Some Brewing Observations...

[paul84043]

I have been noticing more people on the boards lately using the "older" brewing methods, ie...dry yeast, not aerating, stuff like that... Maybe it's just the influx of new people to the boards, it's bound to become more prevalent.
One of my questions, or more of an observation, is this.....why would you not use liquid yeast in light of all it's benefits?
I realize there's always the good old, "if it aint broke, don't fix it"
And there are those that think that adding 4$ to your order is alot of money. That's fine...I'm going to get on my soapbox for a minute....

When I got into brewing, I read everything I could get my hands on and talked to more people than I can count about brewing.
The overwhelming evidence led me to three distinct conclusions.

1) Liquid yeast is better than dry in many different ways. There probably isn't a brewery left on the planet that doesn't use liquid yeast, or at least use it to start thier yeast strain...it's because Liquid yeast makes better beer.
There are only a few strains of yeast that can be dried out and rehydrated successfully, and even after rehydration, thier bodies are damaged. There are many, many times more varieties of liquid yeast allowing you to tailor the flavor profile of your beer to exacting specifications. There are even certain styles that simply cannot be made with dry yeast at all.
A liquid yeast pack will contain hundreds of thousands times more yeast than a dry pack and they are healthier.
Of course, it is a bit more fragile. You have to keep it refrigerated and if you live in the Australian outback, a vial may not survive delivery to your house.
But it is not as fragile as some may think.

I have had it delivered from back east in the summer heat, 5 days in the mail only to sit on my porch in the sun for a few hours before I got home....no problem, it still worked just great.
I was extremely paranoid about the liquid yeast when I started brewing. It went straight in to the refrigerator when I got home, I followed the directions to the letter in fear of killing off my poor little yeasties before they could begin thier holy mission...
After a few batches, I began to relax. I take it out of the fridge the day before I brew and let it sit and warm up. WYeast doesn't need quite this long after activation, but White Labs is fine in its little tube. In fact it's actually better that way.
Sometimes I brew on a whim and it only gets about 3 hours to warm up. This is fine too. It's very flexible.
If I'm doing a high gravity beer (over 1.070) I'll make a starter.
The point being that all the evidence points to liquid yeast being far superior to dry, with only a few drawbacks. Cost, and the fact that you have to treat it different. (keep it refrigerated)
Neither of those has ever become an issue for me.

The second is Aeration. In whatever form you choose. Aeration is a huge benefit to your beer.
To understand this you need to do some reading on the lifecycle of yeast. There are many very good references available on the net, but it boils down to this.
You have dormant, or a comparatively small quantity of yeast in a tube just hanging around waiting for the party....
You activate them by either rehydrating dry, popping a nutrient pack (WYeast) or letting them warm up.
Their first mission in life is to multiply. To do this they need Oxygen. They will multiply until the oxygen supply is depleted. This is where lag time comes into play. There are two types of lag time. Good and bad. (it is possible to over aerate your wort with an oxygen stone system so use caution and follow the directions)
Good lag time is when there is a very good supply of oxygen and the yeast multiply like mad, numbering into the trillions of yeasties before kicking off "fermentation". This can be as long as 24 hours.
Bad lag time is when there is not enough oxygen to get thier numbers up and they take a very long time to multiply to a decent enough population to begin fermantation. This can exceed several days, and sometimes, never kicks off at all...
Once the oxygen is depleted, the yeast prepare to go dormant, meaning, they eat everything in sight. They continue to multiply during this phase, but at a very low rate. Many also finish thier life cycle and die.
This is fermentation. The conversion of fermentables into Ester Alcohol and Co2.
The more healthy yeast, the faster and more complete fermentation finishes.
Oxygenating your wort can result in increased lag time due to the higher oxygen content, but the net result is a huge population of hungry yeast that really kick it into high gear. This is a good thing, studies have shown that these yeast populations result in a more complete fermentation, cleaner tasting beer, and lower FG's.
I use the oxygen stone and my lag times average about 10 to 12 hours, but total fermentations average 3 to 5 days. Rarely longer than that. I have only missed my FG once in over 30 batches. Usually it's at the low end of the range.
After "fermentation" most of the yeast flocculate to the bottom (if they're not already there) and go to sleep. Some remain active and do the job of carbonating your beer.
Anyway...the conclusion here was...Oxygen good...Lots of yeast, good....some lag time...good.....lots of lag time..bad...low yeast count....bad...

