liquid yeast favorites

[Lemon]

1968 ESB,
Great flavour and a monster in the fermenter, it'll do your whole fridge.
Lemon

 

[timmi9191]

Fairies muff..

 

[Spiesy]

Stu, are you inferring the cheapest wont produce good results? IMO Bry-97 out does us-05. , 1075 & 1272 for any USA ale and is the cheapest...

I hydrate it so this isn't a hijack - sorry yob..


Yes, yes you are.

BRY-97 is not sold as a liquid yeast.

That's why you'll note the poll refers to Wyeast and White Labs only.

 

[black_labb]

I like wyeast because of the smack pack. If the yeast is fresh it works to get the yeast active. If the yeast is not fresh it will act like a starter in a sterile environment bringing the numbers closer to where they should be for your next step. Whitelabs forces you to have a less than sterile first starter.

From a retailers pov there is going to be a certain % that arive already smacked in the post with wyeast. Also if there is a shopfront the wyeast is harder to display the range as the visual front is much larger than the white labs vial and some way of sorting them is required.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

How Spiesy.......when I specifically stated that one was not better. Was talking about using a cheaper yeast to practice farming/harvesting etc.

 

[Spiesy]

I like wyeast because of the smack pack. If the yeast is fresh it works to get the yeast active. If the yeast is not fresh it will act like a starter in a sterile environment bringing the numbers closer to where they should be for your next step. Whitelabs forces you to have a less than sterile first starter.

From a retailers pov there is going to be a certain % that arive already smacked in the post with wyeast. Also if there is a shopfront the wyeast is harder to display the range as the visual front is much larger than the white labs vial and some way of sorting them is required.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

I don't believe this is correct.

The "smack pack" serves as nothing more than validating the viability of the Wyeast yeast. It does not grow a starter. It just shows that the yeast is alive and kicking, to some degree. More than happy to be corrected, but that is my understanding.

I've never had a Wyeast smacked in the post - and I've ordered them online a bunch of times, often shipped from BRI to MEL. On the contrary, I find them quite difficult to 'smack' and have often had the packs sitting outside, un-refridgerated, for a number of days waiting for them to swell; when in fact I haven't managed to rupture the smack pack. Often my failure to rupture the smack pack if born out of fear of possibly rupturing the external pack.

 

[Spiesy]

How Spiesy.......when I specifically stated that one was not better. Was talking about using a cheaper yeast to practice farming/harvesting etc.

Hey Stu, I wasn't quoting you, mate.

 

[black_labb]

I don't believe this is correct.

The "smack pack" serves as nothing more than validating the viability of the Wyeast yeast. It does not grow a starter. It just shows that the yeast is alive and kicking, to some degree. More than happy to be corrected, but that is my understanding.

I've never had a Wyeast smacked in the post - and I've ordered them online a bunch of times, often shipped from BRI to MEL. On the contrary, I find them quite difficult to 'smack' and have often had the packs sitting outside, un-refridgerated, for a number of days waiting for them to swell; when in fact I haven't managed to rupture the smack pack. Often my failure to rupture the smack pack if born out of fear of possibly rupturing the external pack.


How do they validate the yeast? How is that different to a starter?

I spent a couple years working part time at a brew shop and there are a certain percentage of smack packs that come in swollen or smacked and not yet swollen. Maybe 5%? Just something to consider

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[Adr_0]

I've never had a Wyeast smacked in the post - and I've ordered them online a bunch of times, often shipped from BRI to MEL. On the contrary, I find them quite difficult to 'smack' and have often had the packs sitting outside, un-refridgerated, for a number of days waiting for them to swell; when in fact I haven't managed to rupture the smack pack. Often my failure to rupture the smack pack if born out of fear of possibly rupturing the external pack.

Yeah. I almost need to back the Cruiser over the packs I get to split them. I could be wrong but I seem to remember a while ago (a year? 8 years?) the packs were easier to split... so they have evidently made them more resilient after getting a good percentage pre-whacked in the post.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

When I first bought yeast from Grumpy's I used to get them to pre smack em. By the time they arrived they where ready to go.

