Is dry yeast really a step down from liquid yeast?

I use dry yeast all the time. I usually wash the yeast and re-use. If it is something with a very specific yeast strain, I fork over the cash for the liquid. But IMHO, dry is just as good when used properly, I think that is the key. Proper usage. I have Nottingham, US-05, S-04 T-58 and Coopers on hand.

 

I use dry yeast whenever it is appropriate for a given style. IMO, dry yeast is of comparable quality to liquid yeast.

The down side of dry yeast is that there are limited strains available.

Cheers!

 

I've all but given up on liquid yeast in most of my brews, after getting better efficiency with Safale 05 and the ease of use vs a smackpack. For years I only used dry yeast but after leaving homebrewing for a little while and then getting back into it, I picked up liquid yeast and thought I was getting a better product because of the price. Then I brewed a recipe that preferred dry yeast instead of liquid... I used the 05 and was amazed at the efficiency for converting sugars and the flavor from the yeast. I then brewed my regular house IPA with 1056, the usual, and 05 and the difference was noticible by even my buddies that regularly drink PBR. I switched to 05 and haven't really used liquid yeast in years.

 

I personally prefer the WL and Wy versions of Chico, as I have had better results with them than the dry. Of course, man does not live by Chico alone, and one cannot beat the selection of liquid yeasts now available from WL, Wy, and other sources.

 

Did you, by any chance, not make yeast starter with your liquid yeast? Since US-05 and 1056 are the same strain, it doesn't matter which one you use. The dry is certainly easier to work with.

That said, I don't want all my beers to taste the same, and I certainly don't brew to save money so the higher cost isn't a deterrent.

So, to answer OP's question, whether one is better than the other is going to be up to personal taste...not intrinsic quality.

 

I think JohnSnowNW has a very good observation, the US-05 IS the same Chico strain as the 1056. However, there are dry equivalents for all the most widely used strains, so you don't have to settle for the same flavor profile from the yeast. I think it just comes down to how happy you are with your results, cause we all do things a certain way cause it works for us.

 

There are?

 

The Chico yeast on the market are ostensively the same, but I have tasted a split batch between 1056, 001, and 05 and there are some subtle differences. The group preferred 1056 by a little over 001, and US 05 was last. I still use US-05 if it is convenient to do so.

On a BA thread, SNbill said that the SN yeast today is different than what you can buy from the yeast houses. Might have to bump up some some a bottle someday.

 

Other than being limited by the choices of dry, dry is just as good as liquid. With the plus of not having to make starters, and getting a larger pitch with less money/work, there's the plus side of it over the liquid.

However, if you brew different styles, and rely on the yeast to drive the beer in style, dry won't be your choice.

 

No yeast starter in my comparison.

 

If you didn't make a starter, you pitched a lot more cells with the dry yeast than with the liquid.

 

There's your problem.

 

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The "efficiency" should be the same, and the subtle differences in flavor based on how each company produces the yeast, or other factors impacting flavor, will be up to personal preference.

I can see that. There was an episode of Brew Masters where, I believe, Dogfish head 120 had to be dumped because it wasn't fermenting normally...and they were talking about brewing the next batch with an older house strain.

 

There are about 8-10 different Dry yeast strains, I listed a few above. Nottingham is a good english ale yeast, it's a beast. For the more specialized yeast like for a Belgian I would go liquid. But for the general pale/amber styles I would def use dry.

 

I guess we have different definition of "widely used strains" and "equivalent." I use about 5 different English yeasts (all very popular and widely used), and they all make different beer. I don't think Nottingham is the equivalent of all five. Throw in Windsor, and you're still not there.

 

I personally have used a number of dry yeast strains to brew British style beers:

· Danstar Nottingham. I have read where this is an equivalent to WLP039.

· Fermentis Safale S-04. This yeast strain is reportedly the Whitbread yeast strain.

· Danstar Windsor

· Muntons Ale Dry Yeast

· Coopers

All of the above dry yeast strains make tasty English style beers.

Cheers!

 

Those strains still don't cover all the common English liquid strains, if that's what mean.

 

Yes, the choices are limited, that is a con against dry. However if a person brews a common style beer that has a dry equivalent, then my opinion is to go dry. But then again if I do buy liquid or dry, I pitch and then do a second directly on a cake or wash and make a starter.

 

The California Ale yeast (US-05/WY1056/WLP001) is a pretty versatile yeast. Below is a list of beer styles that Wyeast lists as being applicable for 1056:

American Amber Ale

American Barleywine

American Brown Ale

American IPA

American Pale Ale

American Stout

Braggot

Brown Porter

Christmas/Winter Specialty Spiced Beer

Cream Ale

Dry Stout

Fruit Beer

Imperial IPA

Irish Red Ale

Other Smoked Beer

Russian Imperial Stout

Spice, Herb, or Vegetable Beer

Strong Scotch Ale

Wood-Aged Beer

I recently brewed a Grodziskie (Polish Smoked Wheat Beer) using US-05 and it turned out really well.

Cheers!