 

[Darwin18]

I prefer wyeast but I also always do a starter on a stir plate, and use proper temperature control. Liquid yeast is more fun for me as I like the starter process and benefits.

 

[s2cmpugh]

WOW, loads of information posted here. Thanks everyone for all the help! I've been using whitelabs lately, but it does get expensive using liquid. I'm going to swap back to dry, but before I did, I wanted to make sure dry yeast still produces good beer.

Thanks again everyone and I'm saving this thread for further yeast information!

 

[Teromous]

I use liquid yeast most of the time. I find it enormously helpful that you can read different reviews and tasting notes about each yeast strain from different sources online, especially on the White Labs website. People will say what temperature worked best for them, etc. It also helps that there is more variety, and that some come from very notable breweries. To save on cost, you can do what I'm starting to, and wash the yeast. Start your own liquid yeast bank and create your own house strain.

 

[Weizenwerks]

I use liquid yeast by choice. The dry yeast doesn't produce the same beer according to my testing so I don't use it. I use White Labs WLP300 only.

 

[beerloaf]

I have used both and tend to wash or harvest my yeast to keep for a while. I have had both good and bad beers from both liquid and dry yeast. Liquid gets less costly when you reuse it a bunch. I have a spare fridge with probably 20+ containers of various yeast + the yeast farm in my freezer with a few frozen samples. Even if you reuse the liquid only once, you just now cut your yeast cost in half. My favorite dry is S0-4 and I only have White Labs for liquid avalable around here. I've only used S0-5 once and the beer turned out like crap. That being said I was new to brewing at the time and had nothing to do with the yeast.

beerloaf

 

[markmc40]

Even if you use liquid, I would keep at least 1-2 packets of Notty or US-05 around. Just in case your starter doesn't start or you drop it or whatever. Seems like cheap insurance.

L

This is very good advice. This batch I'm doing contains a bunch of firsts from advice gained on this thread. I'm doing a month primary/no secondary thanks to Revvy, using Bernie Brewer's awesome write-up to wash my WLP008 at the end of that. At the end of the day I will want some insurance for my next batch. If my Boston Ale clone (which strangely disappeared from the shelves) turns out good, I'll have 4 more generations of the strain. If I screw it up or the strain tastes like ***t, I'll use the dry next time.

 

[Glossolalia]

I'll agree for most homebrewers of American style beers, it's probably just a matter of aesthetic preference. Homebrewers of American styles tend to go for a neutral or absent yeast profile. If you find yourself always building giant starters and fermenting your beers just above lager temperatures, you probably aren't going to appreciate the hedonic differences between liquid and dry versions of yeast, or in some cases even the difference between similar yeast strains (other than maybe flocculence and attenuation rates). You're looking for little to no contribution of the yeast other than alcohol production. In that case, economically, you're probably better served by dry yeasts.

The differences between individual yeast strains become more perceivable when you don't overpitch and bring the yeast temperature, while fermenting, up a little closer to the preferred metabolic working temperature of the yeast. However, in these cases, you are going to get a more yeast-forward flavor profile, which some people don't enjoy. With yeast forward beers, you're using whatever yeast provides the profile you're looking for, and in some cases, there are perceivable differences between the Wyeast and White Lab versions of yeasts purportedly isolated from the same beer.

 

[s2cmpugh]

Does anyone know of a chart that lists liquid yeasts to the comparable dry yeast?

 

[gugguson]

Does anyone know of a chart that lists liquid yeasts to the comparable dry yeast?

Try this: Finn Hill Brewing: Liquid to Dry Yeast Conversion Chart

 

[JuanMoore]

Us-05 might have originally been the Chico strain but the drying process changed it. It doesn't make it bad, just different. Personally I prefer the liquid version in lighter flavored beers. But in an IPA or a big stout I always use US-05.

Based on my experience, US-05 produces more fruity esters (particularly peach and apricot) and doesn't flocculate as well as WLP 001. It's still one of the better dry yeasts out there in my opinion, but I generally go with liquid these days.

I have done side by side tests splitting a 12 gal batch into thirds, and pitching S-05, WLP001, and Wyeast 1056 with equal pitching rates, and neither myself or any of my ~7 beer snob friends could tell any difference between them. I've performed this test twice, and the result has been the same each time. I did try the same comparison when I first started brewing and got slightly different flavors, but I later realized that the pitching rates had been slightly different. IMO, if you're getting differing results between any of the three Chico strains, there are likely small differences in conditions that are causing it.

 

[Hermit]

I have used both side by side(liquid and dry) and for me I can tell a difference. I prefer the liquid hands down. Now for just a house ale dry would be more than fine. Everyone has there own tastes and you the brewer must decide if the added cost is worth it. Do a side by side test and you will form your own opinion on this subject.

