# Re-Hydrate v Not..



## Ducatiboy stu

When using dry yeast I have never seen the need to re-hydrate first. Especially if done in plain water. The yeast will hydrate just as well in the ferm, if not better. Remember water has no nutrients so wont help it along. The wort has everything it needs to hydrate and get to work


----------



## spudfarmerboy

So Fermentis and Lallemand don't know what they're talking about then?


----------



## philmud

I rehydrate because it says to on the pack. If it said to jump off a bridge...

I thought it might disperse the yeast cells through the wort a bit more thoroughly, but I've also sprinkled before and it it seemed fine, it didn't ferment to as low a FG as I expected, but that means SFA as it was a different beer from those made with hydrated yeast.


----------



## spryzie

I rehyrdate because the manufacturer recommends it and also the science I've read says it's better for yeast health.

If sprinkling is adverse to yeast health enough to be bad is another question.

I made a marzen, rehyrdated s23, fermentation started within 24 hours.

I've got a bock going now, forget to rehydrate s23, fermentation started within 24 hours.

I haven't been able to detect any difference.

But I pitched big both times 14g. Marzen was 16L 1.053 and the Bock was 12L 1.066.


----------



## philmud

Wait a minute, Stu, are you yeast trolling again?


----------



## slash22000

Phil Mud said:


> Wait a minute, Stu, are you yeast trolling again?


Yes. He/she was doing the same thing in another thread about hydrating yeast.

But for the curious: http://koehlerbeer.com/2008/06/07/rehydrating-dry-yeast-with-dr-clayton-cone/

Rehydrating is good. You don't need to rehydrate, but you should. Your beer will probably turn out alright if you don't rehydrate, but it's not good practice. You kill a lot of your yeast, pitching dry. Rehydrating takes virtually zero effort and costs nothing. Why _not_ do it?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

slash22000 said:


> Yes. He/she was doing the same thing in another thread about hydrating yeast.


I am not.

This is why I started a different thread


----------



## Droopy

A point of order- sprinkling/mixing dry yeast into your wort @ mid-20sC is in fact rehydrating the yeast.


----------



## Black Devil Dog

Palmer says that if pitched directly into the wort, the sugars prevent the yeast from getting enough water into their cells to metabolise, Causing many to die.

He also suggests to re-hydrate at 35 - 40 deg c.


----------



## ash2

I have rehydrated yeast a couple of times & found no difference from sprinkling the yeast. :unsure:


----------



## slash22000

If you all just read the link I posted it would make this whole topic a lot easier to discuss ... except that there really isn't anything to discuss. The benefits of rehydration are known science. Anecdotal evidence does not change the facts. Again, I'm sure your beer turns out okay if you don't rehydrate (I've done it myself, we all have), but that doesn't change the facts that it's poor practice and kills most of your yeast.


----------



## Feldon

Sure, some yeast die if pitched dry direct into the wort. But maybe this is a good thing. They are weak yeast cells with cell walls that can't withstand the osmotic pressure of the wort. Good. Let the buggers die, and ferment your beer with decendants of the remaining strong, thick walled yeast.

Call it a eugenics approach.


----------



## benno1973

Slash's link is the one that came to mind when I read the topic. The pertinent points in relation to the OP are:



> The water should be tap water with the normal amount of hardness present. The hardness is essential for good recovery. 250 -500 ppm hardness is ideal. This means that deionized or distilled water should not be used. Ideally, the warm rehydration water should contain about 0.5 – 1.0% yeast extract
> 
> For the initial few minutes (perhaps seconds) of rehydration, the yeast cell wall cannot differentiate what passes through the wall. Toxic materials like sprays, hops, SO2 and sugars in high levels, that the yeast normally can selectively keep from passing through its cell wall rush right in and seriously damage the cells. The moment that the cell wall is properly reconstituted, the yeast can then regulate what goes in and out of the cell. That is why we hesitate to recommend rehydration in wort or must. Very dilute wort seems to be OK.


and..



> How do many beer and wine makers have successful fermentations when they ignore all the above? I believe that it is just a numbers game. Each gram of Active Dry Yeast contains about 20 billion live yeast cells. If you slightly damage the cells, they have a remarkable ability to recover in the rich wort. If you kill 60% of the cell you still have 8 billion cells per gram that can go on to do the job at a slower rate.


----------



## Greg.L

For commercial applications rehydrating is obviously better. For small scale home brew beer making it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference but I am sure you will get a bit better fermentation from rehydrating, it depends whether you can be bothered.
For wine and cider there is no debate, you have to rehydrate.


----------



## pressure_tested

That clears up my question: wouldn't rehydrating in wort (as per fermentis instructions) be kind of like the direct dry pitch. 

I now understand why water or dilute wort is best but why does fermentis even give you the wort option? Why not just say 'do it in water!'


----------



## Droopy

Feldon said:


> Sure, some yeast die if pitched dry direct into the wort. But maybe this is a good thing. They are weak yeast cells with cell walls that can't withstand the osmotic pressure of the wort. Good. Let the buggers die, and ferment your beer with decendants of the remaining strong, thick walled yeast.
> 
> Call it a eugenics approach.


Darwin is alive and well. Survival of the fittest, my sentiments exactly!


----------



## Spiesy

I like good beer, so I try to do all the processes correctly to give my beer the best chance to be awesome. I don't cut corners and I don't take chances.

I'd like to think that the people who dedicate their lives to making yeast might have some understanding in how their yeast is best used.


----------



## Maxt

Rehydrating....you know it makes sense!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Either way it ends hydrated


----------



## Spiesy

And beer is beer.


----------



## JasonP

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Either way it ends hydrated


You gotta think about the fact that the yeast before packaging was de-hydrated and needs to be re-hyrdated before starting to get to work. Chucking it straight into the wort will indeed re-hydrate the yeast but it will also stress it out. Re-hyrdating the yeast in water (or *small* amount of sugary solution) will get the yeast ready to do their job withour shocking them too much


----------



## GalBrew

Maybe we can argue next about how you can make beer without temp control, or proper sanitation, so not to worry about it???


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> Maybe we can argue next about how you can make beer without temp control, or proper sanitation, so not to worry about it???


They were making good beer or thousands of years before "temp control, or proper sanitation".


----------



## Mardoo

Feldon said:


> They were making good beer or thousands of years before "temp control, or proper sanitation".


Are we sure it was good?


----------



## Feldon

Mardoo said:


> Are we sure it was good?


Historical records show that good and bad beer was commonly determined by ale tasters in most towns in Europe. People were aware of the relative difference.


----------



## bradsbrew

Stu, one good thing about your yeast threads is that it made me research more on my process. It has shown me how my arrogant ignorance towards yeast starters and rehydrating was exactly that, arrogant and ignorant towards healthy yeast pitching. I now calculate my yeast dependant on OG and size. Also been making starters and rehydrating where required.

Cheers


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

bradsbrew said:


> Stu, one good thing about your yeast threads is that it made me research more on my process. It has shown me how my arrogant ignorance towards yeast starters and rehydrating was exactly that, arrogant and ignorant towards healthy yeast pitching. I now calculate my yeast dependant on OG and size. Also been making starters and rehydrating where required.
> 
> Cheers


Exacty...Starting these thteads was not trolling....we have ALL learnt something...whether we choose to use the gained knowledge is not up to me


----------



## JasonP

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Exacty...Starting these thteads was not trolling....we have ALL learnt something...whether we choose to use the gained knowledge is not up to me


Have you learnt something though??


----------



## Greg.L

I heard a show yesterday on RN about beer making in ancient mesopotamia (Iraq). No hygiene at all (or hops), their solution was drink it before it finished fermenting (through a straw). Why wait for it to go off?


----------



## GalBrew

Feldon said:


> They were making good beer or thousands of years before "temp control, or proper sanitation".


Were they? I would assume to make that statement you were around way back when and sampled some fine medieval ales?

Probably tasted like asshole, but still got people drunk. Who knows? All I know is you use bad process you get bad beer.


----------



## GalBrew

Feldon said:


> Historical records show that good and bad beer was commonly determined by ale tasters in most towns in Europe. People were aware of the relative difference.


You are basing your assertion on the flawed assumption that 21st century beer drinkers and ye olde 'ale tasters' had similar definitions of 'good beer'. 

You have zero notion of their concepts of what was 'good', neither do I. 

1000 years ago a 'good' house had a thatched roof, a dirt floor and full of livestock. Not my idea of classy digs.


----------



## Silver

Have only ever sprinkled onto wort and never had a problem. If it aint broke.


----------



## JasonP

Silver said:


> Have only ever sprinkled onto wort and never had a problem. If it aint broke.


so you wouldnt do anything to improve your beer if you could? fair enough if you are happy, but i am always lookking to brew better beers.


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> You are basing your assertion on the flawed assumption that 21st century beer drinkers and ye olde 'ale tasters' had similar definitions of 'good beer'.
> 
> You have zero notion of their concepts of what was 'good', neither do I.
> 
> 1000 years ago a 'good' house had a thatched roof, a dirt floor and full of livestock. Not my idea of classy digs.


You weren't there either, but you have a lot to say about about the "asshole" beer they drank. I simply turn your own words back on you. By your own definition, you don't know either.

But there are many records from boroughs and other town administrations in the UK and elsewhere in Europe that identify beer quality as a major local issue. They knew the difference.

Good and bad are subjective, not absolute. What would a medieval monk think of modern beer, like VB?

Making good beer did not begin with the invention of the STC 1000 and Starsan.


Getting back to the OP's question:

If you want the good oil on car tyres don't ask a tyre maker, ask a race driver.

If you want the good oil on yeast don't ask a yeast maker, ask a brewer.

Which is what the OP did. Pity so many 'brewers' betray their craft by ingoring their own and other brewers' experience.


Edit: sp.


----------



## GalBrew

Feldon said:


> You weren't there either, but you have a lot to say about about the "asshole" beer they drank. I simply turn your own words back on you. By your own definition, you don't know either.
> 
> But there are many records from boroughs and other town administrations in the UK and elsewhere in Europe that identify beer quality as a major local issue. They knew the difference.
> 
> Good and bad are subjective, not absolute. What would a medieval monk think of modern beer, like VB?
> 
> Making good beer did not begin with the invention of the STC 2000 and Starsan.
> 
> Getting back to the OP's question:
> 
> If you want the good oil on car tyres don't ask a tyre maker, ask a race driver.
> 
> If you want the good oil on yeast don't ask a yeast maker, ask a brewer.
> 
> Which is what the OP did. Pity so many 'brewers' betray their craft by ingoring their own and other brewers' experience.


Quality is all relative. That is why processes improve. At one point in time I'm sure people were arguing if this new crazy ingredient called hops should be put into ale. I guess you would have been against it as in your experience it was not necessary???

The real tradition of 'craft' anything is to make the best product possible. 

Or not, whatever.......


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> Quality is all relative.


“And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?”


----------



## Bizier

Ducatiboy stu said:


> How am I spreading misinformation...I am mearly stating MY point of view....I dont particularly care if you dont agree with me...that is your right...you may have noticed..when you take your blinkers off..that some others share the same view...
> 
> If it leads to healthy debate with the added gain of knowledge then it cant be a bad thing


You are merely blissfully ignorant and loudly sing songs of your bliss from the hilltops.


----------



## benno1973

GalBrew said:


> What are they learning though?


I have learnt to ignore scientific proof and trust in anecdotal evidence instead. Have also now decided to believe in God and creationism, rather than evolution.


----------



## Droopy

I wonder if baking a loaf of bread is so complicated?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Unfortunatly.....yes........


----------



## Yob

It's my understanding that when yeast are re hydrating they cannot control what passes through the cell membrane, fully rehydrated they can, it's for this reason re hydrating in water is best for yeast health, it's a process I'm happy with doing..

Also, yeast are packaged with all the nutrients they need to get cracking so again, sterile water is best.


----------



## manticle

This was a really good idea for a thread. I wonder why no-one has thought of it before?


----------



## bradsbrew

manticle said:


> This was a really good idea for a thread. I wonder why no-one has thought of it before?


Re-Hydrating Yeast - General Brewing Techniques - Aussie Home ...
aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/38-re-hydrating-yeast/


Re-Hydrating Yeast - posted in General Brewing Techniques: It was recommended to me I should rehydrate the yeast before using, I had no ...

Rehydrating Yeast - Kits & Extracts - Aussie Home Brewer
aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/74390-rehydrating-yeast/


Page 1 of 2 - Rehydrating Yeast - posted in Kits & Extracts: How do i rehydrate Yeast? Thanks.

Rehydrating Dry Yeast - All Grain Brewing - Aussie Home Brewer
aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/50665-rehydrating-dry-yeast/


Page 1 of 2 - Rehydrating Dry Yeast - posted in All Grain Brewing: Just after some advice on my rehydrated S05 yeast. Did my second AG ...

dry yeast rehydrating tip - avoid yeast clumps - General Brewing ...
aussiehomebrewer.com/.../73269-dry-yeast-rehydrating-tip-avoid-yeast- clumps/

dry yeast rehydrating tip - avoid yeast clumps - posted in General Brewing Techniques: hey guys, i read a trick (on another unnamed forum! )

Should I Re-hydrate Dried Yeast? - General Brewing Techniques ...
aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/59308-should-i-re-hydrate-dried-yeast/

Do we need to re-hyrdate yeast following John Palmers instructions show here.re -hydrate yeastOr with modern day yeasts is this something we ...

Rehydrating Dry Yeast - Conflicting Advice - General Brewing ...
aussiehomebrewer.com/.../36467-rehydrating-dry-yeast-conflicting-advice/


I also had a look at Craftbrewers yeast section. Now the two of them give conflicting advice. One wants me to rehydrate @ 27C the other 37C ...


Should I Cool Rehydrated Lager Yeast? - General Brewing ...
aussiehomebrewer.com/.../51943-should-i-cool-rehydrated-lager-yeast/


posted in General Brewing Techniques: With ale yeasts, I get away with just sprinkling dry yeast on the wort, but I want to rehydrate lager yeasts ...

Should I Re-hydrate Dried Yeast? - Aussie Home Brewer
aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/59308-should...hydrate...yeast/page-2

Basic Brewing Radio" podcast.http://www.basicbrew....php?page=radioEpisode: July 28, 2011 - BYO-BBR Yeast Rehydration Experiment.

Rehydrating Yeast - Aussie Home Brewer
aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/34009-rehydrating-yeast/

Rehydrating Yeast - posted in General Brewing Techniques: Hi,Just after some reassurance/ advice please.I'm just about to put down a Pale ...

Rehydrating Yeast? - The Pub - Aussie Home Brewer
aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/1570-rehydrating-yeast/

Rehydrating Yeast? - posted in The Pub: Last night i put a 1.7Kg Stockmans Draught + 1.5Kg's Extra Pale Malt Extract down. I did not use any ...


----------



## Silver

JasonP said:


> so you wouldnt do anything to improve your beer if you could? fair enough if you are happy, but i am always lookking to brew better beers.


Fair enough if I'm happy. Thanks. I think anyone who makes their own beer tries to achieve outcomes that not only impresses themselves but others as well.



GalBrew said:


> So why do you frequent this forum, if not to improve your brewing?
> 
> Threads like this shit me to tears and contribute to the downturn in quality on this site.


Sorry, does not deserve a response.


----------



## vonromanz

Yob said:


> It's my understanding that when yeast are re hydrating they cannot control what passes through the cell membrane, fully rehydrated they can, it's for this reason re hydrating in water is best for yeast health, it's a process I'm happy with doing..
> 
> Also, yeast are packaged with all the nutrients they need to get cracking so again, sterile water is best.


Yob, you are right. "During the first moments of rehydration, the cell cannot regulate what passes through the membrane. High levels of sugar, nutrients, hop acids, or other compounds can enter freely and damage the cell. This is why adding dry yeast directly to wort results in such a high percentage of dead and damaged cells". (Quoted from Yeast by White and Zainasheff)

There is more info in that book on page 146. There is allot of literature out there supporting the fact that it is better to rehydrate dry yeast. I cant seem to find any info in brewing books (not homebrew magazines) about rehydrating dry yeast not being necessary.

Cheers


----------



## treefiddy

bradsbrew said:


> Stu, one good thing about your yeast threads is that it made me research more on my process. It has shown me how my arrogant ignorance towards yeast starters and rehydrating was exactly that, arrogant and ignorant towards healthy yeast pitching. I now calculate my yeast dependant on OG and size. Also been making starters and rehydrating where required.
> 
> Cheers





Ducatiboy stu said:


> Exacty...Starting these thteads was not trolling....we have ALL learnt something...whether we choose to use the gained knowledge is not up to me


I like to think that Stu is conflicted in his views on the yeast threads.
On one hand he is playing devil's advocate, and on the other he partially believes his argument.

Do you always need a starter? No.
Would a starter benefit you? Probably.

Do you need to rehydrate yeast? No.
Would rehydrating yeast benefit you? Maybe.










No...


----------



## slash22000

> Would rehydrating yeast benefit you? Maybe.


When does healthier yeast NOT benefit you?


----------



## treefiddy

slash22000 said:


> When does healthier yeast NOT benefit you?


Honestly I though Kai at braukaiser had evaluated yeast viability with regards to hydration medium and temperature but I can't find the link.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for healthy yeast and appropriate pitching rates.




bum said:


> Candida.


Brie.


----------



## Bizier

Stu, give us your average starting gravity and temperature at time of pitch.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Bizier said:


> Stu, give us your average starting gravity and temperature at time of pitch.


