Why different views on the Liquid vs Dried question?

[Kev888]

Just to be clear, THIS ISN'T A 'WHICH IS BEST' QUESTION. I already know what I think, but I'm really interested in trying to understand why opinions differ so radically.

I've been using liquid yeast for a while now, mostly whitelabs but not exclusively, and have been able to compare across numerous brews in quite a few styles - though aside from hefes they're all British ones. My overwhelming conclusion is that:

• Liquid varieties include strains which are 'far' more appropriate for some styles than are available in dried, which can definitely be a major improvement and in a couple of cases I'd never go back. Fair enough.
• But conversely, where (whats generally agreed to be) the same strain is available in both, I usually see little difference between dried and liquid; some 'very' minor ones perhaps, but really nothing to excite me

I know that I'm not alone in this yet I also know many people disagree with the second point completely. We could argue the toss about subtleties all day long and not get anywhere, but what interests me is that some say they have seen real step-changes by using liquid, which is 'so' different to my experience that I'm really intrigued by it.

So calling on brewers with lots of experience of both dried and liquid I'd be keen to hear 'why' you think there can be such disagreement - e.g. could there actually be something that some people are doing with liquid yeast that others aren't or is it more about different sensitivities to tastes or different degrees of perfection etc. Some very credible forum members seem genuinely convinced, so I'm not willing to brush it off as just some kind of snobbery (though I'd suspect that happens too)

Cheers
Kev

[TC2642]

I'm not that experienced with liquid yeasts although I have used them in the past, my mainstay is SO4 and SO5 and I'm perfectly happy with the results that I get, I do mainly make hoppy beers. It may just be that the amount of hops I uses covers any faults but I can usually notice phenols and the like so I'm not so sure it's down to that. For specialty beers like Belgians etc. I do go for liquid yeasts since I don't find the flavour profile with the dry yeast as good.

Although I will at some point go into using different liquid yeasts but at the moment it's all about the hops and malt for me and there's enough there to experiment with for several lifetimes.

[InsideEdge]

I've used white labs, wyeast and brewlab liquid yeast. about half a dozen strains in total.

I certainly wouldnt describe liquid as better than dry yeast. In fact for hoppy pale ales/ipas etc US05 would be my go to yeast. Given the extra effort involved in using a liquid yeast I've always been slightly disappointed to be honest, especially given the fact many people rave about the improvement they are. I've never noticed it to be honest.

Maybe it is down to beer styles/fermentation control.

[Dr. Dextrin]

I hadn't realised this was an issue, probably because I hadn't realised that there were that many yeast strains that were available both in dried and liquid form. So how many are there? My experience of dried yeast is limited to Nottingham, Windsor and SO4, none of which I regard as particularly great yeasts, so if I was offered the choice of any of those in liquid form (are they available?), I probably wouldn't bother given the likely extra cost. But would you classify (say) pitching a yeast slurry from a Nottingham brew into a second brew as a "liquid" yeast , even if the original yeast was dried?

Just guessing, I'd say that any difference between dried and liquid is likely to be due to the health and viability of the yeast after it's been dried and then re-hydrated. And liquid yeasts are probably also affected by their past history - how long since they were produced, storage temperature, etc. Presumably the commercial producers produce top-notch yeast before it starts its journey to you, but when re-pitching your own yeast, I've also heard that its health might be affected by previous pitching rates, fermentation temperatures, etc, etc. So that's another load of variables to consider.

It seems to me that there is lots of scope for a bad experience once in a while with both dried and liquid yeasts.

[Dennis King]

I found at the spring thing and hot break competitions I sampled several beers made from dried yeast that where very good, one brewed by Barnsley brewer got second place to my third and was very good indeed, but when I've used it the beer always seems more bland to me. Must admit not used a lot of dried yeast recently, moved to harvesting from bottles within a year of starting in the 70's. Since then I've probably only used dried yeast 4 or 5 times. Might be all our tastes and taste buds are different or the different conditions we brew under.

[Beer O'Clock]

My understanding is that EVERY home brewed beer is infected. It's just a matter of degree.

As home brewing is not usually a "closed" system, I think there would be a lot more chance of things going wrong with a live as apposed to a dried yeast.

I admit to being a bit wasteful in my attempts to reduce infection by simply throwing a freshly opened vial of WLP-whatever into the FV. I don't make starters unless brewing a lager style or re-invigourating some older vials.
My sanitation processes are, to my mind, quite thorough. But I have had issues with starters developing some unexpected flavours. Thus my decision to pour the vial straight in. Since doing this, I have had less problems. There have been many fewer issues with dried.

