# There are NO bad beer yeasts!



## Ross (28/8/13)

I've resisted replying to a multitude of threads of late for various reasons, from taking them "off topic" to not wanting an individual to think I'm making a personal attack. So I've started a new thread.

*THERE ARE NO BAD BEER YEASTS, YOU JUST NEED TO LEARN WHAT & HOW TO BREW WITH THEM!!!*

The attacks lately, especially on dried yeasts & by some quite respected people of this community really disappoints.

All beer yeast if used properly can produce award winning beers (& does). I have no issues with someone saying they personally don't like the flavour profile of a particular yeast, but dismissing the yeast as an abomination & accusing it of not being fit for purpose is just wrong. Just because you've made one or several bad beers, whether it be flavour profile or not getting the attenuation you expected, doesn't make the yeast bad, it's either not to your taste, or you haven't learnt to brew with it yet. I've personally hated Nottingham's flavour profile in any pale ales for years, but always loved it in dark ales. Then I learnt that Meantime in London who make my favourite English IPA (Meantime IPA - a superb malty, hoppy beer) brew with it. I followed their recipe,& techniques right down to water profile, & wow, I'm now a convert & use in most of the English IPA's I brew (still can't get it to work in a bitter though  ). 

*Liquid V Dry* - Dry yeasts are not inferior! They produce beers of equal quality to liquid, you just have more choice from liquid. You may prefer the profile of WY-1056 over its closet match in dry US-05, or vice versa (I personally prefer US-05), but that doesn't make either yeast superior, just different.


Discuss..........


----------



## AndrewQLD (28/8/13)

Couldn't agree more Ross, I've brewed several beers that have done well in comps as well using dry yeasts, in fact all of my entries from the 2009 comp used dry yeasts from memory.
Your point regarding their usage is very true and in reality also applies to liquid yeasts as well so I don't see why so many feel that dry yeasts should be treated any differently, people are pedantic about liquid yeast preparation and temp control but feel it's ok to just chuck in a pack of dry yeast.


----------



## slash22000 (28/8/13)

> people are pedantic about liquid yeast preparation and temp control but feel it's ok to just chuck in a pack of dry yeast.


I just want everybody to note that I didn't start it this time. h34r:


----------



## tricache (28/8/13)

What do they say? _A Bad Workman Blames His Tools _


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (28/8/13)

I've seen a lot of bagging of S04 for a long time. Whilst my preference was (and still is) for Windsor, I ended up using it in a bog standard bitter.

Not sure what the issue is, some esters, and it was dead clear and dead quick.

Same with T58 - it's been panned as flavourless, almost non-existent spice or Belgian Ester. Brewed a "light" Belgian Blond (4.8%) with it, and got a nice amount of banana/bubblegum/pineapple chunks (obviously without the chocolate) in the beer and it's SWMBO new fave 'non-hoppy' beer.

The only yeast I can't really abide is WB-06, but, in line with Ross' comment, I reckon it were more likely the brewer, than the yeast. Used 3368 (can't remember the number, 3068 was OOS), and it's the only wet yeast I have ever used. And ironically, the only poor beer I had at QABC last year. The rest were dry, including using US05 at low temps in a lager, which placed 2nd.

I'll watch this thread with great interest.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/8/13)

Agree Ross. Some yeasts can be better than others depending on beer style. I use w1728 in my scottish red because I like the flavour and the slight tartness it imparts. Great for Stout to. But I dont like to use it for pale ale. Doesnt make it a bad yeast, just not the right yeast


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/8/13)

slash22000 said:


> I just want everybody to note that I didn't start it this time. h34r:


yeah....me to h34r:


----------



## Midnight Brew (28/8/13)

I agree having only used a handful of different strains to date, there is no one size fits all. Having incorrectly using coopers yeast I discovered a fairly good take on VB/CD/MB. Not something I would not drink all the time but a learning curve.

I love and hate the diversity of liquid strains. I love it because there is infinite amount of beers you could make. I hate it because there is an infinite amount of beers you could make. I top crop and reuse so can be hard when short of time to juggle multiple strains.

Using yeast to flavour and style is like cooking with different ingredients. They add different things. You could make the greatest beer or dish in the world but you wouldnt want to drink or eat it all the time. You'd get bored. I starting making sourdough about a month ago and keep rotating between rye and standard sourdough to dark rye and this week venturing into spelt.


----------



## GalBrew (28/8/13)

I guess it's all about what you like. Either or, so long as you treat the yeast properly I don't see what the problem is. I use liquid and dry depending on the availability of fresh liquid yeasts. I quite liked my recent beery adventures with both dry w-34/70 and wyeast 3333 respectively.


----------



## manticle (28/8/13)

I use liquid almost exclusively but that's mostly due to the range and my favourites happen to be liquid - 1469, 1272, 3711 etc.