The third conclusion was that the closer you can get to all grain brewing, the better your beer will be.
Modern Extract kits make really great beer (thank god).
Doing partial mashes has been compared to the step from dry yeast to liquid yeast. It's that much better...
All grain is the same step in quality from Partial mashing.
I have only done one partial mash, but intend to do more.
I will never stop doing extract kits just because they're so easy.
I doubt that I will have the time, space, interest, and general desire to get into all grain brewing any time soon....

I just figure that if there are ways to improve your beer, that are so easy and realtively cost effective, why not take advantage of them? ie...liquid yeast and aerating.

I apologize for the novel, I hadn't intended for this to run this long, I kind of got on a roll and couldn't stop.

I don't mean to insult anyones intelligence either. If you're happy with your process and make beer that you are content with, then fantastic!! Keep on brewing!!
I am a die hard gadget freak and any new "thing" that I can find to tinker with makes me happy....it's just the way I am.

[fretlessman71]

Keep on writing novels, man! I LOVE getting this sort of experienced information from people on the boards... it means if I have questions, I can pick their brain instead of having to guess what an author meant in a book. (Funny, they don't seem to include email addresses in their books...)

I just might go out and buy some liquid yeast before I begin today or tomorrow. Thanks for the tip!

[fretlessman71]

Hey... any reason I can't use a liquid yeast strain in place of the little packet I got in my porter kit here?

[Payson]

Not only is there no reason not to....you should!

[Jeff]

Fret,

Liquid yeast, especially meant for a porter would be way better than the yeast packet. The packet is included so that the box kit can be used straight off the shelf. I bet your yeast packet was made by the same company as the liquid malt extract in the kit, its kind of a one stop marketing idea.

The first batch I made was a Hefeweizen box kit, not knowing any better I used the dry yeast packet, as most of you can guess I didn't get very close to the style.

[b3s]

definitely replace the dry yeast with liquid yeast...one of the biggest improvements to my beer was discontinuing the use of dry yeast. just my $2*E-02.

[Wilson]

The only reason I decided to use dry yeast the first time I brewed, was for educational purposes only. I local homebrewer told me that there is definetly a taste difference when using dry yeast. So I used it so later I could tell the difference between tastes. I just thought it would be good to really start at the bottom then go from there, I tend to learn better that way. The four bucks is no big deal, I read somwhere that many people spend lots on ingredients when its the yeast they should spend the money on.

[chris1kanobi]

If I am making an English beer of any kind (Pale, ESB, Brown, Porter, Stout) I use Windsor dry. Why? I have tried every kind of liquid yeast to try to get the right flavor in my English ales, and none of them can do it. I really like Wyeast London Ale 3, but Windsor does it right on the money. It costs $1.50, no starter needed (I still add o2). I always keep a fresh pack of both Windsor and Nottingham in the fridge in case my starter is bad, or I forget to make one. Nottingham is not quite as clean tasting as 1056 or WLP001, it is fruity and estery, but it does work for darker or hoppier beers. I think that everyone should at least try brewing a beer using dry yeast. I think that dry yeast got a bad rap because it was not really made for quality homebrewers. Back in the day, Grand Pa would go down to Piggily Wiggily and buy a can of Pabst Blue ribbon hopped extract, with a packet of dry taped to lid and go home and try to brew in the bathroom. The yeast was not meant for brewing quality beer, it was meant to last months on the shelf and survive to ferment crappy extract. Liquid yeast did change homebrewing for the better, and many of the dry yeast manufacturers stepped up to the plate as well. I used to think that dry yeast was inferior and not as pure as liquid. Then I met an old brewer who not only made gread English Ales, he also made great Ciders. His secret was Windsor Dry. He uses it for everything, Wheats, Wee-heavys, Barleywine you name it. I use mostly Whitelabs liquids for my non-English beers. Dry yeast packets contain many yeast cells, and most of the packets are double the quantity that they used to be. They have really stepped up the purity and sanitation as well. Many breweries use dry yeast as well. I would advise getting a fresh pack of dry or liquid yeast rather than the one under the lid of a hopped extract kit. I want to try the Safale Lager yeast, has anyone tried it?