Why


----------



## bradsbrew

I have removed quite a few posts, too many people to PM. Please keep posts on topic.

Discussion and debate is good to read and can spark an individuals research. If you do not like or agree with the validity of the topic, there is no need to post. If you do not agree with any information posted, then post a valid rebuttal/reply.


----------



## Spiesy

bradsbrew said:


> I have removed quite a few posts, too many people to PM. Please keep posts on topic.
> 
> Discussion and debate is good to read and can spark an individuals research. If you do not like or agree with the validity of the topic, there is no need to post. If you do not agree with any information posted, then post a valid rebuttal/reply.


My sincerest of apologies for making jokes....


----------



## GalBrew

bradsbrew said:


> I have removed quite a few posts, too many people to PM. Please keep posts on topic.
> 
> Discussion and debate is good to read and can spark an individuals research. If you do not like or agree with the validity of the topic, there is no need to post. If you do not agree with any information posted, then post a valid rebuttal/reply.


Debate about 2 methods of equal validity is indeed good for all. Arguing over why inferior methods should be used, when they have been shown to be as such is NOT good. Why do 'we' want the proliferation of sub-standard advice on this forum? It boggles the mind. Perhaps if dry pitchers mentioned the caveats surrounding their methods (such as 50% cell death) rather than just saying 'it's fine' or 'my beer tastes good' which are totally subjective measurements of quality, there wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Silver

*OMG*


----------



## Silver

Is that stat correct, (such as 50% cell death)? It is common knowledge that 87.63% of all quoted statistics are just made up.


----------



## Bizier

Rescinding offer to demonstrate.


----------



## slash22000

Silver said:


> Is that stat correct, (such as 50% cell death)? It is common knowledge that 87.63% of all quoted statistics are just made up.


http://koehlerbeer.com/2008/06/07/rehydrating-dry-yeast-with-dr-clayton-cone/

~60% cell death pitching dehydrated yeast into 16ºC water. Wort would kill even more. Considering the average pitching temperature is around 18ºC in wort, 50% cell death is pretty much guaranteed.


----------



## Silver

slash22000 said:


> http://koehlerbeer.com/2008/06/07/rehydrating-dry-yeast-with-dr-clayton-cone/
> 
> ~60% cell death pitching dehydrated yeast into 16ºC water. Wort would kill even more. Considering the average pitching temperature is around 18ºC in wort, 50% cell death is pretty much guaranteed.


So what are the documented stats for pitching into say, 24 deg C? Where does the info come from that determines the average pitching temp is 18 deg C? If one is talking kits in the warmer half of OZ I would be GUESSING around 25 deg C mark.


----------



## RelaxedBrewer

I am pretty new to the forum and I understand that there maybe some politics happening in this thread that I don't get, but this is not a proper discussion.


Summary of this thread
- Idea proposed that rehydrating dry yeast is not necessary
- Response is given of why it is beneficial with link to an article by an expert in the field on the subject (also provides an explanation of why it is different to rehydrating in the wort)
- Then no proper response from people that think rehydrating is not necessary, just a couple of responses that indicate that they either did not read the provided article or did not understand it.

A proper honest discussion would at least involve commenting on the article (why you think it is valid or invalid). State why you think the article is BS or acknowledge that it has some valid points that you did not realise.

just my 2c as this thread has started to piss me off

RB


----------



## GalBrew

Silver said:


> So what are the documented stats for pitching into say, 24 deg C? Where does the info come from that determines the average pitching temp is 18 deg C? If one is talking kits in the warmer half of OZ I would be GUESSING around 25 deg C mark.


Silver, we are not re-inventing the wheel here. This is common knowledge (or should be) and has been proven through cell counting. Go out and get a copy of the Yeast book, by Jamil and Chris White and have a read. Or do a little reasearch elsewhere. Everytime you pitch dry you are underpitching by approximately half.


----------



## slash22000

Here is a link to a cheap copy of the book if anybody is interested (not affiliated).

But as far as pitching at 24ºC or so, you will note from the article I linked as well that 35ºC - 40ºC in water was the optimal temperature for ~100% cell recovery.

Pitching into wort (at any temperature) kills dehydrated yeast (this is also covered in the article).


----------



## Silver

I for one am not trying to reinvent the wheel, simply stated quite a while ago that i for one have always pitched dry and never had any problems. Seems I should not have this opinion according to some.


----------



## slash22000

Don't take things so personally, Silver.

Nobody is saying pitching yeast dry doesn't work but the fact is that it is poor practice. You're intentionally killing most of your yeast. I mean, you wouldn't intentionally **** up any other part of the brewing process, so why intentionally **** up your yeast? :huh:


----------



## GalBrew

Silver said:


> I for one am not trying to reinvent the wheel, simply stated quite a while ago that i for one have always pitched dry and never had any problems. Seems I should not have this opinion according to some.


Your beer might taste fine, but have you ever thought that if you didn't pitch dry, and actually pitched the correct amount of yeast it might taste better?

You can make beer with a wild open ferment too right, there will be no problems ferment wise there either.


----------



## Black Devil Dog

Best practice v's second best practice, your choice.


----------



## Yob

and also, is more of an issue if you would be re-using the yeast. As slash said, dont get worked up about it mate, the forum is a beast at times but the info will out.


----------



## vonromanz

slash22000 said:


> Here is a link to a cheap copy of the book if anybody is interested (not affiliated).
> 
> But as far as pitching at 24ºC or so, you will note from the article I linked as well that 35ºC - 40ºC in water was the optimal temperature for ~100% cell recovery.
> 
> Pitching into wort (at any temperature) kills dehydrated yeast (this is also covered in the article).


Hi Slash22000,

The rehydrating temp of 35-40C is only for a basic process. As they mentioned, every yeast strain has its own optimum rehydration process. This is one of the key differences between Danstar and Fermentis.

Danstar rehydration temp is 35oC where Fermentis is 27oC (+/-3oC) for their ale strains and 23oC (+/-3oC) for the lager strains. You will still have to adjust the yeast temperature to fermentation temperature, or within 10oC.

For this reason I prefer Fermentis over Danstar, since the rehydration temp is closer to fermentation temp for ales, say 20oC. There is n big difference between 35oC (Danstar rehydration temp) and 20oC (Ale fermentation temp).

Cheers


----------



## Silver

Not at all upset, but appreciate the concern. Have rehydrated in the past and found no difference in my beers to speak of. Did a quick search of Fermentis after recalling my days of brewing Coopers and the instructions saying to sprinkle onto wort. Cut and Paste from Fermentis as follows:
rehydration instructions
Sprinkle the yeast in minimum 10 times its weight of sterile water or wort at 27°C ± 3°C (80°F ± 6°F). Leave to rest 15 to 30 minutes.
Gently stir for 30 minutes, and pitch the resultant cream into the fermentation vessel.
Alternatively, pitch the yeast directly in the fermentation vessel providing the temperature of the wort is above 20°C (68°F). Progressively sprinkle
the dry yeast into the wort ensuring the yeast covers all the surface of wort available in order to avoid clumps. Leave for 30 minutes, then mix the
wort using aeration or by wort addition.

Alternatively, pitch the yeast directly in the fermentation vessel providing the temperature of the wort is above 20°C (68°F). These are the experts, right.


----------



## GalBrew

Silver said:


> Alternatively, pitch the yeast directly in the fermentation vessel providing the temperature of the wort is above 20°C (68°F). These are the experts, right.



Yes, and they know full well that around half your yeast will die when you pitch dry. They put these 'alternate' instructions on for noobs, so they don't chuck the whole brewing thing in the two hard basket. 

Go ask the good people at Mountain Goat if they pitch their us-05 (which they do use) dry.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Silver said:


> I for one am not trying to reinvent the wheel, simply stated quite a while ago that i for one have always pitched dry and never had any problems. Seems I should not have this opinion according to some.


Opinions + Internet = dangerous territory


----------



## Silver

> Yes, and they know full well that around half your yeast will die when you pitch dry. They put these 'alternate' instructions on for noobs, so they don't chuck the whole brewing thing in the two hard basket.
> 
> Go ask the good people at Mountain Goat if they pitch their us-05 (which they do use) dry.


"They put these 'alternate' instructions on for noobs, so they don't chuck the whole brewing thing in the two hard basket." Is this what they told you when you asked the good people at Fermentis?


----------



## slcmorro

Oh FFS.


----------



## verysupple

While I disagree with most of the statements in the OP, there's a really good reason why beer still ferments OK without rehydrating the yeast.

If you pitch 11 g of dry yeast into a 23 L batch of average strength ale (1.048 or 12 P) and 50 % of the cells die, you still have ~110 billion healthy(ish) cells left to do the job. That's a pitch rate of ~0.4 million cells / P / mL which is only slightly underpitching for most styles. 

As many people have already pointed out, rehydrating is plain and simple good practice. However, nobody's forcing you to do it and if you can't be bothered calculating the mass of dry yeast needed for a batch and then carefully weighing it out and then rehydrating it properly, you probably don't care about pitching rates anyway.


----------



## slash22000

Silver, have you actually read any of the links that have been posted in this thread?

You say you have rehydrated in the past and saw no difference in the beer, but this is really not a matter of opinion. The hard science 100% confirms that pitching dehydrated yeast is a bad idea compared to rehydrating. Fermentis does not breed some sort of magical yeast that defies all known brewing science.

Lots of people don't sufficiently aerate their wort before they pitch their yeast. Lots of people don't add yeast nutrients to their wort. Lots of people don't pitch enough yeast. Lots of people ferment too high, or too low.

Yeast is a battler of an organism, and 9 times out of 10 it will work "well enough" no matter what you do to it. That doesn't mean that there is not a BETTER way of doing things.


----------



## Florian

slash22000 said:


> Yeast is a battler of an organism, and 9 times out of 10 it will work "well enough" no matter what you do to it. That doesn't mean that there is not a BETTER way of doing things.


I don't think anyone has said that though. People like Silver do realise that there theoretically might be a better way of doing things, but if they're happy with their results and don't constantly strive to better them then why bother? He said he tried it but couldn't detect a difference, so why would he bother then?

Leave 'em alone, not everyone needs to be converted to follow best practices. There's enough info in this thread for everyone to get an informed opinion, don't worry.

Brew and let brew!

Also, nothing wrong with dry pitching double the recommended rates, cost aside.


----------



## slash22000

Well the whole topic started with Ducatiboy claiming that NOT rehydrating is the best practice:



Ducatiboy stu said:


> When using dry yeast I have never seen the need to re-hydrate first. Especially if done in plain water. The yeast will hydrate just as well in the ferm, if not better. Remember water has no nutrients so wont help it along. The wort has everything it needs to hydrate and get to work


So the topic is really about facts VS fiction, and the facts are that rehydration is the smart move. As you say, brew and let brew, for sure, but the topic IS about rehydration after all.


----------



## GalBrew

So basically we are denying the existence of osmotic shock? Which is what this comes down to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic_shock


----------



## Florian

slash22000 said:


> Well the whole topic started with Ducatiboy claiming that NOT rehydrating is the best practice:
> 
> 
> So the topic is really about facts VS fiction, and the facts are that rehydration is the smart move. As you say, brew and let brew, for sure, but the topic IS about rehydration after all.


I'm not talking about the OP, fairly obvious what he is on about.

I was referring to Silver who merely stated that he personally can't see why he should rehydrate as he is happy with his beers. He instantly got attacked by at least two posters questioning why he would even be on this site. That's the part I don't get.

I'm re-hydrating as well and always have, but I don't question others if they don't. Suggesting different methods, yes, but not questioning.

Anyway, that's it from me in this thread, I'm off to re-hydrate a pack of Windsor.


----------



## Silver

Florian said:


> I'm not talking about the OP, fairly obvious what he is on about.
> 
> I was referring to Silver who merely stated that he personally can't see why he should rehydrate as he is happy with his beers. He instantly got attacked by at least two posters questioning why he would even be on this site. That's the part I don't get.
> 
> I'm re-hydrating as well and always have, but I don't question others if they don't. Suggesting different methods, yes, but not questioning.
> 
> Anyway, that's it from me in this thread, I'm off to re-hydrate a pack of Windsor.


You got it brother. The only one though. sad


----------



## GalBrew

Florian said:


> I'm not talking about the OP, fairly obvious what he is on about.
> 
> I was referring to Silver who merely stated that he personally can't see why he should rehydrate as he is happy with his beers. He instantly got attacked by at least two posters questioning why he would even be on this site. That's the part I don't get.
> 
> I'm re-hydrating as well and always have, but I don't question others if they don't. Suggesting different methods, yes, but not questioning.
> 
> Anyway, that's it from me in this thread, I'm off to re-hydrate a pack of Windsor.


I don't understand the point of joining a homebrewing forum, which is essentially a means of sharing homebrewing information, if you don't want any of that information. If Silver is happy with his beers that is great, but if I didn't want to pick up anything new about my brewing processes I would probably spend my net time looking at porn or something else. Anyway I tire of this rubbish.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Silver....very sad indeed...its almost like you have been draged to the water trough and forced to drink simply for expressing your opinion and option


----------



## Florian

GalBrew said:


> I don't understand the point of joining a homebrewing forum, which is essentially a means of sharing homebrewing information, if you don't want any of that information. If Silver is happy with his beers that is great, but if I didn't want to pick up anything new about my brewing processes I would probably spend my net time looking at porn or something else. Anyway I tire of this rubbish.


Who said he doesn't want to pick up anything? I'm sure he's learned heaps, he might not be particularly interested in learning about yeast at this point but there's heaps more to brewing, isn't there?

I know that Silver has also contributed his own great ideas to this forum, and has also sold some excellent second hand gear (search his content if you don't remember those ideas). So there's another reason to join a forum.

In relation to your second sentence, one could also argue that time might be better spent by looking at porn than arguing on a home brew forum. :icon_cheers: 


Windsor re-hydrating as we speak, time for a beer!


----------



## slash22000

I'm glad that people didn't have this "let newbies **** things up" attitude years ago or else I would never have learned jack from AHB. Being told I was a dickhead accounts for about 90% of my brewing education.


----------



## Silver

slash22000 said:


> I'm glad that people didn't have this "let newbies **** things up" attitude years ago or else I would never have learned jack from AHB. Being told I was a dickhead accounts for about 90% of my brewing education.


understandable


----------



## RelaxedBrewer

I was just listening to the latest Brew Strong episode with Jamil Zainasheff and John Palmer on the way home.
They commented on the non rehydrating practise, I had to have a little laugh.
http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/984
or
http://s125483039.onlinehome.us/archive/bs_072213yeastQA.mp3
at 38.50

RB


----------



## slash22000

For those who can't listen to the MP3, Jamil explains that sprinkling in dry yeast kills at least half of it, and it's a terrible idea.

For those who don't know Jamil Zainasheff, he might be more familiar to you as Mr Malty (i.e. the yeast calculator guy), and the co-author of the "Yeast" book I linked earlier, also co-authored by Chris White (i.e. President and Founder of White Labs). Honestly I don't know how many more PHD's in biochemistry we need to reinforce these facts.


----------



## Silver

You don"t


----------



## bum

slash22000 said:


> For those who can't listen to the MP3, Jamil explains that sprinkling in dry yeast kills at least half of it, and it's a terrible idea.


Then why do Fermentis recommend the process?

Rehydrating is best and easy. Dry pitching has a downside that is easy countered. This is well covered now (and previously).


----------



## slash22000

Why do Fermentis recommend killing half their yeast? I don't know. It's a good question. Probably the same reason Coopers cans only come with 7 grams of yeast: technically, it works.

If people honestly do not give a shit about good practice and want to continue pitching yeast dry, more power to them, and I hope it works every time. But I'm inclined to echo the sentiment that if you're not interested in learning about brewing, why bother commenting at all? What's the point in shutting down conversation with "Well I don't WANT to rehydrate so NA NA NA"?


----------



## bum

slash22000 said:


> What's the point in shutting down conversation with "Well I don't WANT to rehydrate so NA NA NA"?


What's the point of telling people who say that they've tried rehydrating and didn't notice any benefit that they're being closed-minded?

Put your lack of self-awareness in the air and back away from the keyboard.


----------



## slash22000

It's not a matter of subjectivity or closed-mindedness, it's fact VS fiction. The original post stated that it's better NOT to rehydrate, which is factually false. The people who have chimed in saying they haven't noticed anything wrong with pitching dry are ancillary to the original discussion.

It seems like every time I post anything I end up arguing with you about my motivations behind posting it. I dunno if you're dating one of my ex-girlfriends or what. God help you if you are. :wacko:


----------



## bum

slash22000 said:


> The people who have chimed in saying they haven't noticed anything wrong with pitching dry are ancillary to the original discussion.


And yet these are the people you are talking to.

There you go with the lack of self-awareness again.


----------



## carniebrew

spudfarmerboy said:


> So Fermentis and Lallemand don't know what they're talking about then?





Phil Mud said:


> I rehydrate because it says to on the pack. If it said to jump off a bridge...


I think they DO know what they're talking about...and look at the last line as written on a pack of US-05:





If you can't read it, I'll reproduce it:
*Pitching*: Sprinkle into wort.

So it's not just as easy as saying "It's a terrible idea". Other dry yeasts may require re-hydrating, but the manufacturer of US-05 doesn't think it has a downside worth caring about.

And anyone trying to argue that it's "just as easy" to re-hydrate is talking shit. Re-hydrating involves extra sanitation, temperature monitoring and timing issues. It's not hard, but it's nowhere near as easy as snip and sprinkle FFS.

