Author: Jake Huolihan

In the not so distant past, dry yeast was all that was available to homebrewers, usually in the form of a small packet attached to the underside of the lid on a can of liquid malt extract. It turned wort into beer, but as many a veteran brewer experienced, it wasn’t always of the highest quality. Thankfully, as our knowledge of fermentation grew, companies were formed that provided brewers with high quality, fresh yeast that came as a liquid. Better beer was being made and it seemed a new standard had been set– liquid yeast was king. Thanks to the work of a few dedicated yeast labs, the tide is turning and dry yeast’s negative reputation is being challenged. Labs such as Fermentis, Lallemand, and Mangrove Jack are producing various dry yeast strains of high quality, expanding the options brewers have available to them.

There are many benefits to using dry yeast such as the fact it tends to be less expensive and generally contains more cells than a pack of liquid yeast, which has led to the widespread belief dry yeast doesn’t require a starter. In fact, Jamil Zainasheff and John Palmer state as much in their fantastic book, Brewing Classic Styles:

You generally don’t want to make a starter for dry yeast. It is usually cheaper and easier to buy more dry yeast than it would be to make a starter. For dry yeasts, just do a proper rehydration in tap water; do not make a starter. (p. 285)

I’ve never had reason to doubt this advice and adopted the practice of skipping starters when using dry yeasts, doing as they recommend and rehydrating it in warm water prior to pitching. It has always worked fine, though I’ve noticed the lag between pitching and visible signs of active fermentation are longer when using dry yeast compared to when I pitch liquid yeast from a starter, often by 12 or more hours. Not terribly concerning, but I certainly appreciate reduced lag and recently began wondering if I might be missing something by not making starters with dry yeast. Might the unpleasant character some brewers say they perceive in beers fermented with dry yeasts be ameliorated by first propagating it in a starter? The financial argument against starters with dry yeast seems less valid today versus a decade ago, as per my calculations, the cost of DME used to produce a 1 liter starter ($0.96) is quite a bit lower than the price of a pack of dry yeast ($4.00), which even for larger starters seems a small sacrifice if it results in the payoff of faster fermentation and better quality beer. This with the thought of pitching yeast of higher viability was incentive enough to motivate me to try it out for myself.

| PURPOSE |

To determine if two beers fermented with dry yeast were reliably different from one another if one was innoculated from a dry yeast starter compared to simply rehydrating a pack of dry yeast.

| METHODS |

Having always thought it looked tasty, I decided to whip up a slightly adapted version of Tiny Bottom Pale Ale for this xBmt, making changes to the hops based on what I had available as well as the yeast.

Tiny Bottom Pale Ale-ish

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 39.6 IBUs 8.8 SRM 1.046 1.010 4.8 % Actuals 1.046 1.01 4.7 % Fermentables Name Amount % Briess Pale Ale Malt 8 lbs 77.58 Weyermann Vienna 11 oz 6.67 Victory Malt 8 oz 4.85 Caramel/Crystal Malt - 10L 6 oz 3.64 Caramel/Crystal Malt - 20L 6 oz 3.64 Caramel/Crystal Malt - 60L 6 oz 3.64 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Magnum 15 g 60 min Boil Pellet 12.2 Perle 13 g 25 min Boil Pellet 8.6 Mandarina Bavaria 7.5 g 10 min Boil Pellet 8.5 Mandarina Bavaria 15 g 2 min Boil Pellet 8.5 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Safale US-05 (US-05) DCL/Fermentis 77% 59°F - 75°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 68 | Mg 0 | Na 8 | SO4 97 | Cl 51 | pH 5.3

I made the Safale US-05 starter a day ahead of time, rehydrating the yeast before pitching it into the starter wort in order to ensure any differences between the batches were a function of the variable.

I started my brew day by getting the flame going under my mineral adjusted RO brewing liquor.

As the water was heating up, I milled my grains.

Once the water was a few degrees above strike temperature, I transferred it to my cooler MLT for a brief period of preheating then stirred in the grains to reach my target mash temperature.

I let the mash rest for 60 minutes before I began collecting the sweet wort utilizing a standard batch sparge method.