I don't know if it's a handling issue or one of "stability".

[Kev888]

Interesting chaps, thanks. Just been surfing around looking at various of the points raised.

I'm beginning to think its perhaps partially due to what types of yeast strain are compared - clean ones like US-05/wlp001/Wyeast1056 could be far less different between dried and liquid than more characterful styles.

Also, maybe a like-for-like comparison isn't actually valid anyway. There is debate over whether some strains are comparable or not in any case - for instance even in the example I just gave which finds lots of agreement, I would say wlp001 is a bit more flocculant than US-05 so perhaps 'similar' rather than 'the same' is the best one should say - in which case my second point in the OP is somewhat meaningless.

But over and above that (from reading around forums) I'm beginning to 'suspect' that its mostly down to my first point anyway - e.g. people find a good strain in liquid (as Dr Dextrin suggests, in many cases if you're using liquid why wouldn't you?) but then that gets portrayed as liquid being better (full-stop), rather than as there actually just not being such an appropriate strain in dried.

And theres lots of approaches - I always make a starter with liquid and sometimes will grow up dried yeast too - partially due to batch size - so can compare similar processes. Whereas other people will try pitching either type direct or just dried, may or may not re-hydrate dried etc. I'd imagine theres a massive range of pitching rates going on, many of which affect the yeast in one way or another...

Cheers
Kev

[Dennis King]

Comparing strains, but from a slightly different angle I have used Whitelabs Essex ale several times, reputed to be the old original Ridleys strain but recently have been getting live yeast from a local Essex brewery and the brewer confirmed it is the Ridleys strain but I find there is a difference between the two but at the same time I can see some similarities, both are very strong top fermenters. The brewer also told me they never wash or rinse so it is continually used compared to the whitelabs yeast which I assume is propagated in their lab.

[Kev888]

Interesting, I'd wondered about differences between manufacturers even if the strain's original hereditary was the same, but I'd not thought about changes since then and/or in different breweries. I guess things change and change differently in different places, so perhaps there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to exactly what any strain is (except for a given generation at a given place).

I find breweries like this impressive - even with all the effort I go to to avoid infection, I'd still be reluctant to re-use yeast time after time, though it would be most satisfying to develop my own strains if I could.

Cheers
Kev

[Martin G]

Sometimes wonder how accurate our perception of taste and smell is, and how much it is influenced by what we already know. I recently went to an event where there was a beer tasting game, there were 6 beers including Sainsburies own lager and Morrisons bitter. We had to guess which were which. Turned out that the glasses all had mixtures of all of the beers, despite being a bit confused nobody worked out what had been done.

[Kev888]

Sneaky

[FuzzySteve]

....I'd still be reluctant to re-use yeast time after time, though it would be most satisfying to develop my own strains if I could...

I'm with you on that one. I'd love to take an existing strain and be able to re-use it repeatedly in a 'house' beer without using acid wash to clean it up. I guess that I don't know enough about yeast to understand how strains mutate, but harking back a few centuries I wonder if they even considered or worried about mutation and just dumped fresh wort on the old cake time after time. Maybe that's my naïve belief of the old ways though

[timbo41]

I suspect kevs original post could be of
great relevance to brewers trying to produce
the same beer with a large degree of consistency.
In my own case I rather like the randomized
factor of buying a yeast,in my case whatever
is on offer through the various suppliers
and seeing what I end up with. I rarely rebrew.
I've reversed on old yeast cakes and added a new strain,
so I imagine none of my brews are standard.

Rarely get a bad batch though

[Beer O'Clock]

I suspect kevs original post could be of
great relevance to brewers trying to produce
the same beer with a large degree of consistency.
In my own case I rather like the randomized
factor of buying a yeast,in my case whatever
is on offer through the various suppliers
and seeing what I end up with. I rarely rebrew.
I've reversed on old yeast cakes and added a new strain,
so I imagine none of my brews are standard.

Rarely get a bad batch though

That's a good point.
I've never bothered with consistency per se, because I rarely repeat a brew. The exception being my take on a Coopers Sparkling Ale. It is desirable, to me, to replicate this as accurately as possible. Thus when the Platinum strain of WLP-009 is available, I buy 3 and do 3 straight identical (well as close as possible with my set-up) batches.

I think, like you, I like the discovery. What will this strain produce ? Will it suit the style better than....?

It could take me quite a few years to come to any firm conclusions