I continue to re-hydrate us-05 maybe half the time I pitch it, maybe one in every three. Why? Dunno, it's just kinda fun. But I have never noticed any difference. I say do whatever you prefer.


----------



## Droopy

I wonder if chicks on cake baking forums bitch as much as this?


----------



## Pickaxe

I hydrate yeast when baking, get better results, why not with brewing?


----------



## Pickaxe

From what I've read on here, it also has a lot to do with style and particular yeast not dealing with stress. Ive personally found good oxygenation of the wort to have a bigger impact than dry or rehydration at the 20-23l volumes i deal with.


----------



## JasonP

carniebrew said:


> I think they DO know what they're talking about...and look at the last line as written on a pack of US-05:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> us-05.jpg
> 
> If you can't read it, I'll reproduce it:
> *Pitching*: Sprinkle into wort.
> 
> So it's not just as easy as saying "It's a terrible idea". Other dry yeasts may require re-hydrating, but the manufacturer of US-05 doesn't think it has a downside worth caring about.
> 
> And anyone trying to argue that it's "just as easy" to re-hydrate is talking shit. Re-hydrating involves extra sanitation, temperature monitoring and timing issues. It's not hard, but it's nowhere near as easy as snip and sprinkle FFS.
> 
> I continue to re-hydrate us-05 maybe half the time I pitch it, maybe one in every three. Why? Dunno, it's just kinda fun. But I have never noticed any difference. I say do whatever you prefer.


The reason why dry yeast manufacturers say sprinkle in wort is because they don't know what the brewer's sanitation practices are like - so sprinkling dry yeast is not the best however better than re-hydrating with unsanitary conditions.


----------



## Pickaxe

I also defer to brewers like carnie, bum, Ducati and others. My jury is out. I think the point about commercial to hobby volumes speaks volumes....


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Pickaxe said:


> I also defer to brewers like carnie, bum, Ducati and others. My jury is out. I think the point about commercial to hobby volumes speaks volumes....


Well sometimes things dont scale down with ease


----------



## Bizier

You all know the acronym.


----------



## carniebrew

Bizier said:


> You all know the acronym.


That beer would have a much better head if he'd re-hydrated. Slack prick.that Charlie.


----------



## Droopy

Bizier said:


> You all know the acronym.


Don't let that guy near your kids...?


----------



## bum

Bizier said:


> You all know the acronym.


CPIAC?


----------



## carniebrew

Can't we all just call it 'horses for courses' or some such though? I remember reading "How to Brew" and after chapter 7 was sure the only way to make beer that didn't taste like cabbage (or was it creamed corn?) was to chill it really quickly with the lid off. A whole generation of no-chillers has shown how wrong that is, for plenty of styles anyway.

If you don't re-hydrate a pack of S-23 when pitching it onto a clean, light lager, and you don't like the resultant taste the lack of viable cells caused, then don't do it again. But if you pitch dry into your pale ale with 100 grams of late hops and it tastes great, who gives a flying safale?


----------



## Bizier

bum said:


> CPIAC?


Chemical Propulsion Information Analysis Center

Oh, wait.
Bad Bum!


----------



## Bizier

carniebrew said:


> Can't we all just call it 'horses for courses' or some such though? I remember reading "How to Brew" and after chapter 7 was sure the only way to make beer that didn't taste like cabbage (or was it creamed corn?) was to chill it really quickly with the lid off. A whole generation of no-chillers has shown how wrong that is, for plenty of styles anyway.


The thing is that all these arguments all have some root in science. Whether or not said phenomenon significantly affects the beer to the extent that the brewer can perceive or identify is the thing.


*Give Yeast a Chance*


----------



## QldKev

carniebrew said:


> I think they DO know what they're talking about...and look at the last line as written on a pack of US-05:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> us-05.jpg
> 
> If you can't read it, I'll reproduce it:
> *Pitching*: Sprinkle into wort.
> 
> So it's not just as easy as saying "It's a terrible idea". Other dry yeasts may require re-hydrating, but the manufacturer of US-05 doesn't think it has a downside worth caring about.
> 
> And anyone trying to argue that it's "just as easy" to re-hydrate is talking shit. Re-hydrating involves extra sanitation, temperature monitoring and timing issues. It's not hard, but it's nowhere near as easy as snip and sprinkle FFS.
> 
> I continue to re-hydrate us-05 maybe half the time I pitch it, maybe one in every three. Why? Dunno, it's just kinda fun. But I have never noticed any difference. I say do whatever you prefer.





JasonP said:


> The reason why dry yeast manufacturers say sprinkle in wort is because they don't know what the brewer's sanitation practices are like - so sprinkling dry yeast is not the best however better than re-hydrating with unsanitary conditions.


That's my understanding too. It's not just the sanatisation issue, there are many other factors that if hydration is performed incorrectly you could cause more bad than good. The Mangrove Jack yeast range (NZ company, but UK yeast) say on the packet to pitch yeast directly into wort, but if you read their detailed info manual it it says hydration is a better practice.

Also US-05 on the pack says add dry, but in their detailed spec sheet also recommends to hydrate


----------



## Pickaxe

So what's the consensus here?
Hydrate or not?


----------



## GalBrew

Pickaxe said:


> So what's the consensus here?
> Hydrate or not?


Well, do you want to follow best practice or not?


----------



## Pickaxe

yes, I do. It seems that Hydrate is best practice, and the science is there to back it up.


----------



## Greg.L

JasonP said:


> The reason why dry yeast manufacturers say sprinkle in wort is because they don't know what the brewer's sanitation practices are like - so sprinkling dry yeast is not the best however better than re-hydrating with unsanitary conditions.


Water at 35c in a clean bowl or jug is all that is required. If you have a thermometer that is pretty easy, even for the most basic bewing. You don't need to sanitise or boil, I have never read that on a packet of yeast or a data sheet.


----------



## Silver

> So what's the consensus here?
> Hydrate or not?


Obviously mixed. For some who have the time and inclination to hydrate and think they are making better beer, assuming they have tried on more than one occasion, both methods (experience), and believe it is worth the extra effort and risk, happy days. To those who have tried both methods and made the choice to snip and sprinkle,cheers. I think a very interesting point was raised in this debate which has not been followed up on is the survival of the fittest comment. Are the offspring of the 50% of surviving yeast (sprinkled gang) better in any way than the offspring of the (mollycoddled) hydrated yeast?


----------



## Ross

I've resisted getting involved in this one, but here's my 2c worth as a homebrewer & commercial brewer.

In the brewery we hydrate the yeast (maximum bang for buck, my call), at home where I'm on tank water, I sprinkle dry (can't be arsed boiling & cooling, my call). For a standard sized 20L batch with OG up to approx 1050 one pack sprinkled dry is fine. If I go out of these specs at home I pitch 2 dry packs, simple. 

As for earlier posters inferring commercial brewers don't pitch unhydrated - RUBBISH. One of the most successful & highly respected craft breweries in the country, does just that, as do many others, equally many hydrate.

Both methods work fine, as confirmed by the manufacturers. As long as you pitch enough yeast for the job, hydrating will not improve your beer. Look at the size & gravity of your wort, check the age of your yeast & make your call...

Then chill out & have a beer 


Cheers Ross


----------



## GalBrew

Good, now that this is settled maybe we can argue if you need to do a yeast starter, as it says that one vial/pack is enough for a 20L batch right?? 

(I would insert a winking emoticon here, but I am on the phone).


----------



## Ross

GalBrew said:


> Good, now that this is settled maybe we can argue if you need to do a yeast starter, as it says that one vial/pack is enough for a 20L batch right??
> 
> (I would insert a winking emoticon here, but I am on the phone).


As with dried. Batch size, gravity of wort, age of yeast, will give you the information to make your best call...  (inserted for you  )


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

GalBrew said:


> Good, now that this is settled maybe we can argue if you need to do a yeast starter, as it says that one vial/pack is enough for a 20L batch right??
> 
> (I would insert a winking emoticon here, but I am on the phone).


Dont even ******* go there........


----------



## GalBrew

Ha! Could be a theme, the whole chill v no-chill thing is going on elsewhere (not that I am going anywhere near that one).


----------



## slash22000

Assuming a standard Aussie 23 litre batch, one 11.5g packet of dry yeast NOT rehydrated (-50% cell count) is an ideal pitching rate in wort with a maximum ... 1.026 OG.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

GalBrew said:


> Ha! Could be a theme, the whole chill v no-chill thing is going on elsewhere (not that I am going anywhere near that one).


There already has been....There is enough in the pack FFS...went for 13 psges


----------



## eamonnfoley

I rehydrate because its proven to be better, and its too easy not to. But.....good brewers such as Feral (yes Feral) use dry yeast and dont rehydrate - just chuck it straight in. Some beers they wouldn't do it for, but I asked Brendon once and he told me they use dry yeast almost exclusively. A lot of WA breweries do actually.


----------



## Pickaxe

Thanks Ross.


----------



## WarmBeer

Pickaxe said:


> I also defer to brewers like *carnie*, bum, *Ducati* and others...


----------



## Pickaxe

All advice taken with agrain of salt, but to be honest, I've never been put too far wrong. My beer is tasting good and improving thanks to many on ahb.

Bit tired of all the bickering and petty bullshit oneupmanship crap.


----------



## GalBrew

From my POV there is no oneupmanship crap here, do whatever you want. I just get the shits when I see the same lazy advice constantly flogged off like it is the best and only way to go with no mention of its limitations.


----------



## WarmBeer

There are, or rather, were, many good brewers with years of experience, both professional and anecdotal, on this forum.

The three you named are not amongst that set of brewers, although I will give Bum credit for the occasional wisdom he bestows when he's not angrily tearing people a new one with his witty wordsmanship.

Edit: ... and I apologise to you for countering the sentiment of my very own signature.


----------



## Pickaxe

No need for apology. I'm taking advice where it is offered right now. Interesting there is a thread asking "who to listen to, who not to". I've got a lot to learn, and I'm interested in the info, I guess some of the older crew are getting sick of same noob questions.

limitations is a good point, and i kind of have blinkers on when it comes to "too far" with info or advice, but i will remember what people post when I get to that point in my own knowledge base.

I guess this thread is an excursion into best-practice Vs best-for-my-purposes.

Interesting what Ross put up though - coming from a professional - guess the debate remains divided on paper, but his point of enough yeast for the job is all I need right now.

Personally, I hydrate.


----------



## WarmBeer

*"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" *

You lost credibility with the first post in this thread.

If the entire exercise was meant to be tongue in cheek, then my sarcasm filter is out of whack, and you're more than capable of holding your own in a rapier-wit sword fight with Bum any day of the week.


----------



## Pickaxe

I'd say Ducati had been "vindicated" by what ross posted.

I might add, bum, carnie and Ducati have helped me out.


----------



## BeerNess

Spiesy has the rights of it, best practices and best results. 

Don't forget that killing half your yeast by dry pitching will still work BUT killing near 50% of your pitched amount means you're now drastically Underpitching. 

Underpitching means stressed yeast, which then produce undesired byproducts, which in turn means a lower quality end product. 

Each to their own, but it seems a shame to spend your time and effort creating something and then deliberately sabotage yourself at the start of the most important stage, and then promote it as being ok to others. 

Personally I've noticed a big step up in beer quality since I started hydrating my dry yeast. Faster fermentation and better flavour profile. Then once I started temperature control as well hydrated yeast made and even bigger improvement under stable temps (compared to dry pitched & temp ctrl)


----------



## pcmfisher

BeerNess said:


> Personally I've noticed a big step up in beer quality since I started hydrating my dry yeast. Faster fermentation and better flavour profile. Then once I started temperature control as well hydrated yeast made and even bigger improvement under stable temps (compared to dry pitched & temp ctrl)


Many have said there is no difference but is this the first person to say their beer is actually better when rehydrating?


----------



## GalBrew

pcmfisher said:


> Many have said there is no difference but is this the first person to say their beer is actually better when rehydrating?


I'd say many people were wise enough to keep away from this one. I failed miserably......


----------



## BeerNess

pcmfisher said:


> Many have said there is no difference but is this the first person to say their beer is actually better when rehydrating?


Yeah definite differences for me. 

Before I was turned to the light (beer in its glory that is not megaswill) I was involved heavily in wine, training to be a sommelier and in wine clubs, blind tasting competitions and so on. So I have a fairly well developed palette, I know I pick up much more out of anything I smell or taste than my friends.

My main beer drinking mates taste no difference but a wine buddy and my dad who also has a good nose can pick it too. We often do blind triangle or line up tastings of my beers, commercial brews, comparisons between my clone attempts and the real things etc.


----------



## Dengue

BeerNess said:


> Yeah definite differences for me.
> 
> Before I was turned to the light (beer in its glory that is not megaswill) I was involved heavily in wine, training to be a sommelier and in wine clubs, blind tasting competitions and so on. So I have a fairly well developed palette, I know I pick up much more out of anything I smell or taste than my friends.
> 
> My main beer drinking mates taste no difference but a wine buddy and my dad who also has a good nose can pick it too. We often do blind triangle or line up tastings of my beers, commercial brews, comparisons between my clone attempts and the real things etc.


are you saying you can taste the difference between a beer that has been pitched unhydrated vs one that has ?

if so, can you also detect the difference between a beer made with liquid yeast and one that has been made using rehydrated dry yeast ?


----------



## slash22000

The difference is between healthy yeast and stressed yeast, not "hydrated VS dry".

The problem is yeast health. Pitching dry kills half the yeast, which is drastically underpitching in many cases. 23 litres of standard 1.050 beer needs ~213 billion cells for ideal fermentation. One 11.5g dry yeast packet contains ~200 billion cells, but pitching dry kills half of them, so you're effectively only pitching ~100 billion or so, which puts a lot of stress on the surviving yeast, which can result in off-flavours being produced, stalled fermentations, who knows what else.

If you want to pitch double the recommend dosage to account for the dead yeast, that should work. Professional breweries who pitch dehydrated yeast would understand this and adjust their pitching rate accordingly, presumably they've crunched the numbers and figured it's easier/cheaper for their particular setup to just pitch more yeast than bother rehydrating it. But that is an entirely different scenario to a homebrewer pitching one dry packet of US-05 and claiming it's just as good as rehydrating first.

Whether pitching dry actually produces any detectable off-flavours, stalls the fermentation, or whatever, that's up to chance. What is NOT up for debate is the best way to guarantee healthy yeast, which is to always rehydrate first.


----------



## BeerNess

Dengue said:


> are you saying you can taste the difference between a beer that has been pitched unhydrated vs one that has ?
> 
> if so, can you also detect the difference between a beer made with liquid yeast and one that has been made using rehydrated dry yeast ?


Lol I can, when directly comparing them, pick the odd one out in a triangle test. 

Have picked some different yeasts before too. Bry-97, US05 and Wyeast 1056 all seem the same to me. But comparing English and US yeasts is usually easier. I'm still learning what flavours mean what, can't just try one and say what it is. Need different samples to compare to spot changes. 

To say I notice improvement is entirely subjective to what I like in beer. I did the comparisons on yeast with my APA using Galaxy and Cascade. So was looking for good hop presentation, clean malt, dry finish, etc. 

To me dry pitching has a slight flavour muddle. Like hearing very light static on radio station that's slightly off station. If that makes sense.


----------



## BeerNess

Dengue said:


> are you saying you can taste the difference between a beer that has been pitched unhydrated vs one that has ?
> 
> if so, can you also detect the difference between a beer made with liquid yeast and one that has been made using rehydrated dry yeast ?


----------



## BeerNess

Dengue said:


> are you saying you can taste the difference between a beer that has been pitched unhydrated vs one that has ?
> 
> if so, can you also detect the difference between a beer made with liquid yeast and one that has been made using rehydrated dry yeast ?


----------



## Feldon

Silver said:


> I think a very interesting point was raised in this debate which has not been followed up on is the survival of the fittest comment. Are the offspring of the 50% of surviving yeast (sprinkled gang) better in any way than the offspring of the (mollycoddled) hydrated yeast?


I think the survivors must be better. After all, they are alive while their weaker comrades are dead aren't they.

But the dead 'uns are not wasted. When they burst open by the uncontrolled ingress of wort their innards spill out and become nutrients for the surviving yeast to feed upon.

Natural selection + cannibalism = yeast master race.


----------



## Florian

Feldon said:


> I think the survivors must be better. After all, they are alive while their weaker comrades are dead aren't they.
> 
> But the dead 'uns are not wasted. When they burst open by the uncontrolled ingress of wort their innards spill out and become nutrients for the surviving yeast to feed upon.
> 
> Natural selection + cannibalism = yeast master race.


*If *what you say is true then dry pitching (close to double the 'normal' amount, mind you) would in fact be better then re-hydrating.

That'd be sort of funny in the context of this thread.


----------



## Greg.L

Ross said:


> As for earlier posters inferring commercial brewers don't pitch unhydrated - RUBBISH. One of the most successful & highly respected craft breweries in the country, does just that, as do many others, equally many hydrate.


I can't imagine why you would dry pitch into commercial quantities of beer. How would you even get it to mix evenly? let alone the waste and the risk. You need a healthy vigorous population of yeast to establish quickly and reduce the chance of spoilage yeast getting established, that means rehydrating. This thread is about homebrew quantities, I can see arguments both ways, but with commercial quantities I can't see any arguments for dry pitching other than "Joe Blow does it and he makes good beer so it must be ok". Your highly respected craft brewer pal must be extremely lazy.


