Dry or Liquid

[Shakey_Dog]

Do you use dry or liguid yeast and why?

I have been using White Labs for about the past 4 or 5 years and have been very very happy with the results.  But from what I have read on this and other forums I think I am in the minority using liquid.  People seem to think it is a hassle.

So I thought I would put the question out there.  Dry v liquid,  you decide.

Don

[BeerSmith]

I started brewing in the days when dry yeast was the only option.

I have to say that when liquid yeast became available it changed the whole nature of brewing.  I could now duplicate styles that were not even possible before.

In case you can't tell, I'm a big liquid yeast fan.

Cheers!
Brad

[DesMoinesBrewer]

I prefer liquid.  I have used dry before but the liquid yeast takes home brewing to a whole new level in my opinion.  Many more style options, consistent quality, and ease of use.

-Brian

[maltdog]

Liquid (White Labs). I also started with dry yeast, as I'm sure most homebrewers have. But the different varieties of liquid yeasts available add whole new dimensions of flavor. A weizen, pils, scottish, any Belgian style etc with dry yeast?!? I think not!!

Plus, there's the whole mad scientist aspect

[Shakey_Dog]

Are you using starters?

I have not been but have been considering doing it.  Is the only real value of a starter a shorter lag time?

Don

[DesMoinesBrewer]

I always use starters...guess it's more like an "insurance policy" than anything else.  When I brew a 10 gallon batch, I make a 1.6 L starter the night before with a cup of dry malt and a pinch of yeast nutrients.

This way, lag is almost non-existent, your rocking-n-rollin' just a couple 2-3 hours after pitching.  Things get going fast, with little chance for any other little bugs to get going first.  Plus, fermentation is always vigorous and complete.  Been my experience anyway...for what it's worth.

-Brian

[liquidbrains]

Are you using starters?

Is the only real value of a starter a shorter lag time?

Yes, a short lag time is the only real benefit. But it is of such huge value. Less risk of contamination is the most sited reason, but long lag times can effect your flavor profile, too.

Any time I use a strain for the first time, I make a dozen or so slants, then step up from a slant whenever I want to use that strain again. Since I'm going to all this trouble (read: fun), there's no reason I shouldn't grow as large a starter as possible. A 1L starter is my absolute minimum in 5usg wort.

-L

[ttreml3]

I usually make a starter when I buy a whitelabs vial, but do not with the smack packs.  Also, if you brew enough styles that are close you can re-use the yeast, bring the cost per batch down.
I've re-used up to 8 times without contamination, though from what I've read of others experiences, that was pretty lucky.
Good luck

[hornbrau]

When using liquid yeast I would say that a starter is always recomended, unless your using one of the new XL smack packs.  A large population of healthy yeast not only leads to a shorter lag time but also a quicker and more complete fermentation.  If you underpitch, you increase the chance that the yeast will poop out before the fermentation is complete leading to a higher than expected FG.

[ol]

Dry.

Maybe I do not have enough experience but 80cts vs $6 (basically my grain bill for a 5gal batch), I go for dry and so far, I never had a problem, no rehydratation, just pitch the dry yeast.
So I do not see why adding 30% of cost on my batch just for yeast, I believe (tell me if I'm wrong) that the grains/hops are the one responsible for the flavor mainly, not yeast. I known more people claim the opposite (starting by the white lab website...).

I used liquid twice and I did not see a difference (except it spahed on my hands when I opened it up)... I guess the ultimate test is to make a batch and then split it using dry in one primary and liquid in the other primary!

[Shakey_Dog]

OL,  

Yes the grains and hops are most of the flavor for most beer.  If you have made a Belgain with regular ale yast dry or other you will not be happy with the results.  If you use the correct belgain yeast you will say WOW  what a diff.

I used dry yeast a long long time ago in a brewery far far away and was never very happy with my fermentaions or lack of.  Many times I had re pitch.  If you are just throwing it it dry and getting good results you are very very lucky.  

Dry is cheaper and that is for a reason.  It just does not perform as well as liquid.  I have done the side by side and it is no contest. Some people make slants from the slurry they have left in the fermentor and that brings the cost way down.  I have not done this yet..yet.

Give the wet stuff another try.

But as long as it is good.  No worries man

Don

[ol]

Thanks Shakey_dog,

You are right I have never made any belgian, I am so far just concern about making a good brown ale, then I will move on I guess...

[hornbrau]

Have to disagree with you here shakey. I use liquid yeast almost exclusivley but thats a choice made based on brewing different styles that benefit from the different yeasts, not because dry yeast is a poor performer.  A good fresh packet of dry yeast will produce an excellent beer and in fact the types of dry yeast are expanding, check out this site.

http://www.crosby-baker.com/DCL.htm

I would however recomend that if you using dry yeast buy the larger packets ~10+g or pitch 2 of the smaller 5-7g to gauruntee a healthy population of yeast for your beer.  And be wary of yeast that comes with a kit, if it just says "yeast" or "brewers yeast" on the packet toss it (actually you can put it in your wort at the end of the boil it makes great nutrients for your good yeast) I would try and stick with name brand yeast, and make sure it hasn't exceeded its expiration date.

[Shakey_Dog]

I am sure that dry yeast is better now than it was 7 or 8 years ago.  I use liquid by choice also and use yeast to style.  We agree on 99.9%

Cool..brew on

Don