The wort was then boiled for 60 minutes with hops added at the times noted in the recipe.

I quickly chilled the wort to slightly warmer than my groundwater temperature immediately after the boil was complete.

A hydrometer measurement at this time showed the wort was at a slightly lower than expected 1.047 OG.

The wort was split equally between two 6 gallon PET carboys that were placed in my fermentation chamber to finish chilling down to my desired fermentation temperature of 66°F/19°C. In preparation for pitching, I boiled enough water in a mason jar to equal 10 times the weight of a dry yeast pack, allowed it to cool to 95°F/35°C, then added a pack of Safale US-05 for rehydration.

The full contents of both the rehydrated yeast and the starter were pitched into separate carboys of wort. I checked on the beers 24 hours later to find both showing signs of activity, though one seemed a bit further ahead than the other.

After 48 hours, the kräusen on the yeast starter beer had begun to leave the carboy, and while the rehydrated yeast batch was visibly more active than before, it was still a few steps behind.

After a week in the chamber and a slight bump in temperature, the yeast starter beer looked to be done fermenting and had dropped fairly clear while the rehydrated yeast beer still appeared to have yeast in suspension.

Despite hydrometer readings at this point showing both beers to be at similar SG, which interestingly enough was the target FG, I let them sit another 3 days to ensure full attenuation and clean-up of any off flavors.At 10 days post-pitch with both beers appearing the same, another hydrometer measurement confirmed the beers had stopped fermenting at the predicted FG.

I proceeded to cold crash and keg each beer.

The filled kegs were placed in my keezer and burst carbonated overnight, after which I fined them with gelatin. Within a few days, they were carbonated, clear, and ready to serve!

| RESULTS |

A panel of 25 Fermentologists club members of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each taster, blind to the variable being investigated, was served 2 samples of the beer fermented with rehydrated yeast and 1 sample of the beer fermented with a yeast starter in different colored opaque cups then instructed to select the unique sample.

Given the number of participants, a total of 13 would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to achieve statistical significance (p<0.05), though only 6 tasters (p=0.89) made the correct selection. These results indicate participants were unable to reliably distinguish a beer fermented with rehydrated dry yeast form the same beer fermented with dry yeast that was first propagated in a starter.

My Impressions: My wife served me 3 semi-blind triangle tests, switching up both the unique beer and the color of the cup the unique sample was in, and despite full knowledge of the variable, I was unable to get it right a single time. This left me completely stumped, as I expected to perceive at least some of the off flavors often cited when discussing dry yeast and pitching rates, but that wasn’t the case. As for the beer, cheers to Marshall for designing this recipe! Even with the changes I made, my version of Tiny Bottom Pale Ale had a nice malt character that balanced the hops, and while Mandarina Bavaria may not be my choice if I were to brew it again, the beer was very tasty.

| DISCUSSION |

Indeed, the results of this xBmt failed to support the hypothesis that fermenting with rehydrated dry yeast would produce a qualitatively different beer than fermenting with dry yeast propagated in a starter, at least based on participants’ general inability to reliably distinguish them from each other. But that’s not the whole story, there was some obvious observable differences– not only did the yeast starter beer become active sooner than the rehydrated yeast batch, but it fermented with more vigor as evidenced by the larger kräusen and blowoff. Whether this is enough to justify the practice of making starters with dry yeast is up to each brewer.

As with every xBmt, the generalizability of the results is limited by certain factors, and one in particular that comes to mind has to do with the fact the beer I brewed was of moderate OG. Is it possible fermenting a higher OG beer with dry yeast built up in a starter might produce a greater difference, maybe even be beneficial?

The pitching rate dogmatist is admittedly reluctant to abandon the practices I’ve gleaned from trusted sources, mostly because they’ve never let me down. But I like the idea of reduced lag times and more vigorous fermentation, so even if it doesn’t have a positive qualitative impact on the finished beer, I plan to continue making starters with dry yeast. Regardless, it’s nice to have at least some evidence that either path may lead to the same destination.

What’s your experience with dry yeast? Do you sprinkle, rehydrate, or prop in starters? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...