White Labs dry yeast

[JockyBrewer]

I will also say that in my experience, not all Chico strains are the same.

US-05 seems to produce a slight (not unpleasant) phenol on first pitch. It's hidden by hops, but apparent if you make something like a Cream Ale. It's also harder to clear.

WLP001 is ok, but I didn't care for it.

Wyeast 1056 is my favourite. Very very clean.

 

[MickDundee]

I will also say that in my experience, not all Chico strains are the same.

US-05 seems to produce a slight (not unpleasant) phenol on first pitch. It's hidden by hops, but apparent if you make something like a Cream Ale. It's also harder to clear.

WLP001 is ok, but I didn't care for it.

Wyeast 1056 is my favourite. Very very clean.

BRY-97 is my favourite. Never tried a liquid Chico yeast, maybe I should.

 

[JockyBrewer]

BRY-97 is my favourite. Never tried a liquid Chico yeast, maybe I should.

I don’t think BRY-97 is Chico.

 

[trueblue]

Will liquid yeasts go the way of Betamax in the next 5-10 years?

I've been using liquid yeast the 1990s don't think it is the next Betamax

 

[trueblue]

I'll happily use dry or wet yeast, but struggle to see how that quality is maintained through a transatlantic voyage, storage and then further shipping around the UK in an unrefrigerated van. I don't think I've every received wet yeast that isn't months old.

Don't know where you have bought your liquid yeast from but buying from the maltmiller mine have always been in good condition.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It's interesting that they've chosen 001. You can buy Chico dry already as us-05.

Why shouldn't they sell Chico when that's what sells best? In any case WLP001 is not the same thing as US-05, DNA analysis have shown that there are a least three major groups within the wider Chico family, both the US-05/1056 and WLP001 groups seem to have lost a copy of chromosome V and in turn are distinguished from each other by distinct mutations, see this post :
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/thread...f-white-labs-yeast.642831/page-2#post-8916547

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I don’t think BRY-97 is Chico.

It is - it's an unofficial name for another lineage derived from BRY-96, the original Chico. However there was some kid of error which led the first sequence of it to be place near Windsor/T-58 in the mixed group of genomes, more recent sequencing has confirmed that it is a Chico after all.

 

[JockyBrewer]

It is - it's an unofficial name for another lineage derived from BRY-96, the original Chico. However there was some kid of error which led the first sequence of it to be place near Windsor/T-58 in the mixed group of genomes, more recent sequencing has confirmed that it is a Chico after all.

Ah very interesting. Your links above sent me off reading all kinds of stuff about the dna analysis of yeasts.

All I can say is that BRY-97 behaves differently to US-05/1056/WLP001 in my brief experience of it, but that could be down to how the dried yeast is propagated and packaged.

 

[Sadfield]

have always been in good condition.

Good or perfect? What's the measured viability? Did the remaining yeast have the exact same health as the day of production?

The point I'm making, is not whether malt miller sell good products, rather the minimal difference in quality due to production process between wet and dry is negated by the difference in storage stability between the yeast lab and your fermenter.

I would always make a starter with any liquid yeast.

Why? Because they decrease in viabilty and health over time?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Interesting comparison table of liquid and dried yeast' Liquid certainly seems to come out on top for quality.

A table from a liquid yeast manufacturer, surely not bias.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Good or perfect? What's the measured viability? Did the remaining yeast have the exact same health as the day of production?

The point I'm making, is not whether malt miller sell good products, rather the minimal difference in quality due to production process between wet and dry is negated by the difference in storage stability between the yeast lab and your fermenter.



Why? Because they decrease in viabilty and health over time?

I’ve never used liquid yeast so don’t have an opinion on quality but I’ve never made a starter, never used 2 packets and my beers turn out good. Buy my yeast from CML and they have a great range at good prices.

 

[clib]

A table from a liquid yeast manufacturer, surely not bias.

But now introducing dried yeasts and promoting them.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

But now introducing dried yeasts and promoting them.

As I said earlier is the writing on the wall for liquid yeast?

 

[trueblue]

Why? Because they decrease in viabilty and health over time?