Not sure what attacks you're referring to but generally I agree. I think it's the same with malts too - I have a preference for certain types but the quality issue is entirely subjective and therefore irrelevant. Use whatever gives the results you are chasing.

Definitely the same with hops too - number of people that suggest PoR is a bad hop is astounding. I'm guessing they associate it with and therefore blame it for AU mega. I don't like a lot of the flavours associated with galaxy but that doesn't make it a bad hop (and I have enjoyed it in some beers I've tried).

Having tasted Andrew QLD's belgian Golden strong made with dry yeast and knowing Temple saison uses t-58 (as one of three yeasts), I can attest that some brewers make magnificent beer with dry. Had a few of Ross' as well and that only adds weight.


----------



## tricache (28/8/13)

I think the whole mentality of "This works for me so it must be the best" is the problem.

Some people make great beers with dry yeast and some people make not so great beers with liquid and vice versa...at the end of the way its method which is key IMO


----------



## Silver (28/8/13)

Well put Ross, nothing like a good story with poignant moral to it. I was in a pinch and could only get my hands on "Brigalow" yeast from woolies to avert a disaster and was surprised with the result. My understanding is this is an english ale strain 514 sterling and have made a couple of tasty ales with it and use it in my ciders also. Most comments on this site say to put it in the boil for yeast nutrient. 2c


----------



## Liam_snorkel (28/8/13)

haha, here's a good one:



Gav80 said:


> LoL Its Notto!! Notto sucks Ass. My beer tasted of Metal for **** sake haha


----------



## tricache (28/8/13)

Silver said:


> Most comments on this site say to put it in the boil for yeast nutrient. 2c


Which in theory is still making a good beer...thus all yeast can still make good beer


----------



## stuart13 (28/8/13)

But, but, but... I put down a brew in a fermenter that I couldn't be bothered cleaning, let alone sanitising. It looked clean enough. Used a yeast that everyone on this site says is great. Left it on the floor in the shed during a heatwave - it fermented out in two days. But the beer tasted like shit. I'll never use that yeast again...

Well spoken Ross.


----------



## syl (28/8/13)

It's the same for everything in homebrewing.

Chill vs No chill
Dry Vs Liquid yeast
Hop Vs Hop
Malt Vs Malt

Even methods

You can still make great extract beers, and I have! You can still make shit AG beers, and I have!

P.S: BTW: US05 > all.


----------



## Silver (28/8/13)

tricache said:


> Which in theory is still making a good beer...thus all yeast can still make good beer


1/2 Touche


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (28/8/13)

Define bad ?
To say there are no bad yeast is daft.
If a yeast throws a bucket load of diactyl, then I say its bad and I dont use it.
I just trailed a dry wheat yeast and say its bad because it finished way too early, twice!
Each to their own.
Nev


----------



## manticle (28/8/13)

If it throws a lot of diacetyl for example, you might use it or treat it in a way that reduces that diacetyl. Considering all yeasts throw diacetyl at some point and some beers may benefit from a touch, you might be able to use that yeast to control the level, thus making it not 'bad'.

Some yeasts throw lots of isoamyl acetate at higher temps. Solution - ferment at lower temps (or use a different yeast). Still not bad - just not suited to particular conditions.


----------



## Ross (28/8/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Define bad ?
> To say there are no bad yeast is daft.
> If a yeast throws a bucket load of diactyl, then I say its bad and I dont use it.
> I just trailed a dry wheat yeast and say its bad because it finished way too early, twice!
> ...


What yeast do you reckon throws a bucket load of diacetyl when used correctly?

Edit: Spelling.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (28/8/13)

So if a yeast throws more diacetyl than it "might" /can clean up its good , dont think so.
Not going to convince some people I know but I have been around brewing for a while to know better.
S23 for example throws a load off POF,s not what you want in a lager yeast, to me its bad.
Nev


----------



## Ross (28/8/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> I have been around brewing for a while to know better.
> 
> Nev


Exactly


----------



## barls (28/8/13)

anyone else get this thought about the title
Cartman bad monkey! - YouTube


----------



## bradsbrew (28/8/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Define bad ?
> To say there are no bad yeast is daft.
> If a yeast throws a bucket load of diactyl, then I say its bad and I dont use it.
> I just trailed a dry wheat yeast and say its bad because it finished way too early, twice!
> ...


Does that not go back to your process Nev? As OP stated, it probably falls back to something that you are doing that causes the yeast to throw those flavours. Early on I was getting Diacetyl and what I thought was an early finish when using 1968, changed a couple of things and the Diacetyl and sweetness went away. I personnally hate anything that throws bubblegum but would not say those yeasts are bad, I just do not like them. If I had to use it I would find what causes that flavour to increase/decrease and change the process for particular yeast.