 

[yum beer]

I use Wyeast and White Labs. My usual supplier stocks both and it depends what I am brewing and/or what they have in stock as to which I use.
I like the vial with White Lab because you can keep washed yeast in them easy in the fridge.
Wyeast contains more liquid which makes them easier to split.
Favorites are White Labs Mexican and Wyeast London Ale....though liquid yeast experience is limited.

 

[brewtas]

The only real difference between them seems to be packaging. On that front I think Wyeast are ahead. Other than that, I regularly use both and haven't had any problems I could blame on either company. They each have some good, unique strains and have plenty of crossover so for me it usually comes down to whichever one is most fresh.

 

[MaltyHops]

I like the vial with White Lab because you can keep washed yeast in them easy in the fridge.

+1 - though the vials are surprising small holding only 40mL but if you manage to fill that with mostly pure yeast, it makes subsequent yeast starters take off really quickly at an advanced stage.

 

[mje1980]

Pretty much only wyeast, but that's just because of availability. Around the early 2000's I used white labs because I used to go up to esb at peakhurst and that's what they sold. I think they're both as good as each other, though I do love the smack pack idea. Great simple way of seeing how healthy your yeast are. I make a starter almost all the time. The only exception is if the beer is under 1.045, and the pack I've swollen takes off like a rocket within a few hours. Outside those circumstances, I make a starter.

 

[Yob]

Ive got to agree with many of the points already posted, Ive used both, but I really do like the glass vials for re-use and staorage of yeast, Im practically making starters ofr every batch so it makes little difference to me for splitting.

just my 2 bob

 

[pedleyr]

I've not used a hell of a lot of liquid yeast but I have liked White Labs when I've used it - as people have said, having the vial left over is nice, plus they take up less room in the fridge. No really noticeable difference for me in terms of quality of the finished product.

Having said that I tend to buy Wyeast more because that's what G&G stock and that's where I buy my grain, so it makes sense to do it all in one order.

 

[Spiesy]

How do they validate the yeast? How is that different to a starter?

You're dropping nutrients into the yeast with the smack pack in order to get them ready for fermentation.

With a starter, you're introducing the yeast to wort, in order to grow the yeast population.

From Wyeast's website:
The cell count does not increase significantly when the package is activated.. The smack-pack is not designed to dramatically increase the cell count, it simply “activates” the yeast metabolism.

EDIT: added link.

 

[Bribie G]

Whitelabs vials are not custom made for them, they are simply PET bottle blanks as they come from the factory before they are "blown" at the bottle manufacturers.

Having said that they are handy and sturdy for postage and it was a flash of genius for Whitelabs to think of using them. I've only ever had two Wyeast packs swell in the post.

Back on topic my favourites in the Wyeast are

1084 Irish Red
1187 Ringwood
1469 West Yorkshire
1769 PC when I can get it

I've more or less given up on the London style yeasts, I find it hard to clear them and they take yonks to attenuate, often still working away in the keg slowly which is what they are bred to do in the cellar in the cask I guess, but the ones I listed above seem to attenuate more cleanly. (edit: I do realise 1769 is a "London" but I only ever use it in around 4.5% beers so it does run through a lot quicker than my ESBs).

For anything APA-ish I have migrated to BRY-97. I've used gallons of Wyeast equivalents in the past but find that the BRY does a very good job. As most of my Americans are American Wheat, uber clarity not important.

 

[bcp]

WY3068 Weihestefan Weizen = Delivers clove down low and then this massive banana at higher temps. Wild ferment too.
WY3463 Forbidden fruit = Agree with Newtown Clown. Lovely complex flavours going on.

But not the ones I use the most. That'd be
1056 American & 1469 West Yorkshire.

And still consider myself someone working through the list slowly rather than anything like an expert.

 

[jaypes]

My LHBS stocks WL, but I have not been able to get a vial that has not frothed over upon opening yet - this really pisses me off.

I do like WY as I can split the pack and grow starters for each easily - WL I have it all dripping over my hand - which really pisses me off

The LHBS says that WL is shit but I have had great results with both

Brewed a smash with an almost expiring WY Northumberland Ale - had to make a starter but it was absolutely fantastic