Favorite Dry Yeast Strains?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

i4ourgot

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
308
Reaction score
12
Location
Coloma
Hi,
I am traveling to another country where I am told I can get grains and hops but not yeast. I was hoping to bring some dry yeast down with me so I can still make beer. Anyone have any favorites?
 
W-34/70, Windsor, and Nottingham. FWIW, I recently saw a gene sequence layout that made Fermentis S-33 and Danstar Windsor look very close to being the same.

Of all of these, W-34/70 easily takes the prize for being the best.
 
Are you going to have the capacity to control ferment temperatures? If not, what are temperatures likely to be?

I use Nottingham in most of my American ales (APA, IPA, Brown) and prefer it over US05, but it needs temp control, where US05 is better if things get a bit warmer (IME).
 
Air temps will be around 60F at night and 80F during the day, but I will be able to keep the beer inside at around 70F. I will not have very good fermentation control over the temperature.
 
The package for USO5 says that it doesn't need a starter do you use one for a 5 gallon batch?

Depends on the gravity of your beer, but one pack for anything under 1.055 should be good. Usually if I need more cells then I use another pack since its cheap. There is belief out there that using a starter on dry yeast depletes its nutrient reserves. Some people swear to it and some against it, who is right!? Who knows!!

I always just rehydrate dry yeast, but there are mixed opinions on this topic as well...

Oh, and Nottingham, 34/70, and US-05 if higher temps (like low 70s) are unavoidable.
 
What about for lower temps? Obviously not ideal but I won't have electricity.

Any of those really. I feel US-05 just does better than the others if higher temps are encountered, but it can still be used in the lower 60s. I ferment Nottingham at 60F, temp controlled. If you plan on going lower then 34/70 which can handle low 50s, and I've heard it does okay up into the 70s as well but I can't attest to that...
 
Mangrove Jacks has a line of dry yeasts in all kinds of strains. I have used the M44 west coast strain(mid 70's) and the M31 Belgian Tripel(high 70's). Both were very good. You cant go wrong with US-05. Its a clean yeast that can go into the mid 70's with out any issues.
 
With those temps US05 will be preferable over Notty. You can rule out 34/70. It's still at the warm end for US05 though - 70F ambient will probably mean a peak ferment temp in the 75 to 80 range.
Do you like saisons?
 
I Like Windsor for its estery profile.
Nottingham is fast, agressive, clean and attenuates well ( good also for IPAs )
US-05: the one and only - boring?
T-58: not the most belgian yeast, but with the rights tweaks, it will taste belgian. Oh, and its fast, agressive and has very good attenuation. Fermentis puts it at 70%, but I only get between 75 and 82%, but that's with low mash temp. and simple sugars
Fermentis BE-256: a bit clean, but hell of a attenuator. I think it will also work well in bigger beers
W-34/70: for lagers ---> pale, amber, vienna, dark, baltic porters :)
 
Nottingham for my ales, and Fermentis S-23 for lagers. Both attenuate very well, and although some will scoff at re-using dry yeast, both do pretty good in further generations. I just racked a Black lager (kinda experimental batch) onto a 5th generation S-23 yeast cake that had its beer kegged today. Every beer with this yeast strain has been outstanding, no off flavors and fairly short lag times. Today's got going in less than 7 hours after pitching.
 
What kind of flavors do you get at the high end and low end for this yeast?
I've not used it, but have tried beers others have made with it in Summer with no temp control, and they were good. I'm not great at describing flavours - they tasted 'saisony'!
 
Can you get wine yeast? I've only tried it once, but K1V-1116 works for beer (most wine yeasts are not attenuative enough for beer)

Wherever you are going, you'll should be able to get bread yeast; give it a try.
 
I’m glad notty is getting a lot of love. It’s been my go - to for years. If it weren’t for me brewing lots of lagers, it might just be my only yeast.
 
W-34/70 easily takes the prize for being the best.

There's no single "best" yeast, it all depends on context. Usain Bolt often "takes the prize for being the best" at sprinting, but he's not much use in a marathon and he truly sucks at nuclear physics.

34/70 is very popular - supposedly the most-used yeast strain in the world if you count commercial lager breweries - but popular does not mean "best". It's very expensive by dry yeast standards, and it doesn't drop particularly well. The guys over on the warm-fermented yeast thread prefer Californian lager yeasts (in particular Mangrove Jack M54) over 34/70, as they perform at least as well at warmer temperatures and drop much more cleanly.

