What are the advantages of...

[Covrich]

I must admit I've found that the beer I've made with some liquid yeast from the Hog's Back brewery, Tongham has been incomparable to the stuff I did with dried yeast. It doesn't suit every style and I think works very well for traditional English bitters and some darker, heavier beers but a hoppy IPA I brewed recently feels muted...maybe it just needs more time in the bottle. When on form it gives some fruity but delicate esters which I haven't been able to replicate with dried yeast-the krausen is more of a mushroom cloud and allows me to top-crop for re-pitching.
I'm pretty certain I've been over-pitching (always made a fairly big starter regardless of the abv I'm trying to achieve) but I would rather that than not hit the right numbers.

I agree with MQ.. I think its a case of picking the right strain for the right style..

I didn't know if flocculation affects hops.. interesting thought though.

If I was making a hop forward IPA then I would just stick 05 in.. or I hear that MJ 44 is good from a few people here...


If doing a belgian or a wiess I wouldn't even consider dry..

 

[trueblue]

There are a few differences between American and British beers. Apart from what has been stated here Americans tend to use a lot lower mineral profile than British brewers. If you want an American hop monster then I'm sure dried yeast will be the answer but personally I prefer a more balanced beer, could be a pale ale, stout, mild or bitter, and yeast is crucial to what I need.

 

[BeerCat]

I have been really impressed by the liquid and still using the same ones i bought in January. That said nothing wrong with dry yeast apart from less variety. Always make a starter then save some for the next brew.

 

[kandycorn]

Hi guys this is my first effort on here, but I am not a novice to brewing.I go back four decades, and I can tell you without doubt the quality of all products associated with brewing has improved immeasurably, particularly during this century

My thoughts on this are if you want a yeast, that is fairly neutral then a dried yeast like us05-04 or notty is going to work well. If you want a yeast that is a player in the flavour of the beer, then a liquid will give a better result and of course there is more variety.

That said I am aware that some dried yeast companies are diversifying in this area , however apart from the Danestar Belle Saison, which is a monster attenuator and whose characteristics are not dissimilar to 3711 . I have yet to find a dried yeast that performs better than anything comparable in liquid form, indeed I have been less than impressed with the new Mangrove Jacks range.

As for cost I always get at least three pitches out of liquid yeast , either by washing it, or if using a volatile top cropper running a blow of tube into Kilner jar with a airlock Generally speaking the best batch seems to be either 2 or 3 hope this helps :smile:

 

[GHW]

I think there's a degree in snobbery over dried yeast. It does a perfectly good job. As myqul points out the range of dried yeasts available is more limited.

I almost always used us-05 in hoppy pales but have switched allegiance to Vermont for the most part as I do think it brings something else to the beer that 05 doesn't.

That said I'm using 05 in my Sorachi ace pale cos I won't have time to culture up a decent starter from my bottles. Going to get it in the day after coming back from hols next week

 

[cornyandy]

I used a few of the wyeast cultures shen they first came into the country and found them really good but not good enough to cover the extra expense, bearing in mind they were six quid (15 50 years ago) to just over a quid for either Gervin Ale or Safale (there was only one back then). However I am thinking of using a liquid culture soon, just a couple of questions I need answering which one White labs or Wyeast. and as I tend to brew on a whim how can I store and re-culture easily and quickly, sort of overnight. I know this is a bit of a hijack so I will start another thread. soon. But my limited experience was that liquid was an expensive luxury mainly for unusual ale styles (Belgian, wit, etc.)

 

[Notlaw]

...I have been less than impressed with the new Mangrove Jacks range.

You're the first person I've heard say that. Most of what I have read is that people have been quite impressed with them. I have certainly been impressed and have just ordered another couple to keep in the fridge.

 

[Covrich]

I think there's a degree in snobbery over dried yeast. It does a perfectly good job. As myqul points out the range of dried yeasts available is more limited.

I almost always used us-05 in hoppy pales but have switched allegiance to Vermont for the most part as I do think it brings something else to the beer that 05 doesn't.

That said I'm using 05 in my Sorachi ace pale cos I won't have time to culture up a decent starter from my bottles. Going to get it in the day after coming back from hols next week

Haven't you answered the question there? you use a different yeast when it brings something different to the table, if you make pale ales or citrus IPAs yeah I would just stick with us05, cheap and easy..

If I am making something where the yeast brings something to the table, sometimes something big, my options for dry are limited and to be honest with the drying process just not as good. In time this may change.

Like J Palmer says and I know he isn't the be and end all. But I think if you're brewing a style where the yeast is a major player I think he says why agonise over your malts and hops then throw in a generic dry yeast. Use the best ingredients you can.. and in my experience using them where the yeast is a big player I find them to be excellent and much better than when I have used a dry saison or english ale yeast.. That's why I very much push them or encourage people to try them.

That could mean I am a snob too but so be it :mrgreen:

I do wish hope that all yeasts could be bought in a dry form replicating what you'd get with liquid because dry is easy peasy and less hassle.

 

[GHW]

Haven't you answered the question there? you use a different yeast when it brings something different to the table, if you make pale ales or citrus IPAs yeah I would just stick with us05, cheap and easy..

If I am making something where the yeast brings something to the table, sometimes something big, my options for dry are limited and to be honest with the drying process just not as good. In time this may change.

Like J Palmer says and I know he isn't the be and end all. But I think if you're brewing a style where the yeast is a major player I think he says why agonise over your malts and hops then throw in a generic dry yeast. Use the best ingredients you can.. and in my experience using them where the yeast is a big player I find them to be excellent and much better than when I have used a dry saison or english ale yeast.. That's why I very much push them or encourage people to try them.