http://consumer.lallemand.com/danstar-lalvin/danstar.html

http://www.dclyeast.co.uk/

[Brownbeard]

My amber ale I made with dry yeast is still the best batch of beer I have made to date. I use liquid most of the time, but dry yeast works just geat too. It depends on what I am making.

[paul84043]

There are more than likely many styles that depend on the flavor profile that dry packet gives them.
I have never used dry, I jumped right in with liquid and have never been brave enough to try one with a dry packet, I just go on the experience and recommendationd of others that are far smarter than me.

I didn't think that you could even make a Hefeweizen with dry yeast....

Like I said, I wasn't trying to throw rocks at anyone!! If you use dry and it works, then keep on going!

I do agree with the opinion that dry was probably developed to last a long time on a shelf in conditions that liquid would never be able to sustain.

Thanks for the replies...

[GunNut76]

If you are not brewing exactly to style or to compete why spend an extra $5? With $5 I can get more hops, bottlecaps, etc. Hell for $5 I can get 6 or 7 packs of Munton&Fison Ale and have trillions of yeast cells at my disposal.

[brewmonkey]

You guys would be shocked to know that there are a lot of breweries out there still using dry yeast.

[GunNut76]

Don't paint me shocked. Dry yeast is easier to store, cheaper and you use less to get the same results. All of the savings get passed on to the consumer...or the brewers pocket! :D

[YamahaXS]

I don't consider myself an expert, BUT I have been brewing for 7-8 years and one thing i have noticed is that the cost of brewing at home is gone up, while the cost of buying beer has gone down, or stayed the same. I mention cost because it is one motivation for many people. Hence, the dry yeast option makes sense for that very reason. I usually use liquid, but I think it is ridiculous that they cost what they do. So now I harvest and plan back to back brew weekends ect so I can average a vial over more than 1 batch.

Homebrewing used to be CHEAP! Its still less expensive to make your own, but not nearly as good a deal as it used to be.

[paul84043]

I've never considered the .10 cents a bottle to be expensive, considering the quality of finished product.
I make a bottle of homebrew for under .60 Cents. (including reusing bottles)
Maybe I'm just stupid, but that seems pretty good.

I did't want to start a conflict, just threw out my personal observations and conclusions. Your results may vary.

I don't know what the "good old days" of homebrewing were because I'm too young.
I do know through extensive research of my own that we are making beer that the homebrewer couldn't hope to equal 20 years ago.

I don't know if that's worth the extra cost or not. It just "is".
I'm sure that with the increasing popularity of homebrewing, the prices are going to continue to rise. That's the American way... Find out what people are buying and then find some way to screw them out of more money when they buy it.

[chris1kanobi]

I think that quality homebrew can still be made inexpencivly. A brewer can reuse yeast, PBW and Starsan. All grain brewing is about 1/2 the price of extract, and if you buy in bulk it's about $1 per pound for grain. Switch over to natural gas instead of propane. Keg instead of bottle and buy the biggest tank you can lug around. All of these things cost money up front, but in the long run will save a lot. I agree that the homebrew of today is better quality than it was even 5 years ago. I used iodine and B-Brite, and slap packs with no starter and zapap mash tun. I had to do decotion mashes, just to keep the temp up. Back in the 90's there were 7 brew stores in Denver, now there are 2. The owners are not struggling, but they are not wealthy either. It is still a labor of love for most of the people who work there. If we want them to stay around, we need to buy some things from them, and turn our friends on to brewing, so they can buy the starter kits and we can still get our Special B and Pacific Gem hops. Otherwise, we will be paying up the butt to have things shipped from Beer O' Rama or whoever. I often imagine living in a state or country where brewing products are illegal or not available, that would suck. Some guy in Communist China would give his left nut for a sixer of SNPA.

