liquid yeasts or Dry - Which makes a better tasting brew?

[jstrausss]

I just wanted peoples opinions on Yeasts ( dry, liquid ) Which makes a better tasting brew.

[mmmBeer...]

IMHO if you are trying to stick to a style of beer nothing beats liquid. You just can’t reproduce a Hefewiezen or an abbey ale without the correct yeast. However, if I am doing an ale with a lot of other flavours (such as my raspberry honey ale) that may mask the yeast flavours I will use dry yeast. That being said 98% of the time I use liquid as I want to come fairly close to style.

[Caffinehog]

Liquid!

I started brewing with dry, and found that all my beers had the same off-flavor. Since I went to liquid, the flavor has disappeared. The liquid takes longer to ferment and carbonate, though.

[Tweek]

It really depends on the flavor I am going for. Sometimes the yeastI want only comes in dry. More times than not though I do use white labs liquid. It is what my local stocks the most of.

Caffienehog- If you were getting off flavors from the batches that you were using dry yeast on I would wager a guess that it was not from the yeast but rather somethignelse that was diferent in your methodology. Also I have not noticed a diference in ferment or carbonation times between dry and liquid, but then again I always make starters.

[jstrausss]

How do you know what yeasts to use ? Is there a website or listing table ?

[barley ben]

Wyeast and White Labs both have descriptions on every yeast they sell. If you are making a certain style, you can look them up and find the yeast that is made for that style. As far as dry, you would want to know more about what effects you want to yeast to have of your beer and pick using these factors. You can always ask the LHS and they can usually point you to the best choice in dry yeast. As far as the liquid yeasts, they in many ways can be selfe explanitory. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with experimenting yourself.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by Tweek
It really depends on the flavor I am going for. Sometimes the yeastI want only comes in dry. More times than not though I do use white labs liquid. It is what my local stocks the most of.

Caffienehog- If you were getting off flavors from the batches that you were using dry yeast on I would wager a guess that it was not from the yeast but rather somethignelse that was diferent in your methodology. Also I have not noticed a diference in ferment or carbonation times between dry and liquid, but then again I always make starters.

I've been reluctant to use the yeast packet that I get with my kits. Is there any particular reason you shouldn't use dry packets? And if you make a starter with it, doesn't it then become the same as the liquid yeast? Is there a way to MAKE it the same? Seems like I could save $6 a batch if I could do that successfully....

[barley ben]

The problem with the packets in the can is you don't know what conditions they have been through and if they are anygood anymore. If ya want to use them though, make sure you make a starter several days before you brew, just to make sure they are still good. Ya don't want to find you after you pitch them and don't have any back-up yeast that they are dead.

[mmmBeer...]

There is a real good summary of the majority of yeast styles (dry and liquid) here:

Yeast Strains (http://www.byo.com/referenceguide/yeaststrains/)

The main problem I have encountered with dry yeast is a lack of consistency in the flavour of the beer. The whitelabs yeast always produces the same flavours due to the yeast strains being identical. I could never really replicate the same beers with dry that I am now able to do.

With liquid yeast at least you know when it was produced and when it expires…so you always know it is fresh.

[brewmonkey]

Originally posted by Caffinehog
Liquid!

I started brewing with dry, and found that all my beers had the same off-flavor. Since I went to liquid, the flavor has disappeared. The liquid takes longer to ferment and carbonate, though.

Not an entirely accurate statement there. Generally you will see an increase in the fermentation time of the 1st generation of the yeast, but if you have the ability to harvest and re-pitch you will see a decrease in lag time and an increase in overall fermentation time.

[jstrausss]

Is harvesting yeast a better way to go ?

[Fast_Eddy]

Here are my rationales for harvesting yeast:

1) Improvement of ferment and lag - like BM said
2) It can represent 30-40% of the cost of a batch. When ingredients are $10 without yeast that represents a big savings. Might cost me one cup of DME to prop it up.

[wortchillergoal]

I like using liquid. I find that often when I taste another brewer's beer, I can tell if he used dry yeast or not. It seems to leave an after taste I can pick up on. The taste is not bad or detract from the beer, it is just there.

[Caffinehog]

Originally posted by wortchillergoal
I like using liquid. I find that often when I taste another brewer's beer, I can tell if he used dry yeast or not. It seems to leave an after taste I can pick up on. The taste is not bad or detract from the beer, it is just there.
Yeah... that's what I have. It's more an aftertaste than an actual taste. And to me, in both beer and coffee, the aftertaste is as important as the taste. (Maybe that's why I like IPA's and dry-processed coffees.)

[ray m]

I do liquid, too---great stuff.

I, however, have a side question to this post. I just got a new recipe book (Beer Captured), and in it the recipes stipulate using Wyeast exclusively. I have never used Wyeast---I've been a die hard White Labs customer, and swear by their product---it's excellent.

However, it seems to me that Wyeast has many, many more varieties of yeast than White labs. The smack pack concept sceers me. I know some of you guys have probably used Wyeast, and I would appreciate input on their product. Maybe I'm in the mood for a change in this regard. Can you make 1 & 2 qt. starters with Wyeast?

