I doubt most people here will be to shocked…
Nice to see these things all summed up in one place! Nice job, man.
Yep, nice work. They should pass out copies to all new brewers at the LHBS.
Thanks!
So, mutatis mutandis i have to rehydrate my dry yeast or else it’s yeast zombie time?
That one, it depends who you ask. Folks seem to still be split about 50/50 on this one. Personally I’m a sprinkler, I think I only rehydrated once in my life and for why I don’t know.
Nope…
Sorry, I was just joking.
Yeah, but ya never know…
Denny,
Would you be so kind to expand your rationale on HSA/ HSO being included in your myth list?
Bamforth never said that HSA was not a problem, but that he needed to be convinced that it makes better beer; in an interview with John Palmer he told a story of how by controlling oxidation he changed the beer so much that customers sent the beer back. He also mentioned that there are many scientists who argue the evidence of HSO is compelling. See Künze, Narziss, and the chapter from Gresser in the Handbook of Brewing.
Personally, I am not yet convinced that HSO affects the final beer; but I judge there is enough evidence to call it an area of healthy debate in the brewing community.
Looking forward to your expanded review on the subject. 8)
I included it not because it’s necessarily a myth, but because so many people think that it is.
Good list. I’ve been on a dry yeast kick to the point that my liquid yeast "laboratory equipment’ is getting dusty. LOL
Thank you so much, Denny. I am making sure every one in our club reads it. Good information.
A good list, but I would quibble with the liquid vs. dry yeasts. I would agree that they are equivalent for neutral yeasts (lagers, American ale), but for those styles where you want the yeast to produce esters and phenols, such as Belgians, British, and German weissbiers, I find all the dry yeasts lacking compared to the liquid varieties that are available.
Probably because we all tend to overpitch all those styles, and dry yeast is just so gosh darn healthy and shelf stable. Try just 1/4 packet for 5 gallons in future and see if you still have complaints. Same concept goes for liquid yeasts with those styles, actually. Try a severe underpitch and see if quality improves. Those yeasts need a lot of stress to produce the wonderful phenols and esters that we all love. If you pitch everything according to mrmalty.com, your Belgians (maybe) and hefeweizens (especially) will tend to turn out too clean.
Now as for the British styles… yeah, S-04 kind of sucks. Notty is alright but still too clean and not English enough to be a true English yeast.
Didn’t I say that? I intended to!
I agree. S05 and 34/70, being neutral, perform nicely enough. But when I brew a beer where I want some yeast character, it’s liquid all the way. Just me.
I brewed my latest English Pale Ale with Mangrove Jacks Burton Union. Plenty of English character there. I understand it was replaced with Liberty Bell. YMMV
Does anyone really think that the olive oil thing is a “common myth”?
I think the reason that liquid yeast is better for specialty styles is primarily because of the specific choices available. If there was a dry equivalent of 1762 or 3787, I would be surprised if you couldn’t make a good Belgian ale with it.