[paul84043]

AMEN and thank you.

I support my Local shop as much as I can. Believe it or not, here in Salt Lake there are 3 of them!!

It's strange to think that it was only the 70's that our illustrious hobby was legalized. (that's correct isn't it? Thank you Jimmy Carter..)

[wortchillergoal]

One reason for the cost going up is quality. The old saying of you get what you pay for comes into play. We want to make better beer and demand the ingredients to do just that. The manufacturers respond and that can mean higher costs.

In regards to dry yeast and quality I know this story. The Home Brewery, franchise brew suplly bussiness now defunct, sold great kits with dry yeast. Their kits won a fair number of shows. You can brew good beer with dry yeast, I chose not to.

I like liquid. I find that dry has an after taste I am not fond of. I would not refuse someone's offering because it was made with dry yeast.

I guess I am saying the same. Go with what works for you. Don't worry if other people choose not to do the same, and keep an open mind as we can all learn from one another and take beer to new levels.

[Luther]

Dry, liquid...I've used both and find dry to be more user friendly...as far as taste, after two years of brewing my own I can tell little difference in taste between dry yeast and liquid.

What's all the hullabalu about????:o

[danno]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
You guys would be shocked to know that there are a lot of breweries out there still using dry yeast.

we should also be shocked my the amount of crap that is being passed as beer, but we're not... :D

(I know, I know, I'm sure fine beer is made with dry yeast, too... Just couldn't pass up the opportunity to be a smarta**...)

[Beerconnoisseur]

This is mostly in response to paul's original post, but others can feel free to chime in as they will:

1) Dry vs. Liquid Yeast

I've read that dry yeast is more suspectible to contamination via wild yeast, that liquid. But since I've never used it, I can't verify this one way or the other.

I will be making starters from here on out, though. A faster start to fermentation is definitely worth it.

2) Aeration, etc.

You probably meant ethyl alcohol, instead of ester alcohol. S'ok, though.

While providing oxygen to yeast helps, oxidation certainly does not. Hot side aeration (HSA) can lead to astringent flavors, while later oxidation can add cardboard flavors. There's a fine line to walk there...

3) All-grain vs. extract

Believe it or not, almost all homebrewers that win awards use some extract as part of the recipe. The number of award winning brews that are purely all-grain is actually much smaller.

[chris1kanobi]

"Believe it or not, almost all homebrewers that win awards use some extract as part of the recipe" I would not say that this is true. Based on the last 5 years of AHA national Gold, Silver and Bronze medal winners, I would estimate that 20% of the beers included extract. The same or less can be said about dry yeast. To me it all depends on what your goals are. Many factors come into play regarding what ingredients, methods and equiptment a brewer chooses to use and defend. It really comes down to individual needs and resources. We brew what we like, based on what we have. The common thread is that we all brew beer. Here is to the homebrewers, what ever we use, whatever we drink and whatever they say!

[Beerconnoisseur]

Originally posted by chris1kanobi
"Believe it or not, almost all homebrewers that win awards use some extract as part of the recipe" I would not say that this is true. Based on the last 5 years of AHA national Gold, Silver and Bronze medal winners, I would estimate that 20% of the beers included extract.

The basis for this claim is Ray Daniels, Designing Great Beers, p.11:

"Among winners of the annual American Homebrewers Association National Homebrew Competition, the use of malt extract is common. Four of the seven Homebrewers of the Year between 1988 and 1994 used extract in their recipes, and all but one used 5 pounds or more. Similarly, as late as 1994, the First Place recipes from the twenty-four individual style categories included nine (38 percent) that used extract extensively."

Now, the percentage of winners using extract certainly may have changed over the past few years. And Daniels does go on to say only two of these award-winning beers was made from extract alone, with no grain added [an herbal and lambic]. But a beer that is brewed using only grain won't automatically be better than an extract recipe. That's the issue I was trying to address.

