Do liquid yeasts really make that much difference?

[monkeyboy]

All,
I realise this might belong in the yeast forum, but my guess is more people read this one...
So far i've used safale s04 and s05 exclusively, and my beer its turning out fine. However, i've been considering trying some of the liquid yeasts that are out there, like the white labs range at the malt miller. Based on the experience of the old hands out there, how big a difference do the liquid yeasts make? Is it only noticeable to those with very highly trained tastebuds, or is it immediately obvious to anyone?
I'm considering splitting a beer across two FVs and pitching s04 in one, and perhaps WLP002 in another. Assuming all other things are equal, is the difference likely to be significant?

Thanks.

[mysterio]

One thing to keep in mind is that most commercial microbreweries in this country are using dried yeast, so if you're not able to make excellent, world class beer with dried yeast then you have to look somewhere else.

That said, I prefer liquid yeast, enough to pay a little extra and make a starter. You really must make a starter for best results, by the way.

WLP002, yeah that's a fantastic yeast and blows SO4 out of the water, I reckon most people who have tried both will say the same. Once you've tried that there is a whole world of English ale yeasts to explore.

They really come into their own when you want to brew something different, say a Belgian ale, hefeweizen, lager, etc.

[lancsSteve]

+1 to the specialists - dried yeasts don't do wit or weissen or belgian justice and the dry lager yeasts seem to have the wrong sort of character.

The variety is a huge draw - and their availbility is now so much wider with malt miller and thrifty stocking white labs.

I've succesfully been a slacker and just poured a vial in - takes a while to get going but can work though a starter obviously better

[Kev888]

I'm going to start trying liquid yeasts soon so am at a similar sort of point too. I've no complaints about the Notts or S04 that I normally use and all else being equal I'd prefer to keep the convenience of the dry stuff. But I want more choice of yeast strain and to experiment with the different characteristics; that seems to mean using liquid yeast due to the wider range available so I'm going to have to take the plunge.

That said it looks fairly straight forward to actually use the stuff so its perhaps not a big issue; from what I can gather greater complication comes in if you choose to start splitting and propagating tiny samples; I'll probably start fairly modestly to begin with - just doing whats needed to make a vial suitable for a double-corny sized batch.

Cheers
Kev

[bigdave]

I too am considering liquid yeasts. Ive got a lager to brew in the new year and thought that may be a good point to try one out.

We'll have to dig this tread up in the new year and report out yeasty findings.

[unclepumble]

The yeast you choose to brew with is the single most contributory factor to what beer you get out of the bucket at the end of fermentation.

The chosen yeast strain provides 80-90% of the flavour profile for the brew and also what temperature it is fermented at dictates the final product, you can mess around with different malts etc but the yeast is the decider to what beer you produce, get reading on the net and a good source of information is chris whites new book titled Yeast, its a good read, not too heavy and very useful if you want to learn a bit more and get full value out of your yeast, Liquid yeasts are good value if you know how to get several brews out of them.

UP

[Dennis King]

I much prefer liquid yeast. I find they give a much polished Finnish to the taste. As mysterio says WLP002 is a great yeast but I also would recommend WLP005 British. Splitting also makes it a similar price to dried yeast.

[leedsbrew]

You won't look back lads once youve tried liquid yeasts! I still have a ready supply of us05 in the freezer but I wouldn't go back to saf04!

To be honest kev888 splitting the vial and then using the splits for starters is t a big faff! Once you've got you splits it just like using a vial! I get the same if not a bit more yeast in each split to be honest!

[jmc]

You won't look back lads once youve tried liquid yeasts! I still have a ready supply of us05 in the freezer but I wouldn't go back to saf04!

Hi leedsbrew

Like many others I too am thinking of trying liquid yeasts, but it seems like a bit of a black-art to me at the moment.

I see lots or recommendations on the forum but the main thing I haven't understood yet is what specific qualities they add compared to say Saf04 etc.

Is it a more interesting flavour profile, cleaner taste, attenuation differences, ability to clear, alcohol tolerance?