That could mean I am a snob too but so be it :mrgreen:

I do wish hope that all yeasts could be bought in a dry form replicating what you'd get with liquid because dry is easy peasy and less hassle.

I meant that there can be snobbery for its own sake (insistence that liquid is always best) but there are also genuine advantages to liquid depending On what you're after.

 

[GHW]

I meant that there can be snobbery for its own sake (insistence that liquid is always best) but there are also genuine advantages to liquid depending On what you're after.

Here's another thought. Once you've used a dry yeast strain equivalent of a liquid, say us05 and American ale (think they are the same but let's assume so for this discussion) then if you reuse the yeast, either by top cropping or creating a starter from trub, then is there any difference between using a liquid strain or re using the dry yeast?

Surely at that point they are one and the same thing?

 

[Notlaw]

Here's another thought. Once you've used a dry yeast strain equivalent of a liquid, say us05 and American ale (think they are the same but let's assume so for this discussion) then if you reuse the yeast, either by top cropping or creating a starter from trub, then is there any difference between using a liquid strain or re using the dry yeast?

Surely at that point they are one and the same thing?

That's a good point. As US05 is the chico strain, there technically should be no difference between US05 and WY1056 or WLP001.

 

[Covrich]

They are essentially going to be the same, but like a lot of us are saying.. for US05 chico clean strain I wouldn't go liquid.. Although that said looking at reddarren and MyQul they use/ try it so interesting to see what they think..

The draw to liquid for me is because you can get something and it does something dry doesn't not for the sake of it..

If I could do everything with dry that I could liquid I would never bother with it as dry is so easy and far less hassle.

 

[MyQul]

Here's another thought. Once you've used a dry yeast strain equivalent of a liquid, say us05 and American ale (think they are the same but let's assume so for this discussion) then if you reuse the yeast, either by top cropping or creating a starter from trub, then is there any difference between using a liquid strain or re using the dry yeast?

Surely at that point they are one and the same thing?

Yes your right. Once you've havested a dry strain it effectively becomes a liquid strain.

 

[trueblue]

Here's another thought. Once you've used a dry yeast strain equivalent of a liquid, say us05 and American ale (think they are the same but let's assume so for this discussion) then if you reuse the yeast, either by top cropping or creating a starter from trub, then is there any difference between using a liquid strain or re using the dry yeast?

Surely at that point they are one and the same thing?

The drying process strips certain characteristics from the yeast that will never return even if reused after fermentation. Most commercial brewers will only reuse their yeast a few generations to stop any mutations and will have a laboratory to keep their strains "true". This is in an industry where a lot of brewers will cut any corner necessary to save pence but they know the importance of maintaining their strain. There is no snobbery just a desire to make the best beer I can. Apart from the convenience I fail to see why anyone would prefer an inferior product.

 

[MyQul]

That's a good point. As US05 is the chico strain, there technically should be no difference between US05 and WY1056 or WLP001.

But from my reading there is. I've mentioned it elsewhere on the forum, I purchased WLP001 because according to my reading at the top and bottom end of the temp range for US-05 it gives a peachy ester flavour, which WL001 supposedly doesn't. This is no good for me as I'm going to use it mostly for psedo lagering and esters are definatley an off flavour in a lager. Also I bought it as a strain to free ferment with during summer.
So far it seems to be acting differently from US-05.

 

[GHW]

The drying process strips certain characteristics from the yeast that will never return even if reused after fermentation. Most commercial brewers will only reuse their yeast a few generations to stop any mutations and will have a laboratory to keep their strains "true". This is in an industry where a lot of brewers will cut any corner necessary to save pence but they know the importance of maintaining their strain. There is no snobbery just a desire to make the best beer I can. Apart from the convenience I fail to see why anyone would prefer an inferior product.

Price, availability, ease of storage?

I'm not convinced of the argument that drying it strips characteristics. Where do these characteristics come from? Surely it's the genetic make up of the strain?

 

[Notlaw]

But from my reading there is. I've mentioned it elsewhere on the forum, I purchased WLP001 because according to my reading at the top and bottom end of the temp range for US-05 it gives a peachy ester flavour which is no good for me as I'm going to use it mostly for psedo lagering and esters are definatley an off flavour in a lager. Also I bought it as a strain to free ferment with during summer.
So far it seems to be acting differently from US-05.

I was thinking of reusing after harvesting. I just wondered if the esters are unique to the dried version or if they'd be present in the harvested version too. Would be worth a little experiment sometime. A DJ of wort, purposely fermented on the warmer side.

 

[MyQul]

I was thinking of reusing after harvesting. I just wondered if the esters are unique to the dried version or if they'd be present in the harvested version too. Would be worth a little experiment sometime. A DJ of wort, purposely fermented on the warmer side.

I take it you mean harvested from a Sierra Nevada? That experiment would certainly test whether it's gives off the peachy esters :thumb:

 

[Notlaw]

I take it you mean harvested from a Sierra Nevada? That experiment would certainly test whether it's gives off the peachy esters :thumb:

Now, who's got some harvested Chico..... [cough] Brum [cough]

 

[trueblue]

Price, availability, ease of storage?

I'm not convinced of the argument that drying it strips characteristics. Where do these characteristics come from? Surely it's the genetic make up of the strain?

Price - cheaper than dried yeast if use properly you can get at least 5 or 6 brews per vial
Availability - The Maltmiller sells most strains I buy when ordering my malt.
Easy of storage - Fridge.

As for the other argument there is plenty of information out there, my late father in law was a chemist spending years around the brewing and distilling industry so a lot of my information came via him. I know of no dried then re-hydrated product that comes close. One reason there is more choice in liquid is because most strains suffer to much by the drying process.