In fact a Californian lager yeast is a pretty good all-rounder if you're looking to make not just lagers, but US-style beers as well.

I brew a lot of IPAs and than browns/porters/stouts. I mostly use white labs California Ale Yeast

If you're buying a bunch of yeasts before you go, it's probably worth getting odd packets of things like BRY-97 just to try in ales even if US-05 (closely related to, but not identical to the WLP001 you're used to) is the obvious choice as a workhorse for US beers.

For British-style beers, you want to trade some attenuation for mouthfeel and yeast flavours. S-04 can go a bit tart over 68F or so, which is not something to the taste of many USians, so I'd tend towards the British strains from Lallemand/Danstar. Mangrove Jack M15 is also worth a go - some people get frustrated at its relatively low attenuation and ABV tolerance (~8%) but that's just typical of British yeast, and you do get fruit and mouthfeel in return.

As has been mentioned S-33 and Windsor appear to be close relatives that probably came from the same source. A more distant cousin is T-58, which can be viewed as a POF+ version of those two - POF is the package of enzymes responsible for the phenolic flavours characteristic of Belgian beer. T-58 is a relatively mild yeast for phenolics, it's more a gentle pepperiness, it's allegedly used to produce some world-class Belgian dark beers like Pannepot. It can also be used in small amounts to "spice up" more boring yeast. Isomerization's DNA analysis of Treehouse Julius (and subsequent brewing experiments by others) suggests that they're making one of the benchmark New England IPAs with a yeast blend that's something like 90% S-04, 7% T-58 and 3% WB-06.

I'd probably substitute the WB-06 with Lallemand/Danstar Munich Classic (_not_ "Munich") as it's a much better all-round yeast if you want to use it on its own for wheat beers. It's just as well you're not interested in saisons as that seems to be one style where nobody's terribly happy with the dry strains that are available, the likes of Belle/M29 are OK-ish though.

The principle of blending dry yeasts is not used enough, traditionally most breweries used a mix of strains as strains tend to be good at attenuating, or flavour, or flocculation - but never all three. Supposedly Windsor and Nottingham came from the same multistrain, and it's not a bad idea to pitch Windsor for flavour and then pitch Nottingham for performance later in the fermentation to finish off where Windsor started.

Can you get wine yeast? I've only tried it once, but K1-V1116 works for beer (most wine yeasts are not attenuative enough for beer)

K1-V1116 is unusual for a wine yeast in that it's POF- so doesn't produce the phenolics in beer that most wine yeast do. It's a good choice if you're in the kind of country that has wine yeast readily available but not beer yeast. Like many wine yeasts it has a K2 killer factor so doesn't play nicely in yeast blends, you usually have to use it on its own.

Wherever you are going, you'll should be able to get bread yeast; give it a try.

Bread yeast should generally be considered a last resort for beer unless you like Belgian beers -they're usually primitive yeast that are POF+. OTOH they can be used like T-58, as a pinch to add some complexity to a "workhorse" yeast, and that may be an effective way to do it if you're limited in how many packets you can take with you.

Talking of which - if yeast is a problem, then it's well worth figuring out how to keep it for repitching - see this forum's stickies. Liquid yeast is generally a more reliable starting point for repitching than dry yeast (the stress of the drying process seems to lead to a higher mutation rate, which reduces the number of usable generations) - even if you only get 6-8 generations before the yeast goes "off" then that all helps.

Another option would be to get some kveik - eg Omega Hothead for clean fermentations and something like Hornindal for more yeast character. Not only are they much cleaner at high/uncontrolled temperatures, they can be readily dried at home for reuse.

There is belief out there that using a starter on dry yeast depletes its nutrient reserves. Some people swear to it and some against it, who is right!? Who knows!!

I don't know where you get the idea that this stuff is controversial, if you're not sure about it then you've not been paying close enough attention. Wort needs aerating because yeast need oxygen to make sterols which are essential for yeast growth. Most makers grow their yeast for drying in a way that stuffs the cells full of sterols, so if you use dry yeast you don't need to worry _too_ much about aeration, whereas liquid yeast and yeast from starters don't have so many sterols per cell and so they need more aeration for good results. If you put dry yeast through a starter then the sterols don't go away, but if there's cell division then you will end up with fewer sterols per cell and a correspondingly greater need for aeration.