The Maltmiller has a best before date on his liquid yeast, which is 6 months after the production date, so you know exactly what you are buying. If it means you have a bit more preparation then so be it one of the joys of brewing is to experiment.

 

[trueblue]

As I said earlier is the writing on the wall for liquid yeast?

The maltmiller sells 200+ liquid yeast compared to around 30 dried yeasts. Don't think it is going anywhere soon.

 

[obscure]

I’ve never used liquid yeast so don’t have an opinion on quality but I’ve never made a starter, never used 2 packets and my beers turn out good. Buy my yeast from CML and they have a great range at good prices.

My first choice will always be dried it’s easy to use, shelf stable and gives consistant results but my main exception is Weissbier I’ve tried dried yeast for this but have yet to find one I like as much as Imperial Stefan or Wyeast 3068.

This is why I can’t really see Liquid yeast disappearing it is far more of a pain to use than dried but the sheer variety of strains offered compared to dry makes me think that their will always be a role for it.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

BRY-97 behaves differently to US-05/1056/WLP001 in my brief experience of it, but that could be down to how the dried yeast is propagated and packaged.

Drying will always stress things and make the yeast less happy, and it's possible that the Lallemand process stresses yeast more than the one Fermentis use for US-05, but the fact that eg other Lallemand yeast don't show the big lag that BRY-97 infamously does, suggests it's something inherent in BRY-97 rather than specific to the Lallemand drying process, assuming they use the same process for all their yeast.

And why not - if it's more BRY-96 like, then it could have an extra chromosome, and we've seen how even single mutations can make 1056/US-05 behave noticeably different to WLP001. People really need to get away from the idea that yeast are all the same - even if they've just gone through a few generations different, they are no longer the same yeast (as can be seen on that Chico family tree with eg US-05 from different years).

A table from a liquid yeast manufacturer, surely not bias.

Play the ball not the man - do you have an actual critique of the facts they present?

As I said earlier is the writing on the wall for liquid yeast?

No. Will dry yeast continue to take an increasing market share? Probably. But liquid yeast has many advantages too, which will work for both some breweries (eg more generations of repitching, due to purer cultures because they've been exposed to fewer steps of processing, less suppression of esters in styles where that's important) and for the yeast producers (much easier to produce small batches, less capex needed etc).

Drying yeast is a hugely technical process that needs a good slug of capex before you can produce a single sachet - someone like Lallemand has a huge advantage in this regard as >90% of their production is bread yeast so they have huge economies of scale in drying yeast compared to brewing-only producers. The great thing about breadmaking as a market for yeast is that they can't repitch their yeast in the same way as brewers, since their process consumes yeast rather than creating more of it.

Produced by Lallemand.

@Sadfield, do you have a source for WLP001 drying being contracted to Lallemand? I don't doubt that it is - they already eg make dried Lutra for Omega - but it's always nice to have sources for these things.

 

[Sadfield]

@Northern_Brewer Not exactly a reliable source, as it could be lazy marketing photoshopping.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

@Northern_Brewer Not exactly a reliable source, as it could be lazy marketing photoshopping.

Gotcha, thanks, couldn't see that on my screen. As I say, it's entirely plausible given that they're already doing third-party drying for Lutra.

It's just interesting that they're kicking off with one that could be seen to be a direct competitor to BRY-97 (and potentially Diamond and Verdant in future). I know that in practice, there won't be too much crossover, and presumably the deal works for them financially, but I wonder if this is just the precursor to a more...intimate...relationship? Chris White has been doing this for 30 years, he's in his mid-50s - there comes a time when you want to just go fishing or whatever your thing is (or health issues get in the way), and it wouldn't be the craziest deal for Lallemand to buy him out.

I know that is a big 2+2=93 extrapolation though!!!!

 

[Sadfield]

The Maltmiller has a best before date on his liquid yeast, which is 6 months after the production date, so you know exactly what you are buying. If it means you have a bit more preparation then so be it one of the joys of brewing is to experiment.

This has nothing to do with Maltmiller.

Again. Why 'always make a starter with any liquid yeast'?

It appears you've already determined that liquid yeast of any age or origin has degraded in quality, and a starter is required to compensate for that.