Dry yeast vs. liquid yeast?

If it were that simple, then we’d all be in agreement that making yeast starters is a terrible idea.

[quote=“Denny”][quote=“RevLeonidas”]

I would take issue with your conclusion.[/quote][/quote]

How?

[quote=“RevLeonidas”]…it’s but simple Mathematics as to why liquid yeast is always superior to dry yeast. In general terms, a liquid yeast culture contains a far smaller population of viable yeast than its dry counterpart; the larger the yeast population, the more likely are the defects: it’s just about the numbers; you know, it’s more likely that a group of 100,000 living beings has fewer sick and deformed or dysfunctional than a group of 500,000,000,000 living beings; it’s just basic logic.

Furthermore, in my brewing experiences this year, I’ve used both dry yeast, and starters grown in sterile liquid yeast cultures; the liquid yeast superiority was clearly obvious.[/quote]

So by your logic it would be better to pitch half a packet?

I think either work equally well, it depends more on each strain and what your looking for.

…half packet or whole packet, you are still selecting from a compromisd population; it’s not about the total number, it’s about the starting number: e.g., 1 is less than 1,000. With 1,000 choices, I have more chances of a flawed choice. With one choice, chances are high that this is not only a good choice, but the best choice.

Still not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that when yeast cells divide at the lab it’s more likely to result in harmful mutations than when they divide on your kitchen counter?

[quote=“RevLeonidas”]…it’s but simple Mathematics as to why liquid yeast is always superior to dry yeast. In general terms, a liquid yeast culture contains a far smaller population of viable yeast than its dry counterpart; the larger the yeast population, the more likely are the defects: it’s just about the numbers; you know, it’s more likely that a group of 100,000 living beings has fewer sick and deformed or dysfunctional than a group of 500,000,000,000 living beings; it’s just basic logic.

Furthermore, in my brewing experiences this year, I’ve used both dry yeast, and starters grown in sterile liquid yeast cultures; the liquid yeast superiority was clearly obvious.[/quote]
OK, never heard this before, but by your own logic you could also say that a big population has a better chance for a few Einsteins thus producing a much better product. Regardless of this flawed logic, pitching adequate numbers of yeast is always going to be the better solution. With wet vs dry, i think the biggest differentiater is one company’s yeast bank versus another’s. I use dry a lot with often no problem as all as well as a reduced lag time.

I’m not sure I’m following you. If that one choice is flawed than your screwed. I don’t think that dry yeast has a higher % of flawed yeast, but it might.

Do you ever repitch yeast from a batch because that’s gonna only have 80% viability or so. which I’m sure is far worse percent then a pack of dry yeast or fresh liquid yeast vial. The funny part is that it’s said that the yeast performs better after a few generations, even though your repitching some dead and flawed cells.

[quote=“Denny”][quote=“RevLeonidas”]…it’s but simple Mathematics as to why liquid yeast is always superior to dry yeast. In general terms, a liquid yeast culture contains a far smaller population of viable yeast than its dry counterpart; the larger the yeast population, the more likely are the defects: it’s just about the numbers; you know, it’s more likely that a group of 100,000 living beings has fewer sick and deformed or dysfunctional than a group of 500,000,000,000 living beings; it’s just basic logic.

Furthermore, in my brewing experiences this year, I’ve used both dry yeast, and starters grown in sterile liquid yeast cultures; the liquid yeast superiority was clearly obvious.[/quote]

I would take issue with your conclusion.[/quote]

Agreed.I need much more convincing reasoning and evidence than this to buy into this idea.For one thing,if dry yeast is supposedly defective by way of sheer number of cells,then why does it have a shelf life that’s much longer than liquid yeast?If it were harboring a proportionately higher number of defective cells,I would definitely expect it to have a much shorter shelf life,because it would be inherently prone to instability from the very outset of packaging.Secondly,I would need to know exactly what one’s definition of “superior” is before granting or denying said designation.If by “superior”,you mean that liquid yeast generally gives flavor characteristics that are closer to those used by actual breweries,and therefore a better choice for those wanting to create clone brews of their favorite beers,then I might have to agree on that point.If,on the other hand,you’re defining superiority by sheer ability to finish the job and give a drinkable beer,I definitely cannot agree there.In fact,in my experience,dry yeasts are much less prone to give off excessive esters or fusel alcohols than their liquid counterparts, and they tend to perform more consistently over broader temperature ranges,and those are pretty big plusses in my book.And they just tend to be more neutral in general.Even if their overall character might be described as a little less lively, that’s a price I’m willing to pay to have a yeast that doesn’t mask the flavors of the other ingredients in the brew.This is especially ture when I’m brewing a beer like a dry stout,where a yeast that just contributes way too much of it’s own character to the finished product is a very undesirable thing.For that style in particular,I’ll take a good dry yeast every time.I realize that these are conclusions I’m drawing more or less empirically,and I don’t have any more scientific proof to back up what I’m saying than the statement I’m addressing does,but I’ll stick to them just the same,because my experiences have been quite consistent for some time now.