I always just rehydrate dry yeast, but there are mixed opinions on this topic as well...

It's pretty simple, although traditionally it's said that pitching directly will kill 50% of dry yeast, people who have actually looked at the viability of yeast made with modern methods have found that it's actually more like <20%, and Fermentis' official advice now states that rehydrating is no longer necessary for their E2U-branded yeasts (which includes pretty much all their beer strains).
 
I don't know where you get the idea that this stuff is controversial, if you're not sure about it then you've not been paying close enough attention...If you put dry yeast through a starter then the sterols don't go away, but if there's cell division then you will end up with fewer sterols per cell and a correspondingly greater need for aeration

Well, considering there are numerous threads about creating starters for dry yeast and there is, of course, an exceeding amount of conflicting opinions within these threads. That's where I get the idea of the controversy...I appreciate the infinite wisdom but you really only said dry yeast in starters require more oxygen. All that great info, but not Really answering the question. So do you do a starter with dry yeast or no?

It's pretty simple, although traditionally it's said that pitching directly will kill 50% of dry yeast, people who have actually looked at the viability of yeast made with modern methods have found that it's actually more like <20%,

So clearly rehydrating is better, when you still lose cells if pitched directly!? Again, great info but it still points to rehydrating. Thanks. And I understand Fermentis states rehydrating is no longer necessary, but does that mean you get the same cell count without it!? Or that the loss rate is more acceptable!?

Essentially, rehydrate/don't rehydrate/starter/no starter...who cares, it all works! I know and like the results I get with my methods. I'm making beer for fun, and I dont stress about.
 
All that great info, but not Really answering the question. So do you do a starter with dry yeast or no?

The general consensus it that dry yeast is so cheap in the US that making a starter would be pointless - it's easier to just buy more yeast. Dry yeast in Australia is not so cheap (about $6 for a packet of US05) so starters are common. Active starters work well and definitely get the ferment going faster than pitching straight dry yeast.
 
The general consensus it that dry yeast is so cheap in the US that making a starter would be pointless - it's easier to just buy more yeast. Dry yeast in Australia is not so cheap (about $6 for a packet of US05) so starters are common. Active starters work well and definitely get the ferment going faster than pitching straight dry yeast.

Yeah, I agree. I was simply trying to get some people to take a step back from knowledge flexing and answer the OP's question which inquired if you, home brewers, use a starter with dry yeast...sometimes the point gets missed by the need to talk
 
Last edited:
The general consensus is that ...

It can take a while for the "general consensus" to catch up with changes (for example, Fermentis and pitching their dry yeast strains without rehydrating).

I was simply trying to get some people to take a step back from knowledge flexing and answer the OP's question which inquired if you, home brewers, use a starter with dry yeast...

I currently don't use a starter with dry yeast (dry yeast is cheap where I live and shop).

Until recently, I've pitched all strains of dry yeast without re-hydrating.

For dry yeast strains that are currently not working for me, I'm starting to follow yeast lab instructions more closely (hint: Lallemand only talks about rehydrating their dry yeast). I'll know more in six to twelve months.
 
Most makers grow their yeast for drying in a way that stuffs the cells full of sterols, so if you use dry yeast you don't need to worry _too_ much about aeration, whereas liquid yeast and yeast from starters don't have so many sterols per cell and so they need more aeration for good results. If you put dry yeast through a starter then the sterols don't go away, but if there's cell division then you will end up with fewer sterols per cell and a correspondingly greater need for aeration.

This should be helpful because I am not sure if I will be able to aerate my wort. I currently use an oxygen stone and I am not sure if I will be able to buy oxygen where I am going.
 
Well, considering there are numerous threads about creating starters for dry yeast and there is, of course, an exceeding amount of conflicting opinions within these threads. That's where I get the idea of the controversy...I appreciate the infinite wisdom but you really only said dry yeast in starters require more oxygen. All that great info, but not Really answering the question. So do you do a starter with dry yeast or no?

Of course I don't. There may be controversy on the boards, but that doesn't really reflect the state of the science which is pretty settled. But given that science, there may be specific (but rare) reasons for people wanting to do the alternative thing, which is why a simple "I do this" answer is not particularly helpful.

So clearly rehydrating is better, when you still lose cells if pitched directly!? Again, great info but it still points to rehydrating. Thanks. And I understand Fermentis states rehydrating is no longer necessary, but does that mean you get the same cell count without it!? Or that the loss rate is more acceptable!?