----------



## Feldon

Florian said:


> *If *what you say is true then dry pitching (close to double the 'normal' amount, mind you) would in fact be better then re-hydrating.
> 
> That'd be sort of funny in the context of this thread.


Double dose of yeast is probably not needed. Yeast multiply in the early stages so I reckon the numbers are soon made up.

Many nutrients from the dead cells are ready-made for use by the surviving yeast - they don't need to use the oxygen in the wort to synthesise the molecules anew. Takeaway meals for yeasties.


----------



## Florian

Feldon said:


> Double dose of yeast is probably not needed. Yeast multiply in the early stages so I reckon the numbers are soon made up.


I know, I didn't want to get Slash to start preaching again though by not stressing that point.

Also in context of the comparison I made:


one pack of rehydrated yeast = one pack surviving yeast
Two packs of dry yeast = 1 pack surviving yeast + nutrients + better 'gene pool' (as only the 'strong ones' survive)

I know those numbers and probably the whole theory is flawed in many ways, was just trying to show Slash that dry pitching can be in fact better than re-hydrating, tongue in cheek (just a little, though).

EDIT: Clarity


----------



## GalBrew

Feldon said:


> Double dose of yeast is probably not needed. Yeast multiply in the early stages so I reckon the numbers are soon made up.


This is called underpitching and has a noticable affect on beer flavour.


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> This is called underpitching and has a noticable affect on beer flavour.


Read (and understand) my post. Ta.


----------



## Feldon

Florian said:


> I know, I didn't want to get Slash to start preaching again though by not stressing that point.
> 
> Also in context of the comparison I made:
> 
> one pack of rehydrated yeast = one pack surviving yeast
> Two packs of dry yeast = 1 pack surviving yeast + nutrients + better 'gene pool' (as only the 'strong ones' survive)
> 
> I know those numbers and probably the whole theory is flawed in many ways, was just trying to show Slash that dry pitching can be in fact better than re-hydrating, tongue in cheek (just a little, though).


Yep, agree. Two packs probably even better. But for me one pack is fine.


----------



## GalBrew

Feldon said:


> Read (and understand) my post. Ta.


I did. You are saying that double dry pitching is not required due to the super powers that the remaining viable yeast will get from their dead sachetmates. Yes, yeast will multiply. This is still underpitching. Ta.


----------



## slash22000

If I'm "preaching" the benefits of rehydrating then so is every single microbiologist who has ever done any non-biased scientific research into this topic. We'll have to inform their colleagues so they can immediately be stripped of their qualifications and expelled onto the street. -_-

"You're all wrong! All your research is wrong! All your conclusions are wrong!"

"What!? Why!?"

"Some guy said so. He reckons you're wrong."

"What proof does he have!? I've spent decades in microbiology, my tests were conclusive and repeatable!"

"Well, he doesn't have proof, really. He just disagrees."

"Why!?"

"Just because. Stop preaching your 'facts' you loons. Respect his authoritah."

"..."


----------



## pcmfisher

BeerNess said:


> To me dry pitching has a slight flavour muddle. Like hearing very light static on radio station that's slightly off station. If that makes sense.


Good comparison. They are probably both in you head.


----------



## Black Devil Dog

Next weeks topic for debate, temperature control or no temperature control. h34r:


----------



## slash22000

Given the results of this thread I guess most people will be arguing against temperature control too because technically it's unnecessary. Time after that we'll be arguing against brewing at all. Go back to drinking water.


----------



## WarmBeer

Black Devil Dog said:


> Next weeks topic for debate, yeast or no yeast. h34r:


FTFY.


----------



## Florian

slash22000 said:


> If I'm "preaching" the benefits of rehydrating then so is every single microbiologist who has ever done any non-biased scientific research into this topic. We'll have to inform their colleagues so they can immediately be stripped of their qualifications and expelled onto the street. -_-


Not sure if you've read my posts but we're mainly on the same page in regard to the *theoretical science* (and only that part).

'Preaching' refers to you posting the same stuff in this thread over and over and over again with a seriousness that just reminded me of preaching. No offence meant, but if you read over your last ten or so posts you might know what I mean. 

In saying that, at least one of the 'scientists' you quoted and referred to a couple of times in this thread I would not call completely unbiased as he is in fact a direct competitor to all dry yeast manufacturers.

EDIT: Can you tell I'm extremely bored? Better leave that computer alone for a while and do something productive. Already brewed today so will have to find something else.


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> I did. You are saying that double dry pitching is not required due to the super powers that the remaining viable yeast will get from their dead sachetmates. Yes, yeast will multiply. This is still underpitching. Ta.


Ok.

We all underpitch to the extent that the yeast we pitch in always insufficient on its own to ferment the wort to completion.

What we rely on is the oxygen in the initial wort to help the yeast to reproduce. That's why we aerate or oxygenate the wort. Importantly, the pitched yeast consume the oxygen to synthesise lipids (chemical group = oils, fats, waxes) which are used to make cell walls for daughter cells.

There is a limit to this. Once all the free oxygen is consumed the yeast numbers are up but they then have difficulty in reproducing (making building blocks for new cell walls).

1. If you rehydrate your pitching yeast and aerate normally the yeast will consume the available oxygen and multiply to achieve the numbers needed to ferment out your beer to completion.

2. If you direct pitch the yeast, half die (or thereabouts but just sayin). The remaining yeast will also consume the oxygen in the wort to multiply. But they also have at hand the ready-made biomolecules including lipids and other tasty morsels from their dead brethren to increase their numbers. The number of cells these lipids can provide I reckon to be roughly the same as the number of cells that died at pitching (sort of biochemical equilibrium).

All ends up pretty much at the same place really. Except you've executed all those inferior yeast cells that haven't got the balls to do a good job at fermenting beer anyway.

All yeast are not created equal.


----------



## Silver

Me thinks an experiment is brewing. We have everything we need. Passionate brewers, expert tasters. Great excuse for 3 sessions. The brew, the bottle and the tasting. It would also be interesting which batch dropped to 1040/1030/1020/1010 quicker. Just a thought.


----------



## spudfarmerboy

slash22000 said:


> If I'm "preaching" the benefits of rehydrating then so is every single microbiologist who has ever done any non-biased scientific research into this topic. We'll have to inform their colleagues so they can immediately be stripped of their qualifications and expelled onto the street. -_-
> 
> "You're all wrong! All your research is wrong! All your conclusions are wrong!"
> 
> "What!? Why!?"
> 
> "Some guy said so. He reckons you're wrong."
> 
> "What proof does he have!? I've spent decades in microbiology, my tests were conclusive and repeatable!"
> 
> "Well, he doesn't have proof, really. He just disagrees."
> 
> "Why!?"
> 
> "Just because. Stop preaching your 'facts' you loons. Respect his authoritah."
> 
> "..."


I rehydrate most times, but gees Slash, you do crap on a bit.
If people don't want to rehydrate, who cares, if you and I want to, fair enough.
You seem to be on an evangelical crusade.


----------



## spudfarmerboy

Feldon, you mention oxygenating the wort. Some dried yeast manufacturers such as Lallemand say you don't need to oxygenate when using their dried yeasts.
Edit - Lallemand say oxygenating or aerating is not necessary when rehydrating their yeast.


----------



## sponge

Hallelujah!


----------



## GalBrew

Feldon said:


> Ok.
> 
> We all underpitch to the extent that the yeast we pitch in always insufficient on its own to ferment the wort to completion.
> 
> What we rely on is the oxygen in the initial wort to help the yeast to reproduce. That's why we aerate or oxygenate the wort. Importantly, the pitched yeast consume the oxygen to synthesise lipids (chemical group = oils, fats, waxes) which are used to make cell walls for daughter cells.
> 
> There is a limit to this. Once all the free oxygen is consumed the yeast numbers are up but they then have difficulty in reproducing (making building blocks for new cell walls).
> 
> 1. If you rehydrate your pitching yeast and aerate normally the yeast will consume the available oxygen and multiply to achieve the numbers needed to ferment out your beer to completion.
> 
> 2. If you direct pitch the yeast, half die (or thereabouts but just sayin). The remaining yeast will also consume the oxygen in the wort to multiply. But they also have at hand the ready-made biomolecules including lipids and other tasty morsels from their dead brethren to increase their numbers. The number of cells these lipids can provide I reckon to be roughly the same as the number of cells that died at pitching (sort of biochemical equilibrium).
> 
> All ends up pretty much at the same place really. Except you've executed all those inferior yeast cells that haven't got the balls to do a good job at fermenting beer anyway.
> 
> All yeast are not created equal.


Quite right in terms of what we call a 'correct pitch' is infact an underpitch. It is however a calculated underpitch which results in the degree of yeast growth required for a desireable level of flavour compounds in the beer. Just like if you overpitch massively you will not get any cell budding and while fermentation will occur no problems, you will not acheive the desired flavour profile from the yeast.

You are however assuming that the 50% or thereabouts of yeast that die following dry pitching is due to some sort of natural selection of the 'fittest; yeast. This may be the case however it may also be due concentration gradients in the wort of whatever? Who the hell knows? I do agree that the 50% of dead yeast will probably serve as nutrient, but you will still end up with excess esters due to increased replication.


----------



## Feldon

spudfarmerboy said:


> Feldon, you mention oxygenating the wort. Some dried yeast manufacturers such as Lallemand say you don't need to oxygenate when using their dried yeasts.


I said "aerate normally" - whatever your usual process is for whatever yeast your using. 

Wort at ferm temp has some oxygen in it to start with, even if freshly cooled from the boil and has stuff all.

If the yeast maker says don't aerate, then don't - up to you. Doesn't change the basic idea of what I posted.


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> You are however assuming that the 50% or thereabouts of yeast that die following dry pitching is due to some sort of natural selection of the 'fittest; yeast. This may be the case however it may also be due concentration gradients in the wort of whatever? Who the hell knows?


Yeah, there must be something determining which yeast cells get the chop and which get to eat my nice sweet wort. They can't be all the same. Some die some don't.

My money is on the yeast being of widely varying viability, and is over supplied in the sachet by the yeast maker with this in mind. So even after an attrition rate of 50% you can still make good beer.

I can also understand, as Ross said, the economic imperatives of running a commercial brewery where rehydrating can save on costs.

(Also aware that a common marketing ploy is to get consumers engaged and invested with their product by spending more time with it. Which is what we do with rehydration. Bit like Coopers telling us to roll a stubby of across the bar before drinking it to mix up the yeast. But that's just me and my suspicions of corporate agendas)


----------



## soundawake

Feldon said:


> (Also aware that a common marketing ploy is to get consumers engaged and invested with their product by spending more time with it. Which is what we do with rehydration. Bit like Coopers telling us to roll a stubby of across the bar before drinking it to mix up the yeast. But that's just me and my suspicions of corporate agendas)


Funny you mention.. At the Coopers 150th birthday bash here in Adelaide, got a chance to have a beer and chat with Dr Tim Cooper. I preferred to 'turn' my Coopers beers, and my friend did not. We asked Dr Tim, 'Do YOU turn and rotate your beers?' He replied that the whole turning/rolling your bottle thing was completely out of the marketing dept, and he didn't bother as there was no difference in taste. I actually think there IS a difference in taste, then again I'm not a doctor.. but there you go. Dr Tim thinks its a load of shit.

Was great chatting with him, he was a very honest and regular guy - no bullshit with him. 

Here is a photo to prove I had a beer with him... can you see the guy photobombing in the background? Classic!!


----------



## Bizier

"Ohh, I'm not a doctor"


----------



## Pickaxe

Plastic cups. Never happened. Must be 'shopped.


----------



## Bizier

http://www.bookdepository.com/Brewing-Yeast-Fermentation-Christopher-Boulton/9781405152686


----------



## Pickaxe

Rolling bottles does smack of marketing. It's a nice bit of theatre at the bar, heard of breweries giving out rolling mats, with a measure in them for rolling purposes, but it doesn't mean much. When coopets is kegged, it depends on the level of the Keg, whether it was first pour, middle or last which dictates yeast levels. Does it taste different? Yes, depending on whether its mud or settled clear, but that could be strictly texture, but mud tasted different to clear beer, that's undeniable.


----------



## dent

I dunno about the survival of the fittest concept giving you better yeast. 

Seems to me a bit like sending your olympic team to work in the gulags for six months before the competition, and then saying the ones that died were shit athletes anyhow - the survivors will be champions.


----------



## Camo6

DucatiboyStu nine pages ago:






DucatiboyStu now:






Rehydrating yeast is better for over all yeast numbers. Pitching dry yeast is better for lower infection risk. Hooray! Everyone wins.


----------



## jyo

I've locked the thread, guys.


----------



## Camo6

But we're just getting to the heart of the matter!


----------



## Bizier

dent said:


> I dunno about the survival of the fittest concept giving you better yeast.
> 
> Seems to me a bit like sending your olympic team to work in the gulags for six months before the competition, and then saying the ones that died were shit athletes anyhow - the survivors will be champions.


I would hypothesise that surviving cells would have a lower average vitality than properly rehydrated cells given the same conditions, but this is something difficult to measure.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Camo6 said:


> DucatiboyStu nine pages ago:
> troll1.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DucatiboyStu now:
> troll2.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Yawn


----------



## sp0rk

Don't lock it, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!


----------



## slash22000

Still, for a troll thread, at least people learned something. Facts were presented, and ... well, okay, they were pretty much totally ignored ... and then ... well ... actually, yeah, nothing productive came of this thread. Everybody came into the thread thinking they knew everything, and they left the thread thinking they knew everything, evidence to the contrary be damned. -_-


----------



## sp0rk

I for one enjoyed it and won't be changing my dry sprinkling practices
_Just to spite you..._


----------



## Black Devil Dog

sp0rk said:


> I for one enjoyed it and won't be changing my dry sprinkling practices
> _Just to spite my beer......._


FIFY


----------



## treefiddy

Feldon said:


> Ok.
> 
> We all underpitch to the extent that the yeast we pitch in always insufficient on its own to ferment the wort to completion.
> 
> What we rely on is the oxygen in the initial wort to help the yeast to reproduce. That's why we aerate or oxygenate the wort. Importantly, the pitched yeast consume the oxygen to synthesise lipids (chemical group = oils, fats, waxes) which are used to make cell walls for daughter cells.
> 
> There is a limit to this. Once all the free oxygen is consumed the yeast numbers are up but they then have difficulty in reproducing (making building blocks for new cell walls).
> 
> 1. If you rehydrate your pitching yeast and aerate normally the yeast will consume the available oxygen and multiply to achieve the numbers needed to ferment out your beer to completion.
> 
> 2. If you direct pitch the yeast, half die (or thereabouts but just sayin). The remaining yeast will also consume the oxygen in the wort to multiply. But they also have at hand the ready-made biomolecules including lipids and other tasty morsels from their dead brethren to increase their numbers. The number of cells these lipids can provide I reckon to be roughly the same as the number of cells that died at pitching (sort of biochemical equilibrium).
> 
> All ends up pretty much at the same place really. Except you've executed all those inferior yeast cells that haven't got the balls to do a good job at fermenting beer anyway.
> 
> All yeast are not created equal.


In addition, Danstar yeast can reproduce approximately 3 times without the need for oxygen.
Just adding this to the mix.

http://www.danstaryeast.com/articles/aeration-and-starter-versus-wort



> Lallemand packs the maximum amount of lipids into the cell wall that is possible during the aerobic production of the yeast at the factory. When you inoculate this yeast into a starter or into the mash, the yeast can double about three time before it runs out of lipids and the growth will stop. - Dr Clayton Cone





slash22000 said:


> If I'm "preaching" the benefits of rehydrating then so is every single microbiologist who has ever done any non-biased scientific research into this topic. We'll have to inform their colleagues so they can immediately be stripped of their qualifications and expelled onto the street. -_-


With all due respect, Slash, if you are not a scientist, please don't speak on their behalf.


----------



## slash22000

> With all due respect, Slash, if you are not a scientist, please don't speak on their behalf.


Well shit, SOMEBODY has to in this clusterfuck of a thread. When this all started, I thought maybe linking to some genuine scientific opinions and evidence might teach somebody something, same way I learned it when I started looking into the benefits of rehydration. I was young and innocent, back in the days of the beginning of this thread. Now I have been violated repeatedly and I'm a bitter old hooker working quickie hand jobs on street corners for yeast slants. Where did the dream go? It died on that street corner, coated in something white and sticky ... probably yeast.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

slash22000 said:


> Still, for a troll thread, at least people learned something.


Well it wasnt when it started.....


----------



## GalBrew

I'm a scientist....yay!!


----------



## sp0rk

Black Devil Dog said:


> FIFY


Thank you for fixing something you had no reason to fix
It's my beer, I'll do whatever I want with it


----------



## Dengue

DucatiboyStu you are a legend.

I wish I could spark a thread with so much passion and controversy with something so simple as a belief on whether or not to hydrate dry yeast or not....

:super:


----------



## GalBrew

Dengue said:


> DucatiboyStu you are a legend.
> 
> I wish I could spark a thread with so much passion and controversy with something so simple as a belief on whether or not to hydrate dry yeast or not....
> 
> :super:


Belief has nothing to do with this. It has been demonstrated that dry pitching kills about half your yeast. You either choose to use the information or ignore it.


----------



## Dengue

Ducatiboy stu said:


> When using dry yeast I have never seen the need to re-hydrate first. Especially if done in plain water. The yeast will hydrate just as well in the ferm, if not better. Remember water has no nutrients so wont help it along. The wort has everything it needs to hydrate and get to work


I think he believes you dont have to rehydrate yeast before pitching.