You completely ruined this yeast for me. I used to use it all the time until you pointed it out in another post, now it is all i taste when i’ve used it. I have since switched to 1056.[/quote]

If it’s any consolation, that’s pretty much the same thing that happened to me![/quote]
I had a similar situation recently. At a homebrew tasting I was at, a guy correctly identified a beer that was made with dry yeast by the “tingly sensation” on the top of his mouth. Since then, I’ve noticed the effect with beers brewed with dry yeast also, though there haven’t been that many so far and it could be chance or my mind playing tricks on me. Anyone else get this?

[quote=“RevLeonidas”][quote=“Denny”][quote=“RevLeonidas”]

I would take issue with your conclusion.[/quote][/quote]

How?[/quote]

Foe one thing, you offer no facts to support your conclusions. Only conjecture. Second, my experience and that of many others, directly contradicts your conclusions.

It’s so easy to fool yourself once you get an idea in your head. The only way to really know is to do a blind triangle test.

Simple fact, the more numbers you have, the greater the chance for a flaw: elementary statistics.
Red more of Dr. Fix’s stuff on homebrew, as I can see that Jr. high mathematics is too complex for this forum: sorry!

[quote=“RevLeonidas”]Simple fact, the more numbers you have, the greater the chance for a flaw: elementary statistics.
Red more of Dr. Fix’s stuff on homebrew, as I can see that Jr. high mathematics is too complex for this forum: sorry![/quote]

You’re also making a wonderful case for Jr. High school spelling, punctuation, and grammar as well.

[quote=“RevLeonidas”]Simple fact, the more numbers you have, the greater the chance for a flaw: elementary statistics.
Red more of Dr. Fix’s stuff on homebrew, as I can see that Jr. high mathematics is too complex for this forum: sorry![/quote]

It would seem to me that you’re getting WAY too hung up on what you call “Jr. high mathematics”.Numbers aren’t everything here.The overall quality of a package or type of yeast cannot be simply reduced to matter of pure equations.If that were true,there would be no reason why dry yeast would even still be on the market at all.And there would certainly not be numerous cases of homebrewers regularly winning gold medals at competitions when they used it.Whole books have been written on the subject of yeast,and to take the view that dry yeast is inferior simply by virtue of simple mathematical equations seems naive and shortsighted at best.We all welcome contributors to this forum who like to share information and give pointers,but I don’t think many of us appreciate being told that we don’t understand grade school math simply because you have an inflexible opinion about something.Do more research about your topic of choice than just reading one author like “Dr. Fix” before you go around insulting people,please.

[quote=“RevLeonidas”]Simple fact, the more numbers you have, the greater the chance for a flaw: elementary statistics.
Red more of Dr. Fix’s stuff on homebrew, as I can see that Jr. high mathematics is too complex for this forum: sorry![/quote]

You do realize the guy you’re debating with has himself written several books on home brewing… right?

:oops:

Oh yeah… and he has his own yeast strain produced by Wyeast… just sayin.

http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_yeaststrain ... cfm?ID=201

Open mouth and insert foot.

[quote=“RevLeonidas”]Simple fact, the more numbers you have, the greater the chance for a flaw: elementary statistics.
Red more of Dr. Fix’s stuff on homebrew, as I can see that Jr. high mathematics is too complex for this forum: sorry![/quote]

I knew Dr. Fix and I have read his works. It still doesn’t make you correct.

I don’t think anyone’s disputing the mathematics of the argument. It’s the rest of it - it relies on a number of major premises, and even the most structurally sound mathematical argument is still subject to the GIGO principle.

[quote=“RevLeonidas”]Simple fact, the more numbers you have, the greater the chance for a flaw: elementary statistics.
Red more of Dr. Fix’s stuff on homebrew, as I can see that Jr. high mathematics is too complex for this forum: sorry![/quote]

Even with liquid yeast, you need to grow enough cells for a healthy pitch to the levels in a dry yeast packet. The only difference is professional microbiologists are the ones who grow the dry yeast to their packaged and pitch ready yeast count. Whereas the homebrewer is the one who grows their liquid yeast to pitchable levels via starters. In the end, you should be pitching the same number of viable cells if you want a healthy ferment.

Not to mention dead yeast can be used as yeast nutrient. I doubt mutated yeast are tolerated at a level significant enough to cause issues in dry yeast - which is also true for liquid yeast. The manufactures of both products have labs for quality control.

Maybe I’m missing something here… Personally I’ve never had issues with dry yeast.

I recently submitted an article to BYO on simple recipe brewing. Part of my research included going over the last five years of results of the National Homebrew competition. In the last five years only two gold medal winning beers used dry yeast. The two highest scores that I ever received were for beers brewed with dry yeast.

I recently submitted an article to BYO on simple recipe brewing. Part of my research included going over the last five years of results of the National Homebrew competition. In the last five years only two gold medal winning beers used dry yeast. The two highest scores that I ever received were for beers brewed with dry yeast.[/quote]
It would be interesting to see all the statistics of liquid vs dry. My only apprehension is that there are so many variables in beers that I wonder if the statistics mean anything.