By the way, Jstrauss, I didn't mean to highjack your thread!!!:(

[wortchillergoal]

I have always used Wyeast. I have had no problems with fermentation and the beer taste great. I have also made starters with no problems either.

[toneyc]

Do they still make the smack packs? I haven't seen one around here for a couple of years. The ones around here come in a little squeezable tube like toothpaste or shampoo, not the hard little tube like White Labs. Works good, tastes great!

:)
Toney.

[fretlessman71]

What in the world is a "smack pack"? They only have White Labs around here....

[Tweek]

smack packs are a package that has the yeast and some wort inside of it, but they are kept seperate from a pouch inside. You smack the pack with your hand puncturing the pouch and then they go to work. cool idea actually. I still prefer white labs method, but it is cool none the less.

[barley ben]

LHS's in the Jersey/Delaware area still have the smack packs.

They are aliquid yeast that have a small tube of nutrients and fermentables in it. A day or two before you brew, you pop the tube inside by kinda smacking the ball of your hand down on it. It mixes everything inside the tube with the yeast and makes a mini starter in side the packet. By the time you are ready to brew, the pack is swollen with CO2 and the yeast is ready to go.

[fretlessman71]

Is there anything special you're supposed to do with the White Labs method? I just swirled my wort around and poured room temp. yeast in and shut it. Seems to work ok, but I'm always wondering if I'm getting enough out of those little yeastybeasties...

[Tweek]

nah that is fine. They are made to just pitch em straight in. If you want to reduce your lag time you could make starters though.

[fretlessman71]

Seems a little impatient to me... my White Labs gets going within 24 hours.

[jstrausss]

How do you make starters ???

[toneyc]

This is the section at John Palmer's HowToBrew site:

http://www.howtobrew.com/section1/chapter6-5.html

About halfway down the page is where he talks about starters. And he also has some pictures of smackpacks.

And Fret, a little impatient is one thing, but when I can reduce lag time from from 24 to less than three just by making a starter and having good aeration, I'll do it.

Interesting, Miriam Webster lists carbonation as the British word for aeration.

:)
Toney.

[jstrausss]

Great - Thanks

[mortong]

I've been getting consistent results with Safale S-04 (dry yeast), and it works with a fairly wide range of beer styles.

In about half of my batches I've used Wyeast liquid - particularly if I need a specific style. Honestly, though, in most cases Safale has proven to be my all-around workhorse.

I've had no off-flavors, although my closet usually smells like someone dumped a few hundred pounds of raspberries in it (see this thread (http://www.realbeer.com/discussions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1582&)). This fades during fermentation, though, and leaves no residual taste or smell.

I think it depends mostly on which type of dry yeast you use. Windsor has given me horrible results, and I refuse to touch it. I'm sure most of the no-name brands are in the same boat.

[croc4]

Not to start an argument....discussion, but the last batch I fermented I had a gallon left over that I used to try to test the difference between liquid and dry yeast.

Dry yeast: Nottingham
Liquid yeast: wyeast 1028

SG: 1.065

FG:
dry yeast: 1.010
liquid yeast: 1.019

ferment days: 33
Primary: 13.5
secondary: 19.5
The dry yeast had a higher alcohol content granted, but the taste of the liquid yeast batch was far better.


Granted the alcohol bite of the dry yeast may have swayed my decision, but I still think that the liquid yeast tasted better all round. But that is just
my opinion, but I won't use dry yeast again.
________
WEB SHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Stumptown]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Is there anything special you're supposed to do with the White Labs method? I just swirled my wort around and poured room temp. yeast in and shut it. Seems to work ok, but I'm always wondering if I'm getting enough out of those little yeastybeasties...

Different people will tell you different things on this. I've done it both ways, and have settled on always making a starter for my White Labs yeast 24 hours in advance.

The difference in the fermentation is huge. With the starter, the fermentation just takes off like a bat out of hell. My current India Amber Ale looked like it was literally boiling in the carboy 8 hours after pitching a 1 pint starter of White Labs yeast. Nothing is better for the health and safety of your beer than a fast starting fermentation. Plus, it's pretty hard to "over pitch."

In contrast, when I pitch straight from the tube, it takes 24 hours to get going and never is as vigorous. Nothing wrong with doing it this way, but if you give your beer a ton of yeast, it will love you for it.

[fretlessman71]

My beer may love me for it, but will all of that yeast sediment be sitting at the bottom of my bottles an inch thick when they're all done? I'm trying to strike a balance between as little sediment as possible and still having bottle conditioned beer...

[Stumptown]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
My beer may love me for it, but will all of that yeast sediment be sitting at the bottom of my bottles an inch thick when they're all done? I'm trying to strike a balance between as little sediment as possible and still having bottle conditioned beer...

That shouldn't be a concern at all. By the time I bottle, whatever yeast is going to fall out has already done so for the most part. I've never had more than a small dusting of sediment in a bottle.

Many home brewers I know will rack fresh wort right on top of an inch thick yeast cake left over from the prior brew. That's about a billion times more yeast then you are pitching out of a White Labs vial. It will give you a quick and vicorous fermentation but won't affect sediment in your bottles.

If you are finding too much sediment, I would make sure you are using a secondary fermenter and wait until your beer is pretty clear before bottling. Usually I'm there within 2 weeks, but it can take 3.