Heady Topper

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been trying to trade for some more HT for yeast harvesting purposes to no avail. Are any of you who are growing Conan willing to send me some? I can send you some delicious beer, not available in your locale. Dont worry I wont torture you with WV beer, nothing delicious from this state.
 
LaFinDuMonde said:
Heady is absolutely not can conditioned. Unfiltered, carbonated beer is pumped from the bright tank to the canning line, canned, then the cases were hand carried to my car. Fresh, carbonated, Heady.
Click to expand...

bluemoose said:
Right. Hard to can condition when people are drinking it the day after it is canned!
Click to expand...

Exactly. I've never had the privilege of visiting the brewery, or seeing their set up, but yesterday was the first time I'd heard anything about re-yeasting or can conditioning HT. I think someone's trying to be cute with a "my friend's friend's neighbor knows a brewer who" stories.

Back in the real world.... anyone have a scope and agar dishes? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to see Conan up close and personal.
 
NordeastBrewer77 said:
Exactly. I've never had the privilege of visiting the brewery, or seeing their set up, but yesterday was the first time I'd heard anything about re-yeasting or can conditioning HT. I think someone's trying to be cute with a "my friend's friend's neighbor knows a brewer who" stories.

Back in the real world.... anyone have a scope and agar dishes? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to see Conan up close and personal.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure passedpawn would take on the assignment if provided with beer ;)
 
I just looked into getting a scope and some plates, but it's too expensive. Is there a cheaper way to accomplish the test?
 
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Microscope_use_in_brewing#ale_vs._lager_yeast

In general you will not be able to differentiate between different strains of yeast, though some strains have larger cells than others. But there is one difference between ale and lager yeast that can sometimes be observed. Ale yeasts tend to stick together after budding and end up forming small stringed colonies consisting of 5-10 cells (see Figure 9). These colonies are more likely to attach to CO2 bubbles and rise into the kraeusen. Lager yeasts separate after budding and only form groups when they flocculate. These groups are clumps rather than chains if cells.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to hear what exactly the probrewer saw that made him think lager vs ale yeast esp since it sounds like you can't always make that distinction under a microscope
 
The only fairly easy way I know of to distinguish ale vs lager strains is to use an agar plate with a X-alpha-gal media. Lager yeast produces alpha-galactosidase and is able to metabolize X-alpha-gal. This is however cost resrictive due to the price of the supplies needed.

Another option would be to plate the conan strain with control plates of known lager and ale yeasts and culture these at various temperatures using the known lager and ale yeast cultures as controls. This would not be accurate but could be useful information.
 
theveganbrewer said:
I just looked into getting a scope and some plates, but it's too expensive. Is there a cheaper way to accomplish the test?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is. One of us could submit a sample to a commercial or university lab. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much to get that sort of info.

6799160133_63fb65cebe_z.jpg
Lager (wy2112) colonies

cut1056-6.jpg
Ale (wy1056) colonies
 
My starter, 100ml of 1.030 wort and dregs of 2 cans took a day to show signs of activity but its going strong right now. Im hoping to step it up to 500ml tomorrow then 1L and I'll brew a 2.5 gallon test batch with it.

I hadnt checked this thread since I started and missed all the lager yeast talk but I was considering contacting a local microbiologist i might once and sending him a sample to analyze and maybe culture up. I am sending him an email today and I'll see if he is interested.
 
terrapinj said:
Perhaps Conan is a blend, like wlp080?
Click to expand...

I was wondering that, or if it was a strange lager strain. Buuuuuuuut, my guess is the lager stuff is a red herring. We won't know until someone sees it under a 'scope.

@Coff, if you do get a biologist to look at your sample, post back ASAP. I was thinking of contacting the U to see if one of their students or microbiologists would take a look at it, but not until after my harvest is complete. I just hit mine with the second step of wort, 500 ml at roughly ~1.03. Kicked off like a champ and is cooking away.
 
I certainly will post back.

Can someone explain to me how the whole proprietary strain thing goes, like if someone cultured it to sell i.e White Labs decided to do that. Can John bring legal action or is it fair game in the wild?
 
Coff said:
I certainly will post back.

Can someone explain to me how the whole proprietary strain thing goes, like if someone cultured it to sell i.e White Labs decided to do that. Can John bring legal action or is it fair game in the wild?
Click to expand...

Awesome. From all the reading I've done about this yeast, I wouldn't be surprised it it's a unique strain under the scope. Maybe hybrid, maybe more lager-like in behavior like some of the English strains. Maybe just plain old ale yeast the dude harvested off his beard or something. :D

I think the difference is something like Conan is only used by John, and something like 1056 is bought by breweries from Wy. Like PacMan, that's "Rogue's", is really farmed and kept by Wy, they supply Rogue. I'm not sure of the legalities, but I think Wy (or WL) would need permission to culture and sell Conan as say a PC strain.
 
theveganbrewer said:
To me it resembles a Belgian yeast more than anything else.
Click to expand...