----------



## mosto (28/8/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> So if a yeast throws more diacetyl than it "might" /can clean up its good , dont think so.
> Not going to convince some people I know but I have been around brewing for a while to know better.
> S23 for example throws a load off POF,s not what you want in a lager yeast, to me its bad.
> Nev


I'm a complete novice compared to most in this discussion, but will share some personal experience which I think highlights Ross's point.

When still very new to brewing I purchased a Rapid Creek Pilsener kit and some S23 to make a Pilsener. Hadn't ventured into liquid yeasts yet, so S23 is what I went with. On tasting, it was nothing like a Pilsener, very little flavour and not a brew I was overly happy with. While on AHB one night, I was drinking said brew and reading about the upcoming NSW Homebrew Championships. Reading through the style guidelines, it dawned on me, "This isn't a Pilsener, it's a bland, but clean Aussie Lager". So I sent a bottle off for shits and giggles more than anything else. It took 2nd place in the Pale Lager category of that years event, and then took 3rd at the Australian Championships.

So, while it didn't produce the beer I was looking for, S23 did help produce an award winning beer nonetheless. The awards however, were probably a testament to my palate, rather than my brewing skills


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (28/8/13)

No, some yeast just dont do what you want them to do, only a few but...
I dont try to combat the yeasts, better ones out there, I just dont use them, simple.
But to make a broad sweeping statement like , there are no bad brewing yeast is wrong.
My 2c
Nev


----------



## AndrewQLD (28/8/13)

Perhaps you aren't leaving the beer on the yeast long enough to clean up the diacetyl?
Not telling you how to brew, it's just a thought.


----------



## Ross (28/8/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> No, some yeast just dont do what you want them to do, only a few but...
> I dont try to combat the yeasts, better ones out there, I just dont use them, simple.
> But to make a broad sweeping statement like , there are no bad brewing yeast is wrong.
> My 2c
> Nev


Just because they don't do what you want them to do, does not make them bad. Nothing wrong though with selecting something else that does what you want it to. Doesn't make the yeast bad though.
Still interested in the yeast you reckon has bucket loads of Diaceytl?


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (28/8/13)

Some yeasts need more love and care than others, and can produce a great result. I reckon 2nd place for a lager with an ale yeast is testament to that.

Also, some yeasts produce a result that one brewer considers desirable (even the BJCP guidelines state diacetyl is desirable or acceptable in some types of beer), and another considers undesirable.

Therefore to say any yeast is bad, is probably a question of taste, brewer's skill (or lack thereof*) and desired outcome.

*as Bradsbrew mentioned, he hates bubblegum, my missus loves it (and so do I), therefore the T58 has done what I would have asked it to do, but maybe not what Brad wanted. I fluked it. It isn't often that either a recipe or a yeast is spot on first time, it generally requires tweaking and some acquired experience. In this instance I got it right, but I wouldn't say it was brewer's skill (or at least creative skill) but educated luck.


----------



## QldKev (28/8/13)

There's plenty of great yeasts out there, and there is a few I don't like. There are also many beer styles I don't like. Someone must drink that Russian beers cause they keep making it, so what I think is bad is not so bad in other peoples eyes.

In the dry yeast Vs liquid yeast debate, I honesty cannot tell the difference once it's fermenting away. That's all just a choice on the strain of the yeast and wherever or not it's dry or liquid is second in my book. I do mainly ferment from yeast which is started by a dry culture, but as most know I reuse the culture many times.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/8/13)

I have a funny feeling about this thread.....


----------



## Tim (28/8/13)

mosto said:


> ...............purchased a Rapid Creek Pilsener kit and some S23 to make a Pilsener. Hadn't ventured into liquid yeasts yet, so S23 is what I went with........took 2nd place in the Pale Lager category of that years event, and then took 3rd at the Australian Championships......


Excellent work Mosto. Kit beer with dried yeast can and does make award winning beer.


----------



## Tilt (28/8/13)

Lord Raja Goomba I said:


> Some yeasts need more love and care than others, and can produce a great result. I reckon 2nd place for a lager with an ale yeast is testament to that.


I'd second this 
When I judge the goodness and badness of yeasts I often come down to the questions - which yeast produces what I want, with the equipment and process I usually use and doesn't need a whole bunch of hand holding to get it over the line? 
Things I look for in my favourite strains include how easy it is to use. Like...

Does it produce an explosive ferment in the first 3 days? (i.e. what's the risk of having to clean a spewed krausen out of the ferment fridge) 
does it have a broad ferment temp range or is it finicky
does it attenuate and flocc well?
how much time does it need to clean up after itself? 
how hard do I need to fine it to produce a clear beer?
Answers to these questions tell me whether I can be bothered with it. 
Having said that - it definitely comes down to reward for effort. If the only way I can get the beer I want is to use a yeast that throws up all over the fermenter, needs double dropping twice in the first 24 hours, needs 0.5 degree rises every 12 hours to 25 degrees over a 4 day period and I have to CC then fine twice to clean up then so be it. But I wouldn't call it a great yeast - its still a bugger to use, but the only one that delivers the goods.