----------



## GalBrew

Don't try to get in Stu's head, you may never get out ( I say that with love Stu!).



Dengue said:


> I think he believes you dont have to rehydrate yeast before pitching.


----------



## Camo6

I punched out a big AIPA on the weekend. Was too unorganised to split a pack of 1272 and make a starter in advance but had 2 packs of us05 in the fridge. Had planned to rehydrate but a mate came over with car troubles. I ran out of time and just sprinkled instead. Worried? No. Did it fail to start within 24hrs? No. Will I taste the difference? Unlikely.
The most convenient thing about dried yeast is the ability to use it in its dried form.
The predominant reason for the production of dried yeast ( happy to stand corrected) is for the convenience of its dried form.
If you're really that committed to producing the best beer from a homebrewing environment then there is a far greater range of liquid yeasts ( easily available) to help you get there. I love the convenience of dried yeasts but I love the flavour and variety of liquid yeasts even better. Should we start a new thread?


----------



## GalBrew

I believe the main benefit of dry yeast is its ability to be transported and stored for extended periods when compared to liquid (like under the lid of a tin of goo),


----------



## Camo6

Gee. That sounds convenient.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Dengue said:


> DucatiboyStu you are a legend.
> 
> I wish I could spark a thread with so much passion and controversy with something so simple as a belief on whether or not to hydrate dry yeast or not....
> 
> :super:


Yeah.....well.....did you see the other thread....there are brewers who are still seeking psyciatric help and counseling over that one


----------



## GalBrew

Camo6 said:


> Gee. That sounds convenient.


Why? Liquid yeast's short shelf life is a real pain in the ass. A pack of dry stuff can sit in the fridge for months no problems. Not only that think about how long it takes for liquid yeast to get here from the US and it doesn't really have and extended life (without using a multi-step starter). That is the great strength of dry yeast.


----------



## dent

Camo6 said:


> I punched out a big AIPA on the weekend. Was too unorganised to split a pack of 1272 and make a starter in advance but had 2 packs of us05 in the fridge. Had planned to rehydrate but a mate came over with car troubles.





> Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Come on Jake...we have a yeast to pitch


----------



## Feldon

treefiddy said:


> In addition, Danstar yeast can reproduce approximately 3 times without the need for oxygen.


Well, there you go. Gets better and better.


----------



## Silver

Anyone done any good in a comp with a dry sprinkled lazy arsed downgrade beer?


----------



## Camo6

I know, I know. Procrastination is the thief of time and all that. Whoever came up with that old chestnut didn't have two girls under five, a mortgage and a severe alcohol dependance.





Camo6 said:


> The predominant reason for the production of dried yeast ( happy to stand corrected) is for the *convenience of its dried form.*





GalBrew said:


> I believe the main benefit of dry yeast is its *ability to be transported and stored for extended periods* when compared to liquid (like under the lid of a tin of goo),





Camo6 said:


> Gee. That sounds* convenient*.


Sounds like we're in complete agreeance then Galbrew. :lol:


----------



## slash22000

Almost certainly, Silver. Whether or not a dry pitched beer turns out alright is a matter of luck, but there's nothing saying it can't happen.


----------



## Droopy

I'm a very lucky boy


----------



## sp0rk

Silver said:


> Anyone done any good in a comp with a dry sprinkled lazy arsed downgrade beer?


Won firsts and seconds in the Coffs show with dry sprinkling (though it ain't the most prestigious honour)


----------



## WarmBeer

sp0rk said:


> Won firsts and seconds in the Coffs show with dry sprinkling (though it ain't the most prestigious honour)


Lemme guess, you coincidentally got last and second last?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Camo6 said:


> I know, I know. Procrastination is the thief of time and all that. Whoever came up with that old chestnut didn't have two girls under five, a mortgage and a severe alcohol dependance.


Im hearing you brother...im hearing you...


----------



## slash22000

Now that you've figured out an award winning recipe, it would be a good time to start working on improving your process to guarantee the best results!


----------



## Camo6

Dad always said. You have a boy, you have one cock to worry about... You have a girl, you have thousands. Hence my ownership of firearms.


----------



## bum

slash22000 said:


> Now that you've figured out an award winning recipe, it would be a good time to start working on improving your process to guarantee the best results!


I can't find anything (in the way of _informed_ comments) in this thread that supports the idea that adequate pitching rates of rehydrated yeast is better than adequate pitching rates of sprinkled dry yeast.

$10 says his beer is better than yours.


----------



## Dengue

Droopy said:


> I'm a very lucky boy


to be dysfunctional ? you can get help....


----------



## manticle

> Whether or not a dry pitched beer turns out alright is a matter of luck, but there's nothing saying it can't happen.


Not much longer than 3 weeks ago* you were claiming kit tins brewed at 30 degrees were 'never a problem', now you're lecturing people on yeast management?

Stu's initial statement is just plain incorrect and we all (should) know the theory behind why rehydration leads to more yeast cells and why more yeast cells are a good idea. However practical experience should never be discounted as long as it has a basis. People discount the 'my beer is fine' approach and mostly I think that is fair enough when there's nothing else to qualify it. However brewers of certain levels of experience, with a good understanding of theory should not be dismissed. I notice no-one arguing with Ross - presumably because it is assumed that he is an experienced brewer with a sound understanding of theory. Having tasted his (commercial) beers and spoken to him, I can confirm that is the case. You reckon he makes good commercial stuff but bad HB (or pot luck HB at best?)

I understand fully the concept behind rehydrating yeast properly and I strive to improve my beers all the time. I have learnt much from this site and many other sources and will continue to do so. I also strive to put theory into practice to see if it makes a discernible difference to my beers. You can understand all the theory in the world and use all the microscopy, spectroscopy and chromatography you like but the fact remains that the human palate is the final judge of a beer's worth.

Do I think you should rehydrate? Probably. I rarely do but I also very rarely use dry yeast at all because I have so many more choices with liquid. Do I think that brewers using practices that suit them so long as they are aware of alternatives and reasons should be respected? Yes. Ducati is wrong when he says yeast rehydrates better in wort but he is not wrong when he says that he doesn't feel the need to do it when he makes his beer.

*Hyerbole but not so long you don't need to remove the self righteous knowitall bee from your bonnet. Pipe down. You made your point eleven times already.

Shit idea for a thread in the first place but since it's here, I might as well add to it.


----------



## Silver

slash22000 said:


> Almost certainly, Silver. Whether or not a dry pitched beer turns out alright is a matter of luck, but there's nothing saying it can't happen.


I"ve only entered into one comp and scored a 2nd prize. Your statement sounds like it's coming from a man standing behind a pulpit. There is less luck but indeed much dedication and attention to detail that churns out consistently good beer by one and all. I am sure you truly don't believe all the great brewers whose sprinkled beers have triumphed over the hydrated lot, have just gotten lucky. Really


----------



## dent

I guess for a commercial brewer, the difference between using one hydrated, or two dehydrated kilos of dry yeast is only about 50-100 bucks, which is stuff all compared to the cost of the batch and every other expense. Bulk dry yeast is suprisingly cheap.

Plus less handling of infectable liquids is a bonus.


----------



## Dengue

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yeah.....well.....did you see the other thread....there are brewers who are still seeking psyciatric help and counseling over that one


nope, please link me, is it more entertaining than this one ?


----------



## Thefatdoghead

Wow I have been reading this thread and there are a lot of people getting worked up about dry yeast. 
I couldn't give half a shit if someone thinks pitching dry yeast is the way to go or not. In the end it's their beer and they have to drink it and pay more to pitch more yeast if brewing a lager at 1060 and up.
If your happy with your beer pitching dry yeast great. If you want to brew a bigger beer save some money and the risk of poor fermentation/ bad beer then just hydrate it. 
What I'm getting at is just brew and make great beer and don't be to concerned with other people's opinions. Who doesn't want to save some money and drink nice beer? 
Happy brewing and I have to say I don't hydrate. I don't pitch dry either. I don't use dry yeast


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Dengue said:


> nope, please link me, is it more entertaining than this one ?


http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/72453-yeast-pitchingffs-there-is-enough-in-pack/

You have been warned.....


----------



## GalBrew

Gav80 said:


> Wow I have been reading this thread and there are a lot of people getting worked up about dry yeast.
> I couldn't give half a shit if someone thinks pitching dry yeast is the way to go or not. In the end it's their beer and they have to drink it and pay more to pitch more yeast if brewing a lager at 1060 and up.
> If your happy with your beer pitching dry yeast great. If you want to brew a bigger beer save some money and the risk of poor fermentation/ bad beer then just hydrate it.
> What I'm getting at is just brew and make great beer and don't be to concerned with other people's opinions. Who doesn't want to save some money and drink nice beer?
> Happy brewing and I have to say I don't hydrate. I don't pitch dry either. I don't use dry yeast


The problem with that Gav, is how does a new home brewer learn how to brew using best practice? This PC, all brewing methods are equal, love-in crap, will make it impossible for anyone new to learn how to brew. We are up to 11 pages of people arguing over something that really should not be argued over. Dry pitch if you want, but explain why you choose to and the limitations of that decision. There are far too many 'flat earth' threads at the moment. I always thought the BIAB pioneers did a good job of explaining the benefits and limitations of what is surely not best practice but works well for many people, myself included......god i need to stop replying to this thread.


----------



## Camo6

GalBrew said:


> god i need to stop replying to this thread.


Tell me about it. It's like a public ball itch. You know it'll go away but damned if it don't feel good doing it!


----------



## Silver

Ducatiboy stu said:


> http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/72453-yeast-pitchingffs-there-is-enough-in-pack/
> 
> You have been warned.....


Keen to take a peep also.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

OT
I remember when Pistol Pat ( gteat bloke if you ever get to meet him) was near hung drawn and quarted for even suggestion the idea if mashing with the total kettle volume ( + additional for grain absorbsion ) thus negating sparging....Those where wild days on AHB when what is now BIAB first kicked off


----------



## Droopy

Ducatiboy stu said:


> http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/72453-yeast-pitchingffs-there-is-enough-in-pack/
> You have been warned.....


The thought of bumping that thread crossed my mind


----------



## manticle

GalBrew said:


> The problem with that Gav, is how does a new home brewer learn how to brew using best practice? This PC, all brewing methods are equal, love-in crap, will make it impossible for anyone new to learn how to brew. We are up to 11 pages of people arguing over something that really should not be argued over. Dry pitch if you want, but explain why you choose to and the limitations of that decision. There are far too many 'flat earth' threads at the moment. I always thought the BIAB pioneers did a good job of explaining the benefits and limitations of what is surely not best practice but works well for many people, myself included......god i need to stop replying to this thread.


More important than following best practices is understanding why those practices exist and what discernible differences following/not following will bring in reality. I think we are on the same page in many regards but I have less respect for someone who follows things by rote with no understanding of why than someone who tries and decides it's not worth it.


----------



## Dengue

Droopy said:


> The thought of bumping that thread crossed my mind


probably the most useful contribution to this forum in 100 posts you have made...not


----------



## Droopy

Dengue said:


> probably the most useful contribution to this forum in 100 posts you have made...not


Uh huh,


----------



## GalBrew

manticle said:


> More important than following best practices is understanding why those practices exist and what discernible differences following/not following will bring in reality. I think we are on the same page in many regards but I have less respect for someone who follows things by rote with no understanding of why than someone who tries and decides it's not worth it.


No, we are totally on the same page. I do not dare comment on things of a brewing nature anywhere unless I personally have both the theory and practical experience on a particular topic. Sure I read things first (and in depth) but if it doesn't work out in practice for me in the way I hypothesise based on my readings, I will keep my mouth shut. This is basically my day job, just not in brewing. The whole yeast thing is one area in my brewing where I have found improvements in taste coincide with improvements in process, that are based on previous research in the field (temp control, pitching rates, nutrient, starters, oxygenation etc.).


----------



## Dengue

Ok guys.

please take a look at this blokes contribution to this place. Not this thread, this forum.

one liners to get his post count up. Or is this NickJD re-incarnated as a one-liner troll ?

droopy, please f*ck off and sort out your erectile dysfunction issue in the correct forum, surely they exist.


----------



## GalBrew

Ducatiboy stu said:


> OT
> I remember when Pistol Pat ( gteat bloke if you ever get to meet him) was near hung drawn and quarted for even suggestion the idea if mashing with the total kettle volume ( + additional for grain absorbsion ) thus negating sparging....Those where wild days on AHB when what is now BIAB first kicked off


Yep, there is some interesting reading in the archives, but the take home message I got from that was that yeah it is not the best way to make beer, but it is doable. The former not being present in this discussion.


----------



## bum

Dengue said:


> Ok guys.
> 
> please take a look at this blokes contribution to this place. Not this thread, this forum.
> 
> one liners to get his post count up. Or is this NickJD re-incarnated as a one-liner troll ?
> 
> droopy, please f*ck off and sort out your erectile dysfunction issue in the correct forum, surely they exist.


Hey, look at that. A fake account trolling a fake account.


----------



## Dengue

bum said:


> Hey, look at that. A fake account trolling a fake account.


lol

smart man you are bum, give you that


----------



## manticle

Which brings me back to why I think noobs can learn from this - not because of Stu's error filled assumptions about yeast hydrating better in wort because of nutrients but because they have the benefit of the scientific theory and the ability to try it out for themselves and see what works in their brewery. No mollycoddling or all in love everyone high fives from me but no castigation of somene who puts their hand up and says 'yep, tried it, didn't notice a big benefit in my beer'.

Like I said - waste of time as a thread because it has already been discussed 8 million times but Slash has no right to be such a self righteous pill about it.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Mea culpa........anyone


----------



## GalBrew

The yeast made me do it!!


----------



## slash22000

manticle said:


> Like I said - waste of time as a thread because it has already been discussed 8 million times but Slash has no right to be such a self righteous pill about it.


Is there some kind of penalty box that I can sit in for a while so I'm allowed to comment without being mocked for my newbie posting almost a year ago? Jesus christ, I'm not even giving a personal opinion here, I'm not even pretending to be an expert, I've sourced everything I've said from PHD microbiologists and I'm still crucified for arrogance. Do we all need to brew for ten years and win a few dozen gold medals in comps before we can link to relevant information?


----------



## bum

Yeah, Manticle is a know n00b-basher.

Maybe you're just a tit?


----------



## Thefatdoghead

GalBrew said:


> The problem with that Gav, is how does a new home brewer learn how to brew using best practice?
> 
> For one I would have to say a person new to brewing won't be bothered reading all this ridiculous drawl. There are plenty of other ways to gain great info, I found books to be my best source and then tried the practical things myself.
> My comment wasn't directed at a new brewer and I never expected a new brewer to take away anything scientific about yeast but just to say chill out and have fun brewing instead of arguing about dry or hydrated pitching. Just do what you think and prove it to yourself.
> I honestly think there are some people who just like to argue for sake of arguing and while its sometimes entertains to read at the end of the day its all bullshit.


----------



## Florian

Dengue said:


> lol
> 
> smart man you are bum, give you that


Don't need to be particularly smart to figure that out.

Sorry bum, not trying to take any credit from you...


----------



## manticle

No you just need to stop repeating yourself like an arrogant evangelist at people who have not once argued with the theoretical side - just stated they tried it and didn't taste enough of a difference to warrant continuing.

Do you really think no-one else knows the science behind it?

We all know half the cells will die. What difference to taste that makes in someone else's beer is not something you can state with such certainty. I'm not sure Jamil is a phD microbiologist.

You can comment all you like - maybe just try doing it with humility.


----------



## Silver

Bang on Manticle, if I wanted to do a bigger beer than my std 5%ers I would be hydrating or building a starter.


----------



## WarmBeer

manticle said:


> ... No mollycoddling or all in love everyone high fives from me...


That's what last Saturday night was all about, am I right?


----------



## Yob

:icon_offtopic: 

...he was too sticky to high five most of the time.. from wort that is...


----------



## soundawake

OK guys. I have a serious question. Is it worth paying more for 1056 liquid yeast, instead of buying and using US05, the dry equivalent?


----------



## GalBrew

soundawake said:


> OK guys. I have a serious question. Is it worth paying more for 1056 liquid yeast, instead of buying and using US05, the dry equivalent?


Yes totally.


----------



## Ross

soundawake said:


> OK guys. I have a serious question. Is it worth paying more for 1056 liquid yeast, instead of buying and using US05, the dry equivalent?


....then start a thread with this question, rather than taking this one any further off topic...


----------



## sponge

soundawake said:


> OK guys. I have a serious question. Is it worth paying more for 1056 liquid yeast, instead of buying and using US05, the dry equivalent?


http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/30033-us-05-vs-1056/


----------



## Cosh

I used to pitch dry yeast directly into the fermenter, now I re-hydrate. Are my beers better? Probably, but that's because I now pay more attention to pitch rates, use yeast nutrient and oxegenate my wort alot more.

After reading the "Yeast" book and reading though this thread, I've decided that my re-hydration technique needs to be refined to get the most out of it. I'll now monitor the temperature of the water that I re-hydrate in and ensure it's within the manufacturer's guidelines.

So I suppose this thread was useful for me, shame I had to sift through so much garbage and the same points being raised _over and over and over _to get decent advice.


----------



## WarmBeer

Cosh said:


> ...shame I had to sift through so much garbage and the same points being raised _over and over and over _to get decent advice.


Welcome to the internet, my friend.