Maybe some of the advantages are subjective, however I'd really appreciate getting more feedback from people who use liquid yeasts explaining why the brew benefits from the use of a particular yeast.

Cheers
John

[yogester]

Do liquid yeasts offer you a potentially better beer? Yes.

BUT, having a well controlled (temperature, pitching rate, nutrients etc) US-05/Nottingham/S-04 fermentation will result in a bigger increase in beer quality than jumping to liquid yeasts without having the basic fermentation kinetics under control. Like a previous poster said, most of the best microbreweries are pitching S-04 or US-05 and they obviously create cracking beers.

A well maintained fermentation with a suitable-for-the-style liquid yeast at a correct pitching rate (~1.5 x 10^6 cells/ml/ºPlato), or even preferably a 2nd pitched liquid yeast from a smaller gravity brew, will produce the best results but if you have not got the other things under control it is not worth the effort and may even end up with a poorer beer...

</rant>

[jubby]

My opinion is that liquid yeast is best for most types of beer. There are beers that rely entirely on the yeast and fermentation temperature to provide the taste (Adnams Broadside for example)
The only dry yeast i use is US-05, but very rarely. It's important to note that liquid yeasts have a much finer temperature tolerance, so if you don't have temperature controlled fermentation it's a bit hit & miss and impossible to achieve consistency.

[dwhyte]

How about using the liquid yeast to brew a high gravity beer.
Then you can re-use the yeast from that and get the beer to drink as well

[Bribie]

I don't have access to White Labs here, but the Wyeast (smack pack) yeasts are similar in range and some styles I would not even consider making on dry yeasts. Fantastic yeasts are Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire which is an old "Yorkshire Stone Square" strain. You can emulate the Yorkshire Square by rousing and beating the yeast a couple of times a day as described in GW's Real Ale Book and the beers come out silky smooth - another good one is Wyeast 1084 Irish Ale, which makes brilliant stouts and reds.

However I still use dry yeasts for some styles. For example for a good 'fake' lager or an American Cream Ale, US-05 works just fine as it ferments out super clean. By contrast I attempted a Ruddles County style - Bramling Cross 'n all, and unfortunately had a 'starter disaster' with my crop of recultured yeast originally from a liquid pack. It was a weekend and I pitched US-05 instead. Turned out drinkable but a bit "meh".

You do need to get to grips with doing yeast starters however, I find they are easy using some spray malt and the key is sanitise, sanitise, sanitise.

[Brownster]

All,
Based on the experience of the old hands out there, how big a difference do the liquid yeasts make? Is it only noticeable to those with very highly trained tastebuds, or is it immediately obvious to anyone?
Thanks.

Like you I have used SF04 and also Nottingham almost exclusivley and I too wondered just how much difference the yeast would make and was somewhat doubtful until I tried it.
What happened was I brewed a Harveys' Sussex best clone with SF04. It came out very well and I was pleased too, but it lacked that fruitiness present in the real thing.
Then my brother brewed the exact same recipe but bought a yeast slant from Brewlabs, cultured it up etc. and then I tasted it, it was a revelation I am telling you. The difference was marked.
Subsequently I did the brew again using the yeast slant and had the same great results.

Having said that, I think some beers stand well without using a special fruity ale yeast, I now regularly make the GW Timothy Taylor Landlord using Nottingham and I love it, there is enough great flavours going on in there to keep me well happy.

So I would say go for it and try it, especially if you are trying to capture a certain flavour that you have tasted in the real thing. As others have said splitting a yeast makes it really cost effective too.

Cheers,
Wayne.

[Kev888]

To be honest kev888 splitting the vial and then using the splits for starters is t a big faff! Once you've got you splits it just like using a vial! I get the same if not a bit more yeast in each split to be honest!

Hmm, I guess you're right; with a bit of planning I it all looks fairly straight forward and I'm no stranger to making starters and re-pitching salvaged yeast. Its more the business with innoculating agar and so on that will require a bit of extra thought if I go there really (in for a penny and all that). But i do have a lab coat somewhere so its a start

Cheers
Kev