Edit: attempt to make consistent font size, buggared if I know how to do it.


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (28/8/13)

So the question may not be - is there a good yeast and bad yeast, but 'is this yeast forgiving?'


----------



## Tilt (28/8/13)

Lord Raja Goomba I said:


> So the question may not be - is there a good yeast and bad yeast, but 'is this yeast forgiving?'


Yeah - or what's it like on the bang for buck (i.e. skill/expertise/effort) scale?
Best case scenario for me is a yeast that does what I want without having to pay it disproportionate amounts of attention.


----------



## jlm (28/8/13)

I subscribe to the theory that some yeasts need their target range of brews reduced. S04-dark beers good......pale beers.......no thanks.


----------



## benno1973 (28/8/13)

So is bakers yeast just a yeast I haven't mastered yet?


----------



## mosto (28/8/13)

Tim said:


> Excellent work Mosto. Kit beer with dried yeast can and does make award winning beer.


...and didn't re-hydrate either h34r:


----------



## Tilt (28/8/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> So is bakers yeast just a yeast I haven't mastered yet?


Its got its place on the bang for buck scale. Not much buck for FA bang...but if you run out of yeast during a 3.00am Sunday morning brew session then a dash to the supermarket might be your only option :blink: .


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (28/8/13)

jlm said:


> I subscribe to the theory that some yeasts need their target range of brews reduced. S04-dark beers good......pale beers.......no thanks.


I thought you *loved* S04 @jlm...... h34r:


----------



## jlm (28/8/13)

I love each half kilo block of s04 I pitch equally.........Can't say the same for the results.


----------



## Phoney (28/8/13)

If there was no such thing as bad beer yeasts, we wouldnt bother buying that fancy liquid stuff from Wyeast and Whitelabs - when we could just buy packets Brigalow yeast hanging on the shelves at kmart.


----------



## tricache (28/8/13)

Kaiser Soze said:


> So is bakers yeast just a yeast I haven't mastered yet?


My mead I have made with it tastes pretty damn nice...I know there is mead specific yeast but still it is hardly rocket fuel which burns like a mofo!


----------



## probablynathan (28/8/13)

phoneyhuh said:


> If there was no such thing as bad beer yeasts, we wouldnt bother buying that fancy liquid stuff from Wyeast and Whitelabs - when we could just buy packets Brigalow yeast hanging on the shelves at kmart.


Derp. 

Really?


----------



## James85 (28/8/13)

Does anyone know what the coopers kit yeast is? I've used it heaps of times with excellent results.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/8/13)

Its made by maui. It is not the same strain as there brewery yeast


----------



## Camo6 (28/8/13)

http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/75115-foam-on-top-of-wort-without-adding-yeast/

Ross, your thread title needs to be more specific.

"There are NO bad _commercial__ly produced_ beer yeasts but maybe some average wild ones."


----------



## James85 (28/8/13)

Coopers must be a better strain than Brigalow though


----------



## Silver (28/8/13)

> Coopers must be a better strain than Brigalow though


Why?
I am led to believe this is the yeast. http://www.maurivin.com/y.aspx?id=14&menu=open&parentid=286&menuid=323


----------



## tricache (29/8/13)

Camo6 said:


> http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/75115-foam-on-top-of-wort-without-adding-yeast/
> 
> Ross, your thread title needs to be more specific.
> 
> "There are NO bad _commercial__ly produced_ beer yeasts but maybe some average wild ones."


I don't know that might turn out to be a pretty awesome lambic :lol:


----------



## Logman (29/8/13)

Seems to me that the hardest part of brewing to master and get a great feel for is fermentation - little wonder there is so much talk of bad yeast


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (29/8/13)

Damn you Monty Python

Every yeast is sacred, every yeast is good.......if a yeast gets wasted then god gets quite irrate


----------



## Rurik (29/8/13)

It's funny recently I brewed an APA, fermented it with US 05 and gave it a good shot of oxygen. From memory it went from around the 1.048 mark to below 1.010. Nice and malty, very clean to the taste. Took it to a party at which there were some brewers. One of them was trashing US05 because it was a dried yeast but could not stop raving about my APA. He was a little shocked when I told him what the yeast was. What do I conclude from this? Chose the right yeast for the job and treat it well and it will make good beer for you.


----------



## TimL (29/8/13)

According to the jims beer kit website,saf 04 and dried nottingham seem to be the yeasts of choice for the majority of english micro's,if it's good enough for them....,having said that just made a cracking epa with 1469


----------

