Safale s-04

[Saisonator]

I think lazy is a bit harsh. As many will attest on here, good results can be obtained with dry yeast. Maintaining yeast at commercial level requires considerably more care and attention than homebrewing, with investment in expensive lab equipment to properly manage the yeast, pitch rate, viability, contamination and maintain consistency. Dry yeast offers a cost effective, risk free alternative where pitch rate can be easily managed.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

If I spend £4.00 + for a pint ale, I would hope that it would have some characteristics that will distinguish it from another £4.00 + pint of ale.
I wonder if the hop and grain bill alone are enough to give a brewery it's own style of beer?
Bitters for example have a fairly consistent set of ingredients, if all breweries were to use S-04 or Nottingham then you will have some pretty generic tasting beers around the country.
If this was not the case then why would all breweries not just sprinkle.

 

[simon12]

Small breweries will use dry yeast alot for consistency like Sadfield said they don't have a lab.

 

[Sadfield]

If I spend £4.00 + for a pint ale, I would hope that it would have some characteristics that will distinguish it from another £4.00 + pint of ale.
I wonder if the hop and grain bill alone are enough to give a brewery it's own style of beer?
Bitters for example have a fairly consistent set of ingredients, if all breweries were to use S-04 or Nottingham then you will have some pretty generic tasting beers around the country.
If this was not the case then why would all breweries not just sprinkle.

If all breweries did use the same dry yeast, then beer may well become generic. Generic doesn't however mean poor quality, and it is possible for a brewery to make poor beer with an unique yeast.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[trueblue]

I think lazy is a bit harsh. As many will attest on here, good results can be obtained with dry yeast. Maintaining yeast at commercial level requires considerably more care and attention than homebrewing, with investment in expensive lab equipment to properly manage the yeast, pitch rate, viability, contamination and maintain consistency. Dry yeast offers a cost effective, risk free alternative where pitch rate can be easily managed.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

When I can I get to a brewery about 30 miles from me for live yeast. They skim into a bucket leave in a fridge the pitch into the next brew no rinsing or washing. This practice has gone on uninterrupted since 1974 and at the brewery they originally got the yeast from over 100 years. So it can be done with the right strain. They have won the CAMRA champion beer either once or twice. You would only require a lab for strains like Adnams which is a duel strain but there are plenty of more easily maintained strains available. By keeping a strain going it develops to give that brewery it's own unique strain why would you not want that.

 

[Sadfield]

When I can I get to a brewery about 30 miles from me for live yeast. They skim into a bucket leave in a fridge the pitch into the next brew no rinsing or washing. This practice has gone on uninterrupted since 1974 and at the brewery they originally got the yeast from over 100 years. So it can be done with the right strain. They have won the CAMRA champion beer either once or twice. You would only require a lab for strains like Adnams which is a duel strain but there are plenty of more easily maintained strains available. By keeping a strain going it develops to give that brewery it's own unique strain why would you not want that.

This simple and minimal practice works, although it helps if brewing the same batch size and OG, whilst harvesting and pitching at the same point. Not all breweries operate in the same way with the same setup, using a single yeast.

So, pitching dry yeast is lazy brewing, but pitching a bucket of slurry without any quality control isn't?




Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Ciaran12s]

I think lazy is a bit harsh. As many will attest on here, good results can be obtained with dry yeast. Maintaining yeast at commercial level requires considerably more care and attention than homebrewing, with investment in expensive lab equipment to properly manage the yeast, pitch rate, viability, contamination and maintain consistency. Dry yeast offers a cost effective, risk free alternative where pitch rate can be easily managed.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

I've been getting in to making starters and harvesting recently. This is as a trial run and practice for getting in to using liquid yeasts because "they're better".
Having used only Google for my research, all the info I can turn up is basically that today's dry yeasts are as good as any liquid, it's only the greater selection of liquid yeast that makes them more favourable. That gap is beginning to close apparently.

 

[trueblue]

This simple and minimal practice works, although it helps if brewing the same batch size and OG, whilst harvesting and pitching at the same point. Not all breweries operate in the same way with the same setup, using a single yeast.

So, pitching dry yeast is lazy brewing, but pitching a bucket of slurry without any quality control isn't?




Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

As they use the same for the several different beers in their range and along with the impeccable sanitation involved I would say it is a lot more involved the opening a packet. For example their winter beers will need a higher pitching rate than the bitters and porters but is still the same yeast. Maybe I was simplifying it to much by saying they throw in a bucket. The harvesting, not slurry but top cropped at a prime time, yeast is maintained without a lab just good professional brewery practice.

 

[trueblue]

I've been getting in to making starters and harvesting recently. This is as a trial run and practice for getting in to using liquid yeasts because "they're better".
Having used only Google for my research, all the info I can turn up is basically that today's dry yeasts are as good as any liquid, it's only the greater selection of liquid yeast that makes them more favourable. That gap is beginning to close apparently.