----------



## pcmfisher

slash22000 said:


> Is there some kind of penalty box that I can sit in for a while so I'm allowed to comment without being mocked for my newbie posting almost a year ago? Jesus christ, *I'm not even giving a personal opinion here*, I'm not even pretending to be an expert, I've sourced everything I've said from PHD microbiologists and I'm still crucified for arrogance. Do we all need to brew for ten years and win a few dozen gold medals in comps before we can link to relevant information?






slash22000 said:


> Whether or not a dry pitched beer turns out alright is a matter of luck,


Sounds like personal opinion to me. 
Is also bullshit.


----------



## pcmfisher

GalBrew said:


> No, we are totally on the same page. _*I do not dare comment on things of a brewing nature anywhere unless I personally have both the theory and practical experience on a particular topic. Sure I read things first (and in depth) but if it doesn't work out in practice for me in the way I hypothesise based on my readings*_, I will keep my mouth shut. This is basically my day job, just not in brewing. The whole yeast thing is one area in my brewing where I have found improvements in taste coincide with improvements in process, that are based on previous research in the field (temp control, pitching rates, nutrient, starters, oxygenation etc.).


So the fact you are commenting on the subject means you think your beer actually tastes better when you rehydrate?


----------



## GalBrew

pcmfisher said:


> So the fact you are commenting on the subject means you think your beer actually tastes better when you rehydrate?


Yes, that is what I think. I have found that when using us-05 especially that my IPA has a cleaner, more polished profile. Also when using w34/70 in lagers. Or should I not notice the difference?

I attribute this not to rehydrating per se, but that rehydrating results in correct pitching rates. I have never tried a double dry pitch, don't really see the point in paying for another sachet of yeast.

I apologise for attempting to contribute to the forum, it seems to have greatly offended you. Would it be better that I just constantly talk out of my arse about shit that I have never done before?


----------



## pcmfisher

No, not offended and I hope you are not either.



GalBrew said:


> Yes, that is what I think. I have found that when using us-05 especially that my IPA has a cleaner, more polished profile. Also when using w34/70 in lagers. _*Or should I not notice the difference?*_
> 
> I attribute this not to rehydrating per se, but that rehydrating results in correct pitching rates. I have never tried a double dry pitch, don't really see the point in paying for another sachet of yeast.
> 
> I apologise for attempting to contribute to the forum, it seems to have greatly offended you. Would it be better that I just constantly talk out of my arse about shit that I have never done before?


I would have thought that everyone would notice a difference. 

That would be a big decider for me.


----------



## GalBrew

pcmfisher said:


> No, not offended and I hope you are not either.
> 
> 
> I would have thought that everyone would notice a difference.
> 
> That would be a big decider for me.


No problemo, I think this thread may be getting the better of me. Without sounding like a total flog though, I guess not everyone has the same palate ability. Or perhaps other processes, or lack of processess in their brewing (ferm temp, oxygenation) may make the difference not perceptible? I mean if you rehydrate or not, a beer fermented at ambient temps under the stairs probably isn't going to be too different? I have found that each little step in process that I have improved results only in little flavour improvements (I tended to change one thing at a time), but when you add them all up they result in a marked difference in beer quality. :beer:


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> I guess not everyone has the same palate ability.


... or inability.

Check this out: "Wine-tasting: it's junk science"

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis?INTCMP=SRCH


----------



## GalBrew

You are quite right, there is nothing scientific or even objective about beer/wine tasting. It is a purely subjective assessment, which I guess is why products like VB, Carlton Cold and XXXX gold to name a few continue to be consumed.


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> You are quite right, there is nothing scientific or even objective about beer/wine tasting. It is a purely subjective assessment, which I guess is why products like VB, Carlton Cold and XXXX gold to name a few continue to be consumed.


Its not the subjectivity that is in dispute, its the inaccuracy, inconsistency and randomness.

_"Judging wines is by its nature subjective, but the awards appeared to be handed out at random."_


----------



## vonromanz

Feldon said:


> I think the survivors must be better. After all, they are alive while their weaker comrades are dead aren't they.
> 
> But the dead 'uns are not wasted. When they burst open by the uncontrolled ingress of wort their innards spill out and become nutrients for the surviving yeast to feed upon.
> 
> Natural selection + cannibalism = yeast master race.


Natural selection+cannibalism= yeast master race + yeast autolysis.


----------



## GalBrew

Feldon said:


> Its not the subjectivity that is in dispute, its the inaccuracy, inconsistency and randomness.
> 
> _"Judging wines is by its nature subjective, but the awards appeared to be handed out at random."_


I think some of that can be put down to subjectivity. One man's fine-grained tannin is another man's oak lollypop. But yeah "inaccuracy, inconsistency and randomness", we just described humanity as a whole there. It's no wonder we can't be on the same page in wine judging.

I also found, when I used to frequent wine shows, that each year there would be a theme for trophy winners. Be it a region, a style, a climate or whatever......we all love a fad,


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

I dont feel so bad now drinking $9.99 chatue de cardboard


----------



## Feldon

GalBrew said:


> I think some of that can be put down to subjectivity. One man's fine-grained tannin is another man's oak lollypop. But yeah "inaccuracy, inconsistency and randomness", we just described humanity as a whole there. It's no wonder we can't be on the same page in wine judging.
> 
> I also found, when I used to frequent wine shows, that each year there would be a theme for trophy winners. Be it a region, a style, a climate or whatever......we all love a fad,


Thing that struck me is the same judges were found to be all over the place when judging the same wines from the same bottles at the same tastings.

Its not about differences between judges, its about random variability within the flesh and blood of the same individual judges.

Same findings have relevance to beer tasting.


----------



## GalBrew

Feldon said:


> Thing that struck me is the same judges were found to be all over the place when judging the same wines from the same bottles at the same tastings.
> 
> Its not about differences between judges, its about random variability within the flesh and blood of the same individual judges.
> 
> Same findings have relevance to beer tasting.



Another issue with wine tasting, is even if you spit (which I think is a crime against humanity), you will end up absobing quite a bit of alcohol through the dense network of blood vessels in your mouth and toungue. Don't tell me that after tasting a flight of around 80-100 wines in a day the average judge is 3 sheets to wind (or at least affected to a degree).


----------



## billygoat

GalBrew said:


> Would it be better that I just constantly talk out of my arse about shit that I have never done before?


We don't need anymore of those posters GalBrew, there's plenty here already.


----------



## Black Devil Dog

Interesting article about wine tasting. It reminded me of a documentary I watched recently about how colour influences our taste.

As part of an experiment to prove how peoples perceptions differ according to the colour of the food or drink they are consuming, a group of about 10 amateur wine tasters were each given a glass of red wine, well actually it was white wine with red food colouring added.

Every single wine taster describe the flavour and aroma etc, as if it was a red wine, not one of them even suspected that it was white wine.


----------



## Kingbrownbrewing

Does anyone know what the commercial craft breweries do?


----------



## Camo6

I think we touched on it around page 340.


----------



## micblair

Focus on getting your mash pH, water profile and fermentation temperature (and of course sanitation) all sorted about before getting hung up on whether to rehydrate or not. I'm always wary that the re-hydration process is another avenue to introduce beer spoilage organisms unnecessarily (especially since I dont have to, according to the manufacturers directions), but more importantly yields a product in my opinion as superior as a liquid culture.


----------



## Dengue

> Dry Brewers Yeast
> We stock a great variety of brewers yeast and we keep it fresh and refrigerated until it's sold. The use of a good quality yeast of the proper variety is very important. With dry yeast, always use at least 10 grams in a five gallon batch of beer or wine. This works out to one large pack or two small packs. You can't pitch too much yeast - using more just makes fermentation start quicker.* Don't "rehydrate" dry yeast - just pitch it straight into the fermenter.*


http://www.homebrewery.com/beer/beer-yeast-dry.shtml


----------



## Feldon

Dengue said:


> http://www.homebrewery.com/beer/beer-yeast-dry.shtml


Welcome, comrade.


----------



## Dengue

slash22000 said:


> Here is a link to a cheap copy of the book if anybody is interested (not affiliated).
> 
> But as far as pitching at 24ºC or so, you will note from the article I linked as well that 35ºC - 40ºC in water was the optimal temperature for ~100% cell recovery.
> 
> *Pitching into wort (at any temperature) kills dehydrated yeast (*this is also covered in the article).


If pitching into wort kills dehydrated yeast, why in the fermentis FAQ does it state:




> Rehydrate the dry yeast into yeast cream by sprinkling it in 10 times its
> own weight of sterile water or wort. Gently stir and leave for 30 minutes.
> Finally, pitch the resultant cream into the fermentation vessel.



and




> Fermentis yeast can be rehydrated with sterile water or sterile wort.
> Whatever media is chosen it is compulsory to assure its sterility.



if then, they say wort is indifferent to water so long as its sterile, why would they suggest wort if it kills half the cells ?


confuzzzed...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Better send them a link to this thread


----------



## pcmfisher

Feldon said:


> ... or inability.
> 
> Check this out: "Wine-tasting: it's junk science"
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis?INTCMP=SRCH


Everyone knows wine tasting is a wank.

But this is beer, it's different, it's got hops in it.......... h34r:


----------



## brewbienewbie

I rehydrate my yeast because I figure my half-assed approach to temperature control probably stresses the little buggers enough as it is. It's really not much trouble now I have my technique down. I have a mug that I fill with boiling water for a few minutes, then empty and fill with tap water. I know from experience that this will end up between 30-35c after a minute, sprinkle yeasties on to that and they're away.


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I

One thing to add or two.

If I have a notoriously slow starter, I'll rehydrate (US05 in colder applications, I've heard the same about BRY97). If it's a Notto or something, generally not, it'll be up and running so quickly. In this instance, it's about establishing the yeast's control over any other potential micro-organisms.

There are some styles I'll deliberately not rehydrate when it's a slow starter because I want the yeast to produce something that is easier to achieve happens with underpitching - Weissbiers and the phenols in that are the classic example.

A bit like the chill vs no chill - horses, courses of courses. And how much effort vs time vs effect do we put in our beers.


----------



## Dengue

I buy all the reasoining in the article that scientist slash posted, but still confused by the fermentis FAQ that explains you can hydrate in wort OR water....surely wort , unless very dilute, is detrimental...


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL

Dengue said:


> I buy all the reasoining in the article that scientist slash posted, but still confused by the fermentis FAQ that explains you can hydrate in wort OR water....surely wort , unless very dilute, is detrimental...


i think the half deaths occur more due to the temperature differential between the dry yeast and the medium it is pitched into. if youre hydrating your giving the yeast a better environment (temperature) to do so in rather than the lower temperature wort in the FV. Similarly if you pitched into 18C water youd still get half deaths. Have i got that correct?


----------



## Dengue

DJ_L3ThAL said:


> i think the half deaths occur more due to the temperature differential between the dry yeast and the medium it is pitched into. if youre hydrating your giving the yeast a better environment (temperature) to do so in rather than the lower temperature wort in the FV. Similarly if you pitched into 18C water youd still get half deaths. Have i got that correct?


Maybe thats Fermentis reasoning.

However the theory in slashes reference paper goes that the original awakeing , ie absorbtion of materials through the cell wall that are not regulated by the matabolic processes of the yeast is what kills them...


----------



## slash22000

Partially, DJ. The temperature is definitely a factor, but pitching dehydrated yeast into wort (at any temperature) kills yeast:



> For the initial few minutes (perhaps seconds) of rehydration, the yeast cell wall cannot differentiate what passes through the wall. Toxic materials like sprays, hops, SO2 and sugars in high levels, that the yeast normally can selectively keep from passing through its cell wall rush right in and seriously damage the cells. The moment that the cell wall is properly reconstituted, the yeast can then regulate what goes in and out of the cell. That is why we hesitate to recommend rehydration in wort or must. Very dilute wort seems to be OK.


The idea is to rehydrate in water first so that the yeast can build up their cell walls as explained above, so when you pitch into your wort they are not poisoned by it.


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL

Ok cheers, would it bereasonable (sorry, slightly OT) to say recovering trub from a rehydrated yeast vs dry pitched yeast would have minimal difference if a sound washing process was followed to capture the good milky suspention, leaving as much trub behind as possible?

just spewing i didnt hydrate the us05 on my first all grain stovetop brew (as planning on havesting the us05 from the trub.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

DJ_L3ThAL said:


> just spewing i didnt hydrate the us05 on my first all grain stovetop brew (as planning on havesting the us05 from the trub.


Dont stress....you will still have a good harvestable yeast cake. Just because you didnt rehydrate does not mean your beer and yeast cake will be shit.


----------



## Dengue

slash22000 said:


> Partially, DJ. The temperature is definitely a factor, but pitching dehydrated yeast into wort (at any temperature) kills yeast:
> 
> 
> The idea is to rehydrate in water first so that the yeast can build up their cell walls as explained above, so when you pitch into your wort they are not poisoned by it.



curious on your take on Fermentis instructions ?. Hydrate with wort OR water. No reference to the concentarion of such wort....


----------



## slash22000

I don't work for Fermentis and I can't give any legitimate answer as to why they would recommend hydrating with wort despite the fact it kills a lot of the yeast.

Danstar has an FAQ section that covers dry yeast rehydration:



> *Why is rehydrating the dry yeast before pitching important?* Dry beer yeast needs to be reconstituted in a gentle way. During rehydration the cell membrane undergoes changes which can be lethal to yeast. In order to reconstitute the yeast as gently as possible (and minimize/avoid any damage) yeast producers developed specific rehydration procedures. Although most dry beer yeast will work if pitched directly into wort, it is recommended to follow the rehydration instructions to insure the optimum performance of the yeast.


Mangrove Jack also covers rehydration in their yeast booklet:



> Although Mangrove Jack’s Craft Series Yeasts do not require pre-hydration, cleaner and more professional results may be produced if rehydrated before use.


----------



## Dengue

slash22000 said:


> I don't work for Fermentis and I can't give any legitimate answer as to why they would recommend hydrating with wort despite the fact it kills a lot of the yeast.
> 
> Danstar has an FAQ section that covers dry yeast rehydration:
> 
> 
> Mangrove Jack also covers rehydration in their yeast booklet:



yep and I am not saying you are wrong either.

unless, fermentis yeast is different somehow. ... nah


----------



## Greg.L

Feldon said:


> ... or inability.
> 
> Check this out: "Wine-tasting: it's junk science"
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis?INTCMP=SRCH



It's a pity this sort of thing should get such acceptance on a beer forum. If you work in the wine industry you see that there is a lot of skill that goes into winemaking and wine evaluation. I know that I don't have the sensory evaluation skills to be a winemaker, you need a very experienced palate. It is when you meet and taste with experts you see they really aren't bullshitting, they can analyse wines with real expertise. If you think it is bullshit then I don't know why you think a forum like this would be any good. Not everyone agrees about every wine and it is easy to make it look like fakery if you pick and choose your data. These days on the internet everyone wants to think they are an expert, and rubbish the efforts of people who take the time to learn their craft properly.


----------



## JDW81

Greg.L said:


> It's a pity this sort of thing should get such acceptance on a beer forum. If you work in the wine industry you see that there is a lot of skill that goes into winemaking and wine evaluation. I know that I don't have the sensory evaluation skills to be a winemaker, you need a very experienced palate. It is when you meet and taste with experts you see they really aren't bullshitting, they can analyse wines with real expertise. If you think it is bullshit then I don't know why you think a forum like this would be any good. Not everyone agrees about every wine and it is easy to make it look like fakery if you pick and choose your data. These days on the internet everyone wants to think they are an expert, and rubbish the efforts of people who take the time to learn their craft properly.


Totally agree. A good friend of mine is a winemaker and his nose and palate are a testament to the wines he creates. If wine tasting is fakery, then surely the same logic would apply to beer tasting/judging?


----------



## manticle

I think wine wankery might exist among some consumers who think an extra $5 makes the wine better but makers and industry professionals who undergo sensory evaluation training and have a lot of knowledge on the science and craft of winemaking are no different to their counterparts in brewing or indeed in the world of food. Likewise there are pretentious consumers of both of those.

I never understood why brewing needs to set itself up against wine (nor conversely why wine lovers need ever be snobby about beer). I imagine there are some pancetta makers out there who say nasty things about people who make proscuitto or Jamon.


----------



## jotaigna

Do you think that perhaps microbiologists have a perverse and twisted sense of humor, wrote the unashamedly ambiguous label in their products and now pose as brewers asking to rehydrate or not in forums worldwide?
I do


----------



## Spiesy

Please die thread.


----------



## jyo

Spiesy said:


> Please die thread.


Maybe we could pitch the thread straight into some wort and half of it will die.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Please...we dont need secondry fermentation.


----------



## jyo

Maybe thread autolysis?


----------



## bradsbrew

This thread has attenuated so well, it is left unbalanced, dry and somewhat bitter. I have been waiting for it to drop but it is still hazy,


----------



## Camo6

Its left a bad taste in my mouth which I suspect is from soaring temperatures as the posting rate was much more than adequate.
Maybe if we gave it a bit more time it could clean itself up a bit? Nah dump it.


----------



## Samuel Adams

Funnily enough this thread has converted me to re-hydrating.

I didn't know the science behind why it was recomended and had been told from experienced sources that is wasn't necessary so I didn't bother.
Got bored at work and decided to traull through this huge thread and learnt and thing or two.
Had a brew ready to be pitched so I gave re-hydrating a go, piece of piss to do & got good results so far with a quick healthy krausen.
My last few beers haven't reached expected FG so if this one does I will continue to stick with re-hydrating.