WLP001/WY1056/S-05. I can't tell the difference. That doesn't mean there is no difference, just that I can't spot it.
WLP002/WY1968/S-04. I can't tell the difference between 002 and 1968, but S-O4 (the closest dry yeast to the liquids) is nothing like as good to my taste. Then again S-04 is supposed to be a different strain than the other 2.
WLP013/WY1028. Supposed to be the same strain. I like WY1028, but find WLP013 to be bland and not at all pleasant. No dry equivalent that I am aware of.
WLP023. Awesome! Haven't tried the WY equivalent, and I'm not aware of a dry equivalent.
Nottingham. Haven't found a liquid equivalent.

-a.

If you combine these two posts I think you get closer to the truth. It is always interesting to read the results of blind taste tests. I remember one where they were testing the long primary times to see if autolysis was real or not. ONE guy was able to correctly pick it up. Same for simulating decoction by throwing in some melenoiden malt. It seems someone always has a sensitive enough palate to tell. So, it depends on who you are brewing for. In the end it is cooking and you need to cook to taste.

 

[mesooohoppy]

Based on my experience, US-05 produces more fruity esters (particularly peach and apricot) and doesn't flocculate as well as WLP 001. It's still one of the better dry yeasts out there in my opinion, but I generally go with liquid these days.

glad I wasn't the only one who was getting moderate to mild apricot notes in my s05 beers.

the moderate notes were before I realized how important proper ferm temps are. once I figured that out, I used the big bucket filled with water and frozen water bottles; that help keep it at bay, but I could still taste some peach/apricot notes. this was also before I made starters, once I started making starters, I have noticed consistent fermentation #s with very little to no off flavors.

I have not used s05 since, nor have I gotten any peach/apricot notes. I would be open to using it again as a cost saver, the increased cell count is also a plus for me (don't have to make the starter so far out from brew day).

on another note, I made a s23 starter for the last light lager I did prior to brewing on brew day (about 7 to 8 hours prior to pitching). looking back, I should have done it earlier (I forgot), but I did not get any off flavors or green apple notes. I also ended up dumping the whole starter in the wort, as the yeast hadn't separated yet...

 

[Veldy]

Which one produces the best tasting beer and why? For the past 8 months or so I've been using White labs with pretty good results, but I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about the different manufacturers and styles.

There are excellent yeasts available from Wyeast, White Labs, Danstar, and others...regardless of whether they are dry or liquid. There are more options with liquid yeasts. No brand is better than another...just more options. The only thing that makes a given yeast great is the beer that's made from it. One brewer's recipe and style may make an OK beer and another brewer's recipe and style may result in an excellent beer with the same yeast.

So, the answer to your question is NONE and BECAUSE.

 

[Horseshoot]

I use dry, most often. I get great results with it, so why change? I only use liquid when I need a specific profile that I cannot find in a dry yeast. I do rehydrate the dry yeast. And, on the few occasions I do use liquid yeast, I make an appropriate starter.

Mike

 

[Revvy]

glad I wasn't the only one who was getting moderate to mild apricot notes in my s05 beers.

the moderate notes were before I realized how important proper ferm temps are. once I figured that out, I used the big bucket filled with water and frozen water bottles; that help keep it at bay, but I could still taste some peach/apricot notes. this was also before I made starters, once I started making starters, I have noticed consistent fermentation #s with very little to no off flavors.

I have not used s05 since, nor have I gotten any peach/apricot notes. I would be open to using it again as a cost saver, the increased cell count is also a plus for me (don't have to make the starter so far out from brew day).

on another note, I made a s23 starter for the last light lager I did prior to brewing on brew day (about 7 to 8 hours prior to pitching). looking back, I should have done it earlier (I forgot), but I did not get any off flavors or green apple notes. I also ended up dumping the whole starter in the wort, as the yeast hadn't separated yet...

A lot has changed since I posted what I posted in 2011....

I had the same issues and stopped using 05 was well, I've opted for BRY-97 as my goto yeast.

I don't know when it happened but I started noticing it was producing a "stone fruit" flavor in low grav or "light colored" beers. Like peach flavors. It wasn't noticeable in darker beers (at least initially.)


I think Safale changed the yeast or something...I still used it for darker ales, but then it became prevalent in all their beers. I thought it was maybe because I was using it to hot, so I made sure I was using it at the low end of the "safe" range, and it was there across the board.

So I stopped using it altogether.

I JUST used it recently because I noticed they had changed their packaging and thought maybe the strain altered again... but I didn't want to risk it with something "clean" so I used it with a very hoppy IPA... I didn't really notice stone fruit, but again I intentionally used it in something that would hide it.

I'm staying with BRY-97 for most ales that don't require a character from the yeast.... Don't know if I'll switch back to 05 or not....