I will always maintain there is a difference. When Wyeast came to the UK the shop I used at the time was asked to be an importer. As this was pre internet days he asked some of his regulars to experiment splitting the same batches with Wyeast and dried yeast.At the time I would culture from bottles but used dried yeast. We delivered bottles to shop and was given other peoples beers for blind tasting. When he had all our results in he told me we had voted 100% the Wyeast to taste better. I think it was somewhere between 15-20 brewers took part.

 

[Sadfield]

There appears to be plenty of globally respected brewery's that would disagree that using dry yeast is inferior or less skilled. Cloudwater, Kernel and De Ranke are three that come instantly to mind.

 

[Ciaran12s]

I will always maintain there is a difference. When Wyeast came to the UK the shop I used at the time was asked to be an importer. As this was pre internet days he asked some of his regulars to experiment splitting the same batches with Wyeast and dried yeast.At the time I would culture from bottles but used dried yeast. We delivered bottles to shop and was given other peoples beers for blind tasting. When he had all our results in he told me we had voted 100% the Wyeast to taste better. I think it was somewhere between 15-20 brewers took part.

I am going to give some liquid yeasts a go. To be honest I'm hoping to not notice a difference to save on money and effort haha. But if I do then I will continue use them. I am actually enjoying making the starters and harvesting.

 

[Gunge]

I will always maintain there is a difference. When Wyeast came to the UK the shop I used at the time was asked to be an importer. As this was pre internet days he asked some of his regulars to experiment splitting the same batches with Wyeast and dried yeast.At the time I would culture from bottles but used dried yeast. We delivered bottles to shop and was given other peoples beers for blind tasting. When he had all our results in he told me we had voted 100% the Wyeast to taste better. I think it was somewhere between 15-20 brewers took part.

Pre internet days, huh? Presumably, dry yeasts have come along a bit since then. I'm not arguing with you - I've never used liquid yeasts so can't comment for or against. All I know for sure is that my beers, brewed with Notty / CML / S04 etc etc are consistently better than practically any shop stuff. That'll do.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Beavertown use US-05. You'd be hard-pressed to criticise the quality of any of their beers.

 

[trueblue]

Pre internet days, huh? Presumably, dry yeasts have come along a bit since then. I'm not arguing with you - I've never used liquid yeasts so can't comment for or against. All I know for sure is that my beers, brewed with Notty / CML / S04 etc etc are consistently better than practically any shop stuff. That'll do.

SO-4 was the one we used in the experiment.

 

[trueblue]

I am going to give some liquid yeasts a go. To be honest I'm hoping to not notice a difference to save on money and effort haha. But if I do then I will continue use them. I am actually enjoying making the starters and harvesting.

Please make your own mind up. As for cost I get at least 6 brews per pack and I know you have to use malt extract but it still works it works out cheaper to use live yeast with good management.

 

[trueblue]

There appears to be plenty of globally respected brewery's that would disagree that using dry yeast is inferior or less skilled. Cloudwater, Kernel and De Ranke are three that come instantly to mind.

The only one of those I have tried is Kernel and personally I thought over hopped, over priced and over hyped. A lot of micros will use dried yeast because they chuck in sh!t loads of hops to cater for the craft trade so they are not interested in making sublime beers of character. If that's what people want fine but I will stick to beers with more than one dimension.

 

[Saisonator]

If I was to make a hoppy IPA, especially American style, I wouldn't bother with liquid yeast.

 

[Sadfield]

The only one of those I have tried is Kernel and personally I thought over hopped, over priced and over hyped. A lot of micros will use dried yeast because they chuck in sh!t loads of hops to cater for the craft trade so they are not interested in making sublime beers of character. If that's what people want fine but I will stick to beers with more than one dimension.

:laugh2:

 

[svenito]

I've made a dunkel Weizen with dried yeast (M20) and a regular Weizen with liquid yeast. I definitely noticed more yeast character in the liquid yeast.

However this is a miniscule sample size on two similar but different beers. My reasoning is that liquid yeast might be better if the yeast character plays an important role in the beer like in a Weizen.

But as I said, small sample size. I'm planning another Weizen soon with the same recipe, so I might try a dry yeast for that one. Any suggestions on a good Bavarian wheat dry yeast?

 

[BarnBrian]

Can't understand why we're getting several Brian Blessed clones on the forum lately, the ones with the only opinion that is gospel.:bla:

 

[Saisonator]

Can't understand why we're getting several Brian Blessed clones on the forum lately, the ones with the only opinion that is gospel.:bla:

Eh?
I just see people with different opinions, what's wrong with that?