----------



## bum

bradsbrew said:


> This thread has attenuated so well, it is left unbalanced, dry and somewhat bitter. I have been waiting for it to drop but it is still hazy,


Rousing should save it?


----------



## QldKev

Does re-hydrating your yeast cause it to mutate?


----------



## Dengue

QldKev said:


> Does re-hydrating your yeast cause it to mutate?


not rehydrating it causes it to cringe and grimace... only the strong survive...


----------



## Dengue

having said that, when making bread, you need to activate the yeast first by hydrating it in a mild glucose solution.

if wort is a killer, would a glucose solution be breakfast in bed to these little guys as opposed to a bland awakening in water ?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Dengue said:


> having said that, when making bread, you need to activate the yeast first by hydrating it in a mild glucose solution.


uh....never seen that ever mentioned when making bread...


----------



## QldKev

I've always used the 1 cup water to 1/2 flour rule for bread.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

I have re-hydrated for bread......but never seen any refference to glucose...thats sort of going against what a vocal few have said here already...


Ok ladies and gentlemen.....lets go.........again


----------



## QldKev

I've never seen the glucose reference before either. 


I like coco-pops in the morning, I may try the yeast on that. :icon_drool2:


----------



## manticle

Making bread is an entirely different process and result anyway. Not sure why people are using it as a point of comparison. Any baker worried about excessive levels of isoamyl acetate in their ciabattata?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Well...not really...both processes convert sugar/starch into CO2 & alcohol.

You can use either yeast for brewing or bread making.( except bread yeast makes very ordinary beer) Lots of distillers use bread yeast cause its cheap and effective.....


----------



## manticle

Yes but what you expect from the yeast is different and the processes to get those results are completely different.

Bake your beer in an oven? The ethanol produced by yeast in bread is important to the final product? Pitch rates, oxygenation and 
gravity got anything to do with baking?

So what if yeast gets activated in sugar water before being added to dough? Irrelevant to brewing. Might as well compare making apple pie to making cider.


----------



## mash head

FFS put it to bed


----------



## manticle

Soon as people stop talking shit


----------



## Bizier




----------



## slcmorro

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Ok ladies and gentlemen.....lets go.........again


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Blessed are the yeast makers


----------



## Dengue

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I have re-hydrated for bread......but never seen any refference to glucose...thats sort of going against what a vocal few have said here already...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen the glucose reference before either.
Click to expand...


eh ? you boys are kidding me

http://www.wikihow.com/Activate-Dried-Yeast

who likes to bake ?

http://www.joyofbaking.com/Yeast.html

proof yer yeast with a simple food, glucose.

now I raise the point because logic follows that if wort is toxic because of its complexity and water is not because of its simplicity, then why would not the most basic of foods in biochemistry be harmful, if not beneficial ?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Bang head here ------->


----------



## bradsbrew

Dengue said:


> eh ? you boys are kidding me
> 
> http://www.wikihow.com/Activate-Dried-Yeast
> 
> who likes to bake ?
> 
> http://www.joyofbaking.com/Yeast.html
> 
> proof yer yeast with a simple food, glucose.
> 
> now I raise the point because logic follows that if wort is toxic because of its complexity and water is not because of its simplicity, then why would not the most basic of foods in biochemistry be harmful, if not beneficial ?


Because you are rehydrating at this stage not feeding/growing?


----------



## James85

Looks like the crusade's all ova again, believe what I believe or I'll kill you. If we all did the same thing we would all be driving Ford's( second rate car if you ask me) or Holden's. 
If someone pitches dry then let them do it, I have pitched dry on every brew I have done and I know I'll probably get criticized by the ag boys for doing this but it's what works best for me. 
Not everyone has the time to rehydrate yeast, some of us run our own business and have to work 6 and a half days a week and have kids to look after when the significant other works night shift. 
If they pitch dry then let them, they don't criticized you for the way you are brewing. It is a hobby after all. 
Well that's my two cent's worth anyway. Alvederzain


----------



## Dengue

bradsbrew said:


> Because you are rehydrating at this stage not feeding/growing?


more like waking from stasis ?


----------



## bum

I bet no-one has bothered to email Fermentis to ask what their rehydration advice is for all the various professions?

You guys are full of it!


----------



## Yob

Now where's the fun in getting manufacturers recommendations? Nobody believes those bell ends...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Dear Fermentis

Can you please settle an argument for us.


----------



## bum

They did that many pages ago. I'm not sure anyone cared.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Dear Fermentis

Is it possible that your yeast research could be wrong due to the fact on page 7 of a yeast thread on AHB someone does not agree.


----------



## bum

Pretty sure you mean page 1, stu.


----------



## GalBrew

Who uses dry yeast anyway???


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

bum said:


> Pretty sure you mean page 1, stu.


Ok....shall amend


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

GalBrew said:


> Who uses dry yeast anyway???


Bakers...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Dear Fermentis
> 
> Is it possible that your yeast research could be wrong due to the fact on page 1 ( according to bum ) of a yeast thread on AHB someone does not agree.


Sorted


----------



## Pickaxe

This thread is like a racehorse with 4 broken legs.


----------



## Dengue

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Dear Fermentis
> 
> Is it possible that your yeast research could be wrong due to the fact on page 7 of a yeast thread on AHB someone does not agree.



err, I do believe that ferments state and I quote



> Fermentis yeast can be rehydrated with sterile water or sterile wort.
> Whatever media is chosen it is compulsory to assure its sterility.


Somewhere in between sterile water and sterile wort is sterile glucose.


----------



## Coalminer

And Danstar state a different method for its yeast


----------



## GalBrew

Pickaxe said:


> This thread is like a racehorse with 4 broken legs.


More like a mule....


----------



## bradsbrew

Pickaxe said:


> This thread is like a racehorse with 4 broken legs.


That would be a rocking horse?


----------



## Dengue

Coalminer said:


> And Danstar state a different method for its yeast


Oh yes



> *Pitching Rate: 1g/L
> 
> 
> Step 1.*
> 
> Sprinkle the yeast on the surface of ten (10) times its weight of clean, sterilized (boiled) tap water at 30 - 35°C (86° - 95°F)
> *DO NOT STIR !!!*
> Leave undisturbed for 15 minutes at 30 - 35°C (86° - 95°F)
> Foam or no foam is not an indication of vitality
> 
> *Step 2.*
> 
> After 15 minutes stir until all yeast is suspended
> Leave undisturbed for another 5 minutes.
> Adjust temperature of solution to that of the wort in 10°C (18°F) steps, by adding small amounts
> of wort at 5 minutes intervals and mixing gently (ATTEMPERATION)
> 
> *Step 3.*
> 
> After attemperation inoculate without delay.
> Aeration of wort is not necessary.


But why tap water and not distilled water is interesting...




> _Interested in giving dry yeast a try and have a rehydration question. From the instructions on Danstar's website, it states that distilled or reverse-osmosis water should not be used. For those of us with water unsuitable for brewing, any suggestions for a rehydration water recipe (salts, yeast nutrients) starting with RO water? Thanks in advance.
> 
> Joe Gibbens_
> 
> 
> *RESPONSE:*
> Joe,
> 
> We do not recommend to use distilled or reverse-osmosis water because the yeast would be damaged by osmotic pressure. Tap water contains minerals which lower the osmotic pressure on the yeast. You could rehydrate the yeast in a 0.9 % saline solution.
> 
> We have a nutrient specifically developed for rehydration of dry yeast called GoFerm. This nutrient is widely used in the wine industry and supplies the yeast with sterols and minerals during rehydration process.
> 
> Regards,
> *Forbes & Tobias*



But definitely no glucose, hmm.


----------



## Bizier

bradsbrew said:


> That would be a rocking horse?


This thread does not rock


----------



## Pickaxe

It needs a medicinal bullet to the brain.


----------



## bradsbrew

I must say that if a new brewer cannot decide if rehydrating is or isnt for them after reading this thread, perhaps another hobby would suit them. There is some good info
inbetween all the dribble and crap within this thread.

But that is just my 35.6F worth.


----------



## bum

I'd be advising any new brewer (or old brewer) to stay the hell away from this thread if they were looking for information (regardless of the quality of any single post).

My 275.15 kelvin.


----------



## Yob

Dengue said:


> Somewhere in between sterile water and sterile wort is sterile glucose.


Glocose is never a great idea to proof / grow yeast, Yeast will produce a certain set of enzymes to deal with the sugars available, if it then differs from the sugars you put them into (Your Wort), they need to stop and make a new set, this increases lag time and or respiratory issues can then occur. This is why, if you can, you make a starter from the same wort you are going to pitch to.

This is the great Botchalism thread of 2013.

:unsure:


----------



## Lecterfan

Dengue said:


> But why tap water and not distilled water is interesting...


I don't think it's mean to be taken literally as 'cheesemakers' so much as referring to manufacturers of all dairy products...

I am sure distilled water would be fine...but most of us have access to a tap and a kettle.


edit: disregard, I'm wrong - see below.


----------



## Parks

Lecterfan said:


> I don't think it's mean to be taken literally as 'cheesemakers' so much as referring to manufacturers of all dairy products...
> 
> I am sure distilled water would be fine...but most of us have access to a tap and a kettle.


I'm pretty sure some mineral content from tap water is beneficial in rehydration.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

GalBrew said:


> More like a mule....


I raise you an ass


----------



## Lecterfan

Cool, I haven't read that before, wouldn't surprise me - but 'tap water' could be anything really. My limited understanding is it was about making the cell walls nice and comfy before the beasts go to work and that in terms of minerals etc the dried yeast has all that it needs stored up in the drying process. Still, I have nothing to back me up and really was just keen to contibute to this thread so I have some legacy haha!

...aaaaaand edit: nope, I'm wrong! Apparently distilled water is not friendly at all...once again my big mouth and I beat a hasty retreat haha


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

bradsbrew said:


> I must say that if a new brewer cannot decide if rehydrating is or isnt for them after reading this thread, perhaps another hobby would suit them. There is some good dribble and crap inbetween the info within this thread.
> 
> But that is just my 35.6F worth.


----------



## GalBrew

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I raise you an ass


Touche........


----------



## Dengue

Thanks for that contribution, Stu.

The question now becomes, does osmotic pressure of pure water kill more yeasts than wort on contact ?


----------



## Yob

Does it matter? Anything that's killing them is surely bad practice...


----------



## Dengue

Yob said:


> Does it matter? Anything that's killing them is surely bad practice...



Indeed, but we need the lesser of both evils.

slash tells me that wort kills 50% on contact if I pitch dry yet danstar tells me if I use pure water to hydrate I will pop them like a balloon but they don't say how many.


----------



## Yob

Most of them would be my assumption.. Either way, it's bad practice. Bad practice should be eliminated as much as possible from the brewery..


----------



## mmmyummybeer

Could edge your bets and rehydrate in a watered down wort mix :unsure:


----------



## Dengue

mmmyummybeer said:


> Could edge your bets and rehydrate in a watered down wort mix :unsure:



seems what this is leading to


In summary:

wort is poisonous if absorbed through the cell wall prior to biomechanical machinery kicking in
pure water will cause the cells to pop like an over inflated balloon

so yes maybe somewhere in between is the answer.

I'd like to see a controlled experiment on this.

In the meantime, seems I better use liquid yeast till I figure this out. :huh:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

17 pages and still we dont have an answer that suits everyone...

Did you know distillers use tomatoe paste for there yeast......


----------



## Yob

The answer has been stated many times just some don't accept it.


----------



## slcmorro




----------



## GalBrew

Dengue said:


> seems what this is leading to
> 
> 
> In summary:
> 
> wort is poisonous if absorbed through the cell wall prior to biomechanical machinery kicking in
> pure water will cause the cells to pop like an over inflated balloon
> 
> so yes maybe somewhere in between is the answer.
> 
> I'd like to see a controlled experiment on this.
> 
> In the meantime, seems I better use liquid yeast till I figure this out. :huh:


Basically, what happens is if the solution that you are rehydrating yeast (or any cell for that matter) in has a lower concentration of dissolved solutes (salts, sugars, etc) than the interior of the yeast cell, this solution will flow into the yeast cell in an attempt to restore osmotic equilibrium and rupturing the cell membrane in the process. If on the other hand the solution has a higher concentration of dissolved solutes than the interior of the yeast cell, water from the yeast cell will diffuse out through the cell membrane into the 'rehydrating fluid' again in an attempt to restore osmotic equilibrium (extracellular space.....whatever) also killing the yeast cell. To have no net flow of water in or out of the yeast cell, would require an isotonic solution (0.9% saline as mentioned previously would probably work fine).

Keeping this in mind it is correct to say that tap water, that has a whole bunch more crap dissolved in it than distilled water has less of an osmotic imbalance, but I would say not that much. The mere fact that yeast can be rehydrated with sterile tap water is testament to how [email protected] robust these cells are.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Re-hydrating Mr Creasote


----------



## QldKev




----------



## Dengue

Yob said:


> The answer has been stated many times just some don't accept it.


Please doth summarise thou wisdom ?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Start at page 1


----------



## Dengue

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Start at page 1


you know the answer do you mate ?


----------



## mje1980

You cannot be ******* serious


----------



## Dengue

Dengue said:


> you know the answer do you mate ?





mje1980 said:


> You cannot be ******* serious


----------



## sponge

Get involved Mark!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Dengue said:


> you know the answer do you mate ?


I am not even sure I know the question


----------



## Dengue

Ducatiboy stu said:


> When using dry yeast I have never seen the need to re-hydrate first. Especially if done in plain water. The yeast will hydrate just as well in the ferm, if not better. Remember water has no nutrients so wont help it along. The wort has everything it needs to hydrate and get to work


Oh sorry, it wasn't even a question.


----------



## sponge

Oh, you know THE question Stu.

The 18 page question.

And by question, I mean statement.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Dengue said:


> Oh sorry, it wasn't even a question.


well why the **** did you ask.....


----------



## QldKev

was there even a question?


----------



## dougsbrew

Ahh, a question about a question. is this right?


----------



## Thefatdoghead

I rehydrated some WB-06 today. I only did it because I really hate the noise the yeast make when you pitch them dry. That screaming sound like a live lobster straight in the boiling pot.


----------



## Bizier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOJCSKqwwi8


----------



## dougsbrew

if your game to hydrate -


----------



## Black Devil Dog




----------



## Pickaxe




----------



## Florian

I must be nuts to bring this topic up again, but here goes:



Kaiser Soze said:


> Slash's link is the one that came to mind when I read the topic. The pertinent points in relation to the OP are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The water should be tap water with the normal amount of hardness present. The hardness is essential for good recovery. 250 -500 ppm hardness is ideal. This means that deionized or distilled water should not be used.* Ideally, the warm rehydration water should contain about 0.5 – 1.0% yeast extract*
Click to expand...



As per the bold bit: half to one gram of Vegemite per 100ml of tap water for rehydration? Or is there a more pure yeast extract available?


----------



## jyo

Why?????????????? It had slept for 7 months!


I certainly hope you re-hydrated the thread...


----------



## jc64

Ahhh, memories


----------



## Dunkelbrau

Florian said:


> I must be nuts to bring this topic up again, but here goes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As per the bold bit: half to one gram of Vegemite per 100ml of tap water for rehydration? Or is there a more pure yeast extract available?


I'm going out on a limb and assuming this is an honest question. (Didn't read thread).

Don't use vegemite, it's salty as ****, yeast and salt in high concentrations don't mix.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

jc64 said:


> Ahhh, memories


Nightmares...


----------



## Bribie G

Ducatiboy stu said:


> When using dry yeast I have never seen the need to re-hydrate first. Especially if done in plain water. The yeast will hydrate just as well in the ferm, if not better. Remember water has no nutrients so wont help it along. The wort has everything it needs to hydrate and get to work


Yeast Book says no.
Cell walls are delicate beasties and rehydrating in a sugar solution i.e. wort can burst cell walls.

_P 146_
_While most commercial brewers rehydrate their dry yeast before pitching, many homebrewers just sprinkle the dry yeast on top of their wort. Perhaps they read it in a book, or their local expert told them rehydration was not necessary. Technically the beer will ferment if you pitch enough nonrehydrated yeast, but you are not giving the yeast an opportunity to make the best beer possible. Skipping rehydration kills about half the cells pitched. Besides having only half as much yeast as is needed, the dead cells immediately begin to break down and affect the beer flavor. _

Whitelabs hath spoken.

edit: necro trap.... I thought this was a new thread. Wow 367 posts. My brain hurts.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Whats your point Bribe...are you just being a smartass for your pure self pleasure....


----------



## Bribie G

I don't think that passing on top quality brewing information from a notable expert to a home brew forum is being a smartass. However I really should have posted that at the beginning of the thread, not post #367


----------



## Donske

I like this thread, there are some cracking posts amongst the bickering.


----------



## verysupple

Yup, amongst the rubbish there is actually some good info.

Back on the quote from Dr. Cone 


> The water should be tap water with the normal amount of hardness present. The hardness is essential for good recovery. 250 -500 ppm hardness is ideal. This means that deionized or distilled water should not be used.


Is it just me or is that a sh*t load of hardness? I know water for rehydrating and water for brewing are two different things, but who brews with that much hardness? I've taken his advice and rehydrate in either 0.9 (w/v) saline or water made up to that hardness with CaCl2 and it seems to give good results, but it still seems like a lot of salts to be adding. 

Does anyone have any info on why that level of hardness is needed?


----------



## pnorkle

Just got this link in my email (as I'm sure others have) and thought you'd all appreciate me resurrecting this thread...

http://byo.com/stories/issue/item/3107-dry-yeast-mr-wizard


----------



## DeGarre

I used to rehydrate for above 5% beers, now I don't bother, works fine either way for me.