[toneyc]

And don't forget that along with reusing/harvesting yeast, you can reduce the cost of liquid yeast using the parallel propagation method posted here a while back. I figure I've saved $50 or more on yeast in the last few months by using that method. Like Paul, I started out using liquid yeast in kits from St. Pat's and Austin Homebrew. Everything I've ever read (until this thread) has said that liquid is superior to dry, so I've never tried dry yeast. But it did irk me to have to pay more for liquid yeast.

:)
Toney.

[mmmBeer...]

I still use dry yeast sometimes, but mainly when I don’t need to worry about the flavour profile provided by the yeast. The Raspberry Honey ale I make uses Coopers dry yeast, and produces a nice clean taste. In this case, the raspberry flavour is what I want the focus of the beer to be.

The problem I have encountered with dry yeast is the lack of consistency of the flavour produced by the yeast. Recreating batches is next to impossible. However, if you just want a simple ale and aren’t very concerned about brewing to style dry works just fine.

When I want to brew to style (about 95% of the time now), I use liquid yeasts. I love Heffeweisens, abbey beers, and Belgian wit beers. I would never be able to come close to the results I get with liquid yeast using dry. I have tried about 11 different yeast strains from Whitelabs and have been very happy with the results of all the batches.

[fretlessman71]

All right, all RIGHT already! Just thought I'd let you know that I went out and got the White Labs Liquid California Ale Yeast (read: Sierra Nevada, same stuff as Wyeast 1056) for $6, and I decided that if it gives me ANY of the same character as the SN Porter, it was well worth the money. Now, I have a question:

Can I make a culture from this so I never have to buy it again?

[paul84043]

What's all the hullabalu about????

No hullaballoo here, I was just curious as to why some people choose ther brewing paths and processes they do, and wether ot not they view alot of the new additions to the hobby as improvements, or just more fluff to sell to us newer gadget freaks.

You probably meant ethyl alcohol, instead of ester alcohol. S'ok, though.

You're quite right...it's Ethanol....my bad.


It's amazing, and does say tons for the quality of ingredients and equipment that we have at our disposal these days, that so many extract brewers are winning awards.
It's really cool.

[YamahaXS]

btw, my brewbuddy has a little experiment going. He took a 5 gallon batch and split it up into 6 1 gallon carboys and pitched 6 different yeast strains. I will check with him again to see if he used a dry beer yeast.

cheers and beers,

yamahaXS

[brewmonkey]

The cost of grain going up this last year or so has nothing to do with quality as it does with poor harvest in both North America and Europe. Hotter summers and drought have played a big part in destroying the available barley and especially amlting varities. With less barley the price per bushel goes up. I was just at a meeting with the good folks from Rahr malting and the same can be expected for the upcoming year. Not a great big price jump but it will affect it somewhat.

The same is true for the hop regions of the world, with a screwy weather pattern some of the hop crops have gone bye-bye. I remember when cascade (my cost now) was about 2.85-3.25 per pound, It is now about $5.

While those quotes from Ray Daniels may be accurate, you need to realize that was 10 years ago and at the height of the brewpub craze. They may not be an accurate reflection of today's homebrewers. I brew with 10 other guys and none of them use extract and only one is using dry yeast.

The arguments for and against a certain method should be moot, as it is up to the brewer to decide which he likes best. Me, personally I only use DME when I am brewing super high gravity (21P +) and never use dry yeast as I can taste the difference (I am one of the few I know that can). Like I said, it is all what you want in YOUR beers!

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by paul84043

It's strange to think that it was only the 70's that our illustrious hobby was legalized. (that's correct isn't it? Thank you Jimmy Carter..)

