Is dry yeast really a step down from liquid yeast?

That's fair enough and all...but any yeast will produce beer. Whether that yeast is the best for the specified style is not so clear-cut. At least WL lists yeast and style with a numerical value (WLP001):



If it were my time, I wouldn't be brewing a multitude of styles with it...

 

The beauty of homebrewing: brew the beers you like and brew them the way you like.

Having state that, the California Ale yeast strain is indeed a very versatile yeast strain. White Labs assigned a value of 4 to fourteen different styles of beer.

Cheers!

 

I agree, but it assigned a "2" to several of the beers listed by Wyeast.

 

The various Chico yeasts are all a little different. My favorite is making a starter from a bottle of SNPA, however it does take longer to clear than 1056/001/US-05. Most of the time, I'd prefer to make a starter from a bottle of commercial beer regardless of the specific yeast: it's usually cheaper and you get to drink a nice beer.

That said, I always have some dry yeast on hand for last minute things or emergencies. Dry is as good as liquid, but different, just as the supposedly same liquid strains are different.

 

Oh for God's sake. Would you use 1056 for all these styles? Let me guess... "Yes, I would, because the yeast manufacturer said so."

 

I agree the yeast used needs to be within style, as long as your brewing to a specific style.

 

Some amazing beers can be made from dry yeast. Most commercial breweries use liquid, aside from the obvious "more varieties" reason, because it tends to perform better duration wise when propagating for an extended number of generations.

 

I use US-05 for the majority of my beers. It's reliable, clean as all get up, cheap, and easy to use. It has the added advantage that it stores well, so you can stock up on it. The flavor profile (pretty much non-existent, IMO) is exactly what I'm looking for in the hop and/or malt focused beers I prefer. If I'm brewing a Saison, a Belgian, or anything else in which the yeast has a more prominent role, I'll use a liquid. But that's only because the selection among dry is limited. If there was a dry version of 3711 that performed as well, for example, I'd use it in a heartbeat.

Asking "Is dry yeast really a step down from liquid yeast" is like asking if White Labs is a step down from Wyeast (or vice-versa). The quality is, for all intent and purpose, the same.

 

I agree that US-05 is a great yeast.

You made mention of: “If there was a dry version of 3711 that performed as well, for example, I'd use it in a heartbeat.” I have only used Danstar Belle Saison dry yeast once (they gave out packets at the 2013 NHC). The Saison I made with that beer was very similar to 3711. It was spice forward and highly attenuating (OG of 1.059 and FG of 1.001). I certainly can’t claim that Danstar Belle Saison = 3711 but it performed similarly for that one batch I brewed with it.

Cheers!

 

I see no reason to dis dry yeast in any way. Always works like a champ for me. Not to dis liquid either, but for standard beers with neutral yeast, US-05 works like a champ, as does nottingham. The other dry yeasts I've used have not failed me either.

 

Good to know. Thanks for that.

 

Used US-05, WB-06, and Nottingham all recently for Berliners.
They do the job but do struggle against the low ph, I usually am only hitting 1.014.
I should really rehydrate it...beers are tasting awesome though don't really feel like they need to be dryer.

 

I mostly use liquid yeasts unless I don't have time to make a starter. I started brewing back in the time when dry yeasts weren't very good and liquid was a vast improvement. I know that's not the case any more, but liquid yeast is still my preference.

 

Old habits are hard to break. I grew up in the 60's. To this day, when I'm in the market for a new car, I won't even bother to test drive Japanese - or any other Asian car, for that matter. Fortunately, I started brewing when US-05 was already available (actually, it was called US-56 at the time)

 

For someone who basically dabbles in this hobby (me) why shouldn't I accept the recommendation of the yeast mfgr for the appropriate styles that are good for a specific yeast?

 

IMO, in this case they expand their lists beyond what's reasonable/useful. For example, can you make a Dry Irish Stout with 1056? Sure. But there are better choices. But speaking in general of hobbies and manufacturer recommendations... I don't think I've been involved in any hobbies where the suppliers knew more about the hobby (in practice) than the collective hobbyists.

 

Because, not counting the recommendations everybody agrees with, yeast manufacturers' recommendations are designed solely to fatten their bottom line.

 

SNPA no longer uses Chico for bottle conditioning. They recently switched to Lallemand's CBC yeast. I wouldn't recommend it for primary fermentation.

 

Damn... when did that happen?

 

I'm not sure exactly when, but I do know it is very recent. I would guess within the last 6 months and 2.5 months ago was when I first heard about it.