----------



## micblair

I've done some work experience in a few different micros, and believe it or not the pros don't even bother re-hydrating.


----------



## peas_and_corn

Yeah but they are also pitching a lot of dry yeast, which makes up for yeast death. The yeast sachets don't have excess yeast.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

I thought this thread was left so it could quietly sleep.....


----------



## GalBrew

This thread is soooo 2013.....


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I

He he he.

FWIW - I now rehydrate. I never used to, just used to bung it in. And you know what, I made good beer.

I now rehydrate - part of it's just following instructions - one usually presumes (correctly or otherwise) that the manufacturer knows about their product. I think also that since becoming an almost exclusive no-chiller, I've kinda got the time to rehydrate and pitch, whereas it was "okay, wort is chilled, let's get the yeast in there". Another variable on brew day isn't always fun, whereas the next day when everything is calm, burns are healing and mess is cleaned - it's kind of therapeutic.

I've found the biggest advantage in rehydrating to be getting the wort up and cracking with fermentation quicker. I actually get a krausen with US-05, and for the more notoriously slow starters like BRY97, the Mangrove Jacks yeasts - it means I'm up and running quicker than anecdotal evidence suggests is typical.


----------



## Goose

> You can certainly brew excellent tasting beer using dried yeast and the *basic science suggests *that hydrating in warm water prior to pitching is the best way to handle this type of yeast.


I am convinced that rehydrating gets my yeast going quite a bit faster than dry pitching. However it may also be specific to the yeast and method I am using.

If I'm brewing a lager and use dry yeast then the only one I'll use is S189. I pitch into well oxygenated wort at fermentation temp, ie 11 deg C, but first rehydrate for 20 mins in previously boiled but cooled tapwater also at 11 deg C to avoid any temperature shock. I also even hold my packets at 11 deg C prior to hydrating, anal as it may be. However I know that the yeast have been well woken as evidenced by the mini krausen that forms atop the surface of the vial that I am rehydrating in. I find I get bubbling pretty much straight away after pitching.

By comparison, when I have pitched dry it seemed to take a couple of days to fire up... but it still worked.


----------



## pnorkle

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I thought this thread was left so it could quietly sleep.....


Yeah, uh - sorry about that.. I saw the link and instantly thought of this thread.


----------



## mje1980

Back from the dead


----------



## SJW

I thought most dry yeast packs say to re hydrate or just sprinkle on to of wort. I have never noticed any diff with re hydrating so I'm a sprinkler.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Funny that both methods work.


----------



## Goose

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Funny that both methods work.


which one works better stu ?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

The one that produces beer.


----------



## Dave70

I find my yeast starters made with dry yeasts deliver better results when I combine the DME and yeast with some water.
Or else they just kind of sit there.


----------



## Ross

Goose said:


> I am convinced that rehydrating gets my yeast going quite a bit faster than dry pitching. However it may also be specific to the yeast and method I am using.
> 
> If I'm brewing a lager and use dry yeast then the only one I'll use is S189. I pitch into well oxygenated wort at fermentation temp, ie 11 deg C, but first rehydrate for 20 mins in previously boiled but cooled tapwater also at 11 deg C to avoid any temperature shock. I also even hold my packets at 11 deg C prior to hydrating, anal as it may be. However I know that the yeast have been well woken as evidenced by the mini krausen that forms atop the surface of the vial that I am rehydrating in. I find I get bubbling pretty much straight away after pitching.
> 
> By comparison, when I have pitched dry it seemed to take a couple of days to fire up... but it still worked.


Goose, you should rehydrate in warmer water, hydrating with cooled water does almost as much damage as sprinkling, otherwise you might as well pitch dry. Small additions of cold wort to your mix will help avoid sudden temp drop, or place in fridge for a short spell.

Cheers Ross


----------



## lswhi3

Black Devil Dog said:


> Palmer says that if pitched directly into the wort, the sugars prevent the yeast from getting enough water into their cells to metabolise, Causing many to die.
> 
> He also suggests to re-hydrate at 35 - 40 deg c.


not safale 05, 39c killed my yeast. make sure you follow the instructions, 05 needs 27C


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I

Yup, I keep the temp of the yeast in the middle of the range per the packet. 

Or if (like the Mangrove Jacks varieties) there isn't an ideal range given, I use the temp range of a similar style (and ferment temp range given) to ascertain an approximate rehydration temp - the sheets for Lallemand and Fermentis yeasts are on the internet as a reference. Seems to work.

I've not experienced the mind-numbing slow uptake that it appears others using Mangrove Jacks Yeasts have, by doing it this way.


----------



## Nibbo

Lord Raja Goomba I said:


> Or if (like the Mangrove Jacks varieties) there isn't an ideal range given, I use the temp range of a similar style (and ferment temp range given) to ascertain an approximate rehydration temp - the sheets for Lallemand and Fermentis yeasts are on the internet as a reference. Seems to work.
> 
> I've not experienced the mind-numbing slow uptake that it appears others using Mangrove Jacks Yeasts have, by doing it this way.


Although not on the packet, Mangrove Jack's do have rehydration instructions and calls for 100ml of 30 - 35 degree water apart from the bohemian lager which calls for 100ml of 20 - 25 degrees.
They have a brochure on their yeast series which has plenty of info on them.


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I

Nibbo said:


> Although not on the packet, Mangrove Jack's do have rehydration instructions and calls for 100ml of 30 - 35 degree water apart from the bohemian lager which calls for 100ml of 20 - 25 degrees.
> They have a brochure on their yeast series which has plenty of info on them.


Thanks Nibbo.

IIRC, that's about what I used. I know the BRY97 I pitched on Monday was that range, as was the S33 on my Berliner Weisse. I'm not sure if I found it on the net, so I'll have to look again.


----------



## mrsupraboy

Ross said:


> Goose, you should rehydrate in warmer water, hydrating with cooled water does almost as much damage as sprinkling, otherwise you might as well pitch dry. Small additions of cold wort to your mix will help avoid sudden temp drop, or place in fridge for a short spell.
> 
> Cheers Ross


In relation to this. I heard on the brewing radio show when he was speaking to the yeast dude (Chris something I think) that it's better to pitch colder then raise temps then pitch warm and drop temps


----------



## GalBrew

Hydration temp and pitching temps are not the same thing.


----------



## mrsupraboy

Arnt u gonna pitch the same temp as the wort


----------



## GalBrew

Yes you are, but that is not going to be the same temp as your rehydration step (which is in a very small volume compared to a starter).


----------



## verysupple

GalBrew is right. Fermentis and Danstar recommend reydrating in a certain temp range and then attemperate (mix small amounts of cool water or wort) the yeast slurry to your main batch temp (pitching temp). Rehydrate warm, pitch at whatever you feel like (but as mrsupraboy said, Chris White and other people I tend to trust reckon colder than desired ferment temp is better).


----------



## lukiferj

Goodo. This old chestnut.


----------



## Bribie G

Spoke to the German brewer guy at Green Beacon brewery and he said the same, if you pitch warm because you are worried you have underpitched, then drop to the main fermenting temperature you will produce a different beer than pitching a correct amount at a lower temperature then bringing the beer up to main fermenting temperature.

So if pitching cooler you need to have a good yeast count to begin with, thus rehydrate.

If rehydrating at say 30 degrees you would need to clingwrap the glass jar or whatever and gradually bring down to pitching temperature to avoid shocking the oh so delicate and woosy yeast cells who might otherwise swing their handbags around and burst into tears.


----------



## Goose

Ross said:


> Goose, you should rehydrate in warmer water, hydrating with cooled water does almost as much damage as sprinkling, otherwise you might as well pitch dry. Small additions of cold wort to your mix will help avoid sudden temp drop, or place in fridge for a short spell.
> 
> Cheers Ross


Appreciate the tip Ross, as you say my issue is getting the mixture down to fermentation temperature, ie 11 deg C, before the nutrients packeted with the yeast are exhausted which I understand is around 20 mins... ambient here is 30 deg C.


----------



## Goose

Bribie G said:


> If rehydrating at say 30 degrees you would need to clingwrap the glass jar or whatever and gradually bring down to pitching temperature to avoid shocking the oh so delicate and woosy yeast cells who might otherwise swing their handbags around and burst into tears.



ya but isn't this what they do if you rehydrate _too_ long ?


----------



## Gelding

Ducatiboy stu said:


> The one that produces beer.



admitting to the science finally ? or still ignoring it ?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

I admit to the scientific fact that 

malt+hops+yeast+water=beer


----------



## verysupple

Goose said:


> Appreciate the tip Ross, as you say my issue is getting the mixture down to fermentation temperature, ie 11 deg C, before the nutrients packeted with the yeast are exhausted which I understand is around 20 mins... ambient here is 30 deg C.


You're right, although I'm not sure about the 20 min, it might be a little longer. But, yes, you don't want to take too long. This is from a Danstar Munich datasheet:



> Attemperate in steps of 10°C at 5-minute intervals to the fermentation temperature by mixing aliquots of wort. Do not allow attemperation to be carried out by natural heat loss. This will take too long and could result in loss of viability or vitality.


----------



## dammag

mrsupraboy said:


> In relation to this. I heard on the brewing radio show when he was speaking to the yeast dude (Chris something I think) that it's better to pitch colder then raise temps then pitch warm and drop temps


I listened to that podcast this week and I thought it was the other way 'round?


----------



## Gelding

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I admit to the scientific fact that
> 
> malt+hops+yeast+water=beer


you mean
malt+hops+_(yeast+water_)=beer


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Gelding said:


> you mean
> malt+hops+_(yeast+water_)=beer


Your point being....?


----------



## Black Devil Dog

Luke1992 said:


> not safale 05, 39c killed my yeast. make sure you follow the instructions, 05 needs 27C


Agree, I now rehydrate at approx 25 deg c.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

This is as old as the Bible, either be a believer or not.
I know I am right -_-
Nev


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

The bible is a collection of short stories.......


----------



## Not For Horses

Am I the only one that finds it strange that in all 20odd pages there is not one mention of the fact that there are multiple methods of dehydrating yeast? The method of dehydration dramatically affects the method required for re-hydration thus without knowing the manufacturer's method of dehydration, it is not really possible to say comprehensively which method of re-hydration is best.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

Ducatiboy stu said:


> The bible is a collection of short stories.......


Depends on what you believe ...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Online Brewing Supplies said:


> Depends on what you believe ...


The Monty Python version.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

Ducatiboy stu said:


> The Monty Python version.


Which one ?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Online Brewing Supplies said:


> Which one ?


Could be .....The Meaning of Life....or.....The Life of Brian...


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Could be .....The Meaning of Life....or.....The Life of Brian...


Dont sit on the fence, make a choice


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

The Search for the Holy Grail.


----------



## mje1980

What would jebus do?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Probably join the peoples front of Judea


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

Oh. Un cadeau. Oui oui.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

It is a Balm


----------



## Gelding

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Your point being....?


yeast + water = rehydrated yeast

see, you are a convert after all....


----------



## manticle

Do you want stu to accept the fact that non-rehydrated results in ~50% cell death or the idea that his beer with non-rehydrated yeast couldn't possibly turn out ok?
Maybe we can keep this thread alive for 6 weeks more or so.


----------



## Feldon

Not For Horses said:


> Am I the only one that finds it strange that in all 20odd pages there is not one mention of the fact that there are multiple methods of dehydrating yeast? The method of dehydration dramatically affects the method required for re-hydration thus without knowing the manufacturer's method of dehydration, it is not really possible to say comprehensively which method of re-hydration is best.


Interesting. More please.


----------



## Feldon

Feldon said:


> Sure, some yeast die if pitched dry direct into the wort. But maybe this is a good thing. They are weak yeast cells with cell walls that can't withstand the osmotic pressure of the wort. Good. Let the buggers die, and ferment your beer with decendants of the remaining strong, thick walled yeast.
> 
> Call it a eugenics approach.


OK, just to recapitulate my post of a year ago (on page 1 of this thread), here it is again.


----------



## danestead

Feldon said:


> OK, just to recapitulate my post of a year ago (on page 1 of this thread), here it is again.


who said the yeast that lived are still strong. They may have been strong to live through the nonrehydration but maybe they are on the brink of death now?


----------



## Spiesy

danestead said:


> who said the yeast that lived are still strong.


Greg.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

manticle said:


> Maybe we can keep this thread alive for 6 weeks more or so.


I would have thought that after 12 months and 20 pages, brewers could make up there own mind instead of making up the minds of others.


----------



## Not For Horses

Feldon said:


> Interesting. More please.


There were a few articles published in the journal of the institute of brewing and some microbiology journal that I can't remember the name of now. Basically, the method of dehydration determines the strength of the cell wall therefore how much osmotic pressure it can sustain during rehydration.


----------



## mje1980

Liquid yeast are much less effort


----------



## Dave70

mje1980 said:


> Liquid yeast are much less effort


Oh yeah? 
Do you have to smack dry yeast to make it work.


----------



## gap

> Oh yeah?
> Do you have to smack dry yeast to make it work.


why not start another useless shit fight???

You do not have to smack liquid yeast if you don't want to.


----------



## manticle

Individual cells need to be punched, kicked, verbally abused or have their hair pulled.


----------



## pilgrimspiss

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Probably join the peoples front of Judea


Much like this thread, I think you'll find its the Judean Peoples Front?

:beerbang:


----------



## Dave70

gap said:


> why not start another useless shit fight???
> 
> You do not have to smack liquid yeast if you don't want to.


Would you settle for a facetious shit fight?

You are correct, the smack part merely liberates the yeast nutrient. At the very least, a bloated pack lets one know the yeast is viable.


That said, I enjoy employing the 1" punch method rather than the bitch slap. 

How about you?


----------



## Not For Horses

pilgrimspiss said:


> Judean Peoples Front?


pfffff. Wankers.


----------



## TimT

I rehydrate my yeast.

Must admit now I just swirl it round in the water to try to get it dissolved and then almost instantly pour into the bottom of the fermenter before adding all the wort on top of it - I have no idea what important events are happening (or not happening) in those few moments of rehydration that make the yeast stronger.

Not an especially helpful contribution, but I am proud to be part of this epic and venerable thread.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

pilgrimspiss said:


> I think you'll find its the Judean Peoples Front?
> 
> :beerbang:


Bloody yeast splitters...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu

Dave70 said:


> Would you settle for a facetious shit fight?
> 
> You are correct, the smack part merely liberates the yeast nutrient. At the very least, a bloated pack lets one know the yeast is viable.
> 
> 
> That said, I enjoy employing the 1" punch method rather than the bitch slap.
> 
> How about you?


If this was a State of yeast Origin it would be nothing more than a gentle brush up the side with the tips of your fingers


----------



## Goose

> saflager s-189
> 
> 
> fermentation temperature: 9-22°C (48.2-71.6°F) ideally 12-15°C (53.6-59°F)
> dosage instructions: 80 to 120 g/hl for pitching at 12°C – 15°C (53-59°F).
> increase dosage for pitching below 12°C (53°F), up to 200 to 300 g/hl at 9°C (48°F)
> 
> *rehydration instructions *
> Sprinkle the yeast in minimum 10 times its weight of sterile water or wort at 23°C± 3°C (73°F ± 6°F). Leave to rest 15 to 30 minutes.
> Gently stir for 30 minutes, and pitch the resultant cream into the fermentation vessel.
> 
> Alternatively, pitch the yeast directly in the fermentation vessel providing the temperature of the wort is above 20°C (68°F). Progressively sprinkle the dry yeast into the wort ensuring the yeast covers all the surface of wort available in order to avoid clumps. Leave for 30 minutes, then mix the wort using aeration or by wort addition.


Back to the drawing board after Ross's pointer. Above is from the manufacturer's website. So having set up fermenter at 11 deg C I now need to find another fridge to control the starter at 23 deg C. and then get it close to 11 deg C somehow within 30 minutes prior to pitching. :wacko:

It does say rehydration is not necessary IF the wort temperature is above 20 deg C, which implies that hydration is necessary (or recommended) if you intend to pitch cool or at fermentation temperature. Schiesse, I don't know anymore...


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

Goose said:


> Back to the drawing board after Ross's pointer. Above is from the manufacturer's website. So having set up fermenter at 11 deg C I now need to find another fridge to control the starter at 23 deg C. and then get it close to 11 deg C somehow within 30 minutes prior to pitching. :wacko:
> 
> It does say rehydration is not necessary IF the wort temperature is above 20 deg C, which implies that hydration is necessary (or recommended) if you intend to pitch cool or at fermentation temperature. Schiesse, I don't know anymore...


Pick your point of view and stick to it, there is no other way.
I rehydrate because it appears to be the right thing to do after reading the blurbs..
Nev


----------



## pnorkle

Online Brewing Supplies said:


> I rehydrate because it appears to be the right thing to do after reading the blurbs..


This pretty much covers it for me too, and besides, much more knowledgeable brewers than I say it's the better way to go, and who am I to argue?


----------



## carniebrew

Interesting to see the new(ish) Mangrove Jacks range of dry yeasts aren't bothering with suggesting re-hydration to brewers. The instructions on the back say quite simply "Sprinkle contents directly on up to 23l of wort...."

http://www.williamsbrewing.com/Assets/images/product_images/Z05.JPG


----------



## slcmorro

I did exactly that with a hefeweizen that a few of the BAR boys tried, just the one packet in around 1048 OG of 20L and it was perfectly fine.


----------