I should have been clearer - I wasn't comparing direct pitching with rehydrating. You still lose cells when rehydrating, and it now seems that the loss when direct pitching is in the same ballpark as when rehydrating. So rehydrating starts to look like dressing up as Darth Vader when brewing - something that you're welcome to do, but the time and effort required won't actually make any difference to your beer.

Yeah, I agree. I was simply trying to get some people to take a step back from knowledge flexing and answer the OP's question which inquired if you, home brewers, use a starter with dry yeast...sometimes the point gets missed by the need to talk

I'd view "knowledge flexing" as taking the time to teach someone to fish, to understand the issues, rather than a simple "give them a fish" as what I do may not be relevant to their circumstances.

This should be helpful because I am not sure if I will be able to aerate my wort. I currently use an oxygen stone and I am not sure if I will be able to buy oxygen where I am going.

I thought as much - problems with aeration will push you towards using dry yeast and negate the benefits of starters (aside from the fact that extra steps like making a starter give more opportunity for infection).
 
We are getting off on a bit of a tangent, but.....

@Northern_Brewer, and anyone else interested..... regarding yeast starters for dried yeasts.... I would like very much to hear any opinions on the below linked topic regarding tartness from many dried yeasts. Interestingly, US-05 doesn't seem to produce the same effect, and there may be other examples of tart vs. non-tart. However, for those that do seem a little tart, perhaps measure the pH of the finished beer and see where it comes out, then try making a starter first and then check final pH from the starter version, and see if it makes a big difference and shows no sign of unusual tart flavor. At the very least, I'm intrigued at the theory and at some of the results.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=32475.msg418105#msg418105
 
Of course I don't.

Lol. This is all I wanted!

But given that science, there may be specific (but rare) reasons for people wanting to do the alternative thing, which is why a simple "I do this" answer is not particularly helpful.

I'm all for evidence based practice and I'm not above changing my practice if evidence proves otherwise. However, I still think it's nice have more educated people, including yourself, share their common practice. For people like me who like to try things because smarter people are doing it. I put the "controversial comments" in because inevitably someone will disagree on here...

I should have been clearer...I'd view "knowledge flexing" as taking the time to teach someone to fish, to understand the issues, rather than a simple "give them a fish" as what I do may not be relevant to their circumstances.

Sorry, I was reading it wrong. The issue with text. Can't pick up on context or tone. I thought you were disagreeing about doing starters. And I do appreciate the expertise you provide!!

Cheers!!
 
....

I would like very much to hear any opinions...

...

At the very least, I'm intrigued at the theory and at some of the results.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=32475.msg418105#msg418105

I'm intrigued as well.

Now on to observations, opinions :), and what I may do next.

For the strains that I use, should I pitch it dry or re-hydrate?
  • Fermentis had that big announcement that one can pitch many of their dry yeast strains without re-hydrating. They also offer re-hydration instructions for the strains that I use.
  • Lallemand's dry yeast instructions, for the strains that I use in late 2018, only talk about re-hydration.
  • Mangrove Jacks (for the strains that I use) seems to be OK with pitching with out re-hydration, although they do say "Although Mangrove Jack’s Craft Series Yeasts do not require re-hydration, cleaner and more professional results will be produced if rehydrated before use."
I have been pitching dry for the last couple of years. I get good results with Fermentis strains, so-so results with Lallemand (when I pitch dry). With Lallemand strains, I'm going back to re-hydrating to see what happens. To me, this seems simpler than making a starter. (Note that I do not reuse yeast).
 
I thought it had been clearly proven that a rather large hit to viability is avoided when dry yeast are hydrated in water with reasonable mineral content (ie: not DI or RO).
Last time I looked all of the Fermentis sheets on their yeast strains listed hydration ahead of simply sprinkling atop wort...

Cheers!
 
I thought it had been clearly proven that a rather large hit to viability is avoided when dry yeast are hydrated in water with reasonable mineral content (ie: not DI or RO).
Last time I looked all of the Fermentis sheets on their yeast strains listed hydration ahead of simply sprinkling atop wort...

Cheers!

Quite recently fermentis did a study where they found the difference in viability between direct pitching vs rehydrating was insignificant. They have changed their instructions since then saying that most of their yeast can be directly sprinkled on wort.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top