[Jeff804]

I'm about to brew an amber that calls for Lallemand Windsor yeast.  There are some very specific instructions on the manufacturers website about the rehydration process.  I recently read a post on here that studies show that rehydration typically doesn't yield any different results than if you just pitch the yeast as is.  Just curious on those who may have tried either approach and their overall opinion.

[denny]

I have tried both ways with dry yeast from a variety of manufacturers.  I saw no difference in the finished beer with either method.

[a10t2]

My take: all the evidence you'll see that it "doesn't yield any different results" is anecdotal or from a single trial with 13 participants. On the other hand, from what research I've done the evidence for the impact on viability is unambiguous - not rehydrating kills off a substantial fraction of cells. Ultimately it comes down to your thoughts/beliefs on how much of a difference in pitching rate will be perceptible.

[denny]

My take: all the evidence you'll see that it "doesn't yield any different results" is anecdotal or from a single trial with 13 participants. On the other hand, from what research I've done the evidence for the impact on viability is unambiguous - not rehydrating kills off a substantial fraction of cells. Ultimately it comes down to your thoughts/beliefs on how much of a difference in pitching rate will be perceptible.

Agreed on your point, but the bottom line is "what difference does it make?", as you say.  My uneducated take is that the cell density is do high that it dpesn't matter lf you lose some.  My experience is that the beer turns out pretty much the same eihter way.

[dmtaylor]

I'll be honest and say I don't know what difference it makes.  If you really want to know for sure, split your wort into two fermenters, rehydrate in one fermenter and not the other, then compare finished beers side by side and see if there's a difference.  My guess is not.  Personally I'm lazy, I don't rehydrate, and the beer usually turns out good, or maybe slightly tart (seems to be a common trait with dry yeasts, at least while still "green" and seems to disappear with age).  But I've really never noticed any odd laggy behavior from lack of rehydration, nothing like that.  Windsor ale yeast in particular will take off in a matter of minutes and reach final gravity in 24-36 hours in my experience, and that's without rehydration.  Good yeast strain there.

[hmbrewing]

Dry yeast is my go to yeast. I stopped rehydrating years ago and I have never had a problem. Sure, maybe I'm killing off some yeast cells, but there have obviously been enough left over to plow through my batches. My batches take off within 12 hours and I'm kegged within 2.5 weeks.

[Robert]

Windsor ale yeast in particular will take off in a matter of minutes and reach final gravity in 24-36 hours in my experience, and that's without rehydration.  Good yeast strain there.

No kidding!  I direct pitched (no rehydration) Windsor yesterday, and it's gone from 13.9°P to 4.1°P in 27 hours.  Had not used this one before, but I think I'm liking it.  I'm liking dry yeast.   I wonder if subsequent generations will be as rapid, or if they'll give me breathing room.  I almost  missed my window for dry hopping with remaining active fermentation on this one.

[Robert]

Dry yeast does not require aeration because of the way it is grown; it already has a full supply of sterols, and aeration will not benefit it.  When you harvest yeast, it is all the same no matter whether you started with a dry or liquid source.  It's all liquid yeast now, so subsequent pitches need to be aerated.  I have always used liquid cultures and repitched numerous generations, but am finding dry a more convenient first generation source, aside from the limited number of strains available: no starter, no rehydration, no aeration, just pitch.  I haven't taken dry yeast out very many generations yet just because I'm trying different ones; but  the manufacturers indicate that you can reuse dry yeast just as you would liquid yeast, and my experience seems to agree so far.  Skipping rehydration of the first pitch should make no difference, AFAIK.  If a few cells are killed, the remainder will grow to the maximum population your wort volume will support, and this is what you will harvest. 

[BrewBama]

I use dry yeast exclusively and always buy a new pack for each brew.

I do this for a cpl reasons: 1) I have no desire to add a yeast cleaning process to my current brewing process. The effort is simply unappealing to me. 2) I like the knowledge that the yeast I pitch is more than likely free from infection straight out of the pack and adding a yeast harvest process increases risk (however slight). It’s just one less thing for me to be concerned about.

I know some folks harvest and run a yeast ranch. It’s just not my thing.  I just consider the cost as part of the ingredients.

I usually sprinkle onto the cooled wort (without rehydration). I realize others may disagree but c'est la vie.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hmbrewing]

I use dry yeast exclusively and always buy a new pack for each brew.

I do this for a cpl reasons: 1) I have no desire to add a yeast cleaning process to my current brewing process. The effort is simply unappealing to me. 2) I like the knowledge that the yeast I pitch is more than likely free from infection straight out of the pack and adding a yeast harvest process increases risk (however slight). It’s just one less thing for me to be concerned about.

I know some folks harvest and run a yeast ranch. It’s just not my thing.  I just consider the cost as part of the ingredients.

I usually sprinkle onto the cooled wort (without rehydration). I realize others may disagree but c'est la vie.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

+1 to this all day long.