It became legal to brew up to 10 gallons for personal consumption in 1978. Of course we were brewing illegally before that because a friend of mine would travel to England and bring back kits. Being teenagers, we worked at a restraunt that had food grade plastic buckets so we were in business. Some of our beers lacked much carbonation but they certainly had alcohol. So we drank flat beer for the buzz. I really began brewing in earnest after 78 because homebrew shops sprang up and there was lots of information and books that came out. This of course helped improve the beers that we made. I have not brewed in 7/8 years. Maybe 10. I still have most of my equiptment. I can tell by reading most of the posts here that things are way beyond how we used to do it. I would brew now for the fun of it and not because it may save me $$. I am considering trying a few smaller batches and I'm sure I will need lots of advice from you brewing sages out there. Just please do not laugh if I ask stupid questions.

[denver brewhoo]

thanks for starting this thread, Paul, and thanks for your comments, Chris...the most interesting thing in this whole thread is the concept that Windsor dry gives better flavor in english ales(which comprise 90% of what I brew) than the various Wyeast and WL products. My LHBS sells only White Labs liquids, I'll have to see if they have Windsor...a very good point that everybody should try dry at least once.

The cost thing---If I make a starter, and split that starter in half, I've got two first generation batches right there, and if I brew at least one time more on each yeast cake that's 4 batches for the $5 or 6 for the pitchable tube...so it's not at all a money thing. I mean, if the Windsor is $1.50 it's an exact wash, moneywise, with much less hassle on starters, storing "second generation" yeast etc.

[Brownbeard]

Right now, I have a scottish 80/- brewing, I am using the Wyeast 1728 scottish ale yeast with that. One big reason I went this route is I intend to use that yeast through the winter. I will have to buy a few more packs, don't want to use it too long. It will ferment as low as 55 degrees which is important to me with my cold cellar. There are lots of reasons to use one or the other. Flavor, brewing conditions, cost, ease of use. Dry and liquid both have their place in my limited experience. I am cheap as all get out. I will walk a mile to save a buck. But I do not home brew to save money. It is my hobby and I expect to spend a little on it.

[wortchillergoal]

Originally posted by brewmonkey
The cost of grain going up this last year or so has nothing to do with quality as it does with poor harvest in both North America and Europe. Hotter summers and drought have played a big part in destroying the available barley and especially amlting varities. With less barley the price per bushel goes up. I was just at a meeting with the good folks from Rahr malting and the same can be expected for the upcoming year. Not a great big price jump but it will affect it somewhat.

You make a good point. I would argue that it is a combination of the two with the availabilty the major factor.

[paul84043]

I hadn't even really though about grain prices being a factor.
Hopefully with the wet fall we've had so far, the water situation will begin to turn around for us.

I probably should brew a batch with dry yeast just to say that I did....

I'm drinking an IPA that I made from an extract kit a few months back, it's really good, but the IPA (Partial mash) that I got from StPats kicks butt all over it.
I keep wondering if the difference is the quality of the malt, or the fact that I did the partial mash...

[b3s]

all things being equal, i would argue the partial mash...everytime i've gone beyond extract, the quality of the end result has been higher (imo).

one thing i wish extract companies would do (ok, and maybe they do, i just haven't found the info) is tell us what grains (and what percentage) went into the extract and the specific ppg rating.

[chris1kanobi]

Denver- I like the bready, yeasty flavor of cask conditioned English Ales (like you might find at Pint's Pub in Denver) and to me Windsor has the flavor that I am looking for (so does Wyeast London 3). It is a personal preference, and may not be what you are looking for. Everyone should at least try it and decide for themselves. I agree that great beer can be made with extract. About a month ago I decided to try an experiment, I made the same beer (RyePA) in both extract and all-grain. I wanted to see for myself the difference between extract and grain. I did a full volume boil, airated and pitched a big starter into each batch. I have nothing against extract, and I brewed extract with specialty grains for many years and was pleased. However, the RyePAs are different. The color is different, the aroma is different and the flavor is different. The all-grain has a malt aroma and flavor that is not in the extract beer. The extract has a "twang" and the malt flavors are muted. Here is a complete run down of the experiment if any of you are really bored. http://www.freewebs.com/homebrew/ryepaexperiment.htm The recipes are listed, so anyone can brew it and decide for themselves. :)