Now that's what I'm sayin'!! I got that too, especially in the older cans where the hops had fallen off. It's super fruity and has a bit of spice to it, just a bit, but it's there. I haven't brewed with it yet, but from doing this harvest and drinking a ton of HT, I'm convinced that this is a pretty unique strain. I'm really interested in hearing and hopefully seeing what it looks like under a scope.
 
I am having some doubts on the hop bill being heavily Simcoe/Centennial/Columbus. From my understanding that is basically the hop schedule for Pliny, and HT tastes nothing like Pliny.

I'm not sure if the clone needs Amarillo, or possibly a Warrior dryhop, but it needs more citrus and fruit.
 
NordeastBrewer77 said:
Awesome. From all the reading I've done about this yeast, I wouldn't be surprised it it's a unique strain under the scope. Maybe hybrid, maybe more lager-like in behavior like some of the English strains. Maybe just plain old ale yeast the dude harvested off his beard or something. :D

I think the difference is something like Conan is only used by John, and something like 1056 is bought by breweries from Wy. Like PacMan, that's "Rogue's", is really farmed and kept by Wy, they supply Rogue. I'm not sure of the legalities, but I think Wy (or WL) would need permission to culture and sell Conan as say a PC strain.
Click to expand...

Right, but John has to have a similar relationship with a lab to farm his yeast for him, unless he does it himself which I guess is possible.
 
theveganbrewer said:
I am having some doubts on the hop bill being heavily Simcoe/Centennial/Columbus. From my understanding that is basically the hop schedule for Pliny, and HT tastes nothing like Pliny.

I'm not sure if the clone needs Amarillo, or possibly a Warrior dryhop, but it needs more citrus and fruit.
Click to expand...

I'm doing cascade and amarillo as the "mystery" hops. Sim/Cen/Col/Chinook for the others. I wondered about nugget, but I'm going for citrus and fruit in the first try. If it ends up needing more dank, I'll swap amarillo for nugget.
 
I will stick with my nugget and no amarillo then, so we have at least two different takes. I have to look back at my notes but I think I did 5 minutes with Simcoe/Centennial/Columbus/Cascade/Nugget 1.5/1/1/.5/.5 and then had Chinook in the WP
 
some research:

"Before I get into the longer story, here are my thoughts on the yeast so far:
- Very flocculant
- Takes twice as long as just about every other starter I’ve done to clear; it’s very cloudy
- Fruity, peachy aromas out of the first two steps @ 68 degrees
- More than likely a Belgian strain The Alchemist has adapted to his needs
- Suitable for ~58-62 degree temps "
http://signpostbrewingco.wordpress.com/tag/conan-yeast/ (lots more info there, especially on culturing from the can)

"I was under the impression that the Alchemist’s house strain “Conan” was English in origin, but the phenols give this beer a Belgian slant. I actually enjoy this variation, but without dry hops the yeast overpowers even the considerable late/post boil hopping." http://www.themadfermentationist.com/2012/09/hoppy-american-pale-ale-tasting-x-2.html

so the theory that conan is a belgian seems to have some backing.

i'm hoping to hang out with the author of the second link in january, i'll be sure to pick his brains about conan if/when i do.
 
I understand the reality that people post made up nonsense on the web, but it's weird to be ad hominem to another supporting member of a site... why would anyone go through the trouble of paying toward a site to provide intentionally bad information? Can't someone troll for free?

I am disappointed, not with doubts as to the accuracy of the results that were reported to me, but with the unfriendly attitude. Not questions, but ad hominems as a first choice for response. I'm quite certain that nothing I've said in this or any other thread warrants that sort of pedantic garbage. That's the first time I've seen it on this site. So be it.
 
TapeDeck said:
I understand the reality that people post made up nonsense on the web, but it's weird to be ad hominem to another supporting member of a site... why would anyone go through the trouble of paying toward a site to provide intentionally bad information? Can't someone troll for free?

I am disappointed, not with doubts as to the accuracy of the results that were reported to me, but with the unfriendly attitude. Not questions, but ad hominems as a first choice for response. I'm quite certain that nothing I've said in this or any other thread warrants that sort of pedantic garbage. That's the first time I've seen it on this site. So be it.
Click to expand...

I think it was more the fact that you threw a total curve at people who are very vested in trying to clone this beer without any real source material or follow up. Obviously if they did this it would pose a major problem in the yeast culturing, so it was sort of discouraging to say the least. Then after the lack of response it built into a somewhat rude dismissal. Sorry if I contributed in any way.
 
Agreed, it felt like a random post and run type situation. There is a group of folks here, including myself, working very diligently on this clone and it was disheartening to see your post. Even still, it has hopefully inspired someone to do another test to see exactly what we've got.
 
TapeDeck said:
I understand the reality that people post made up nonsense on the web, but it's weird to be ad hominem to another supporting member of a site... why would anyone go through the trouble of paying toward a site to provide intentionally bad information? Can't someone troll for free?

I am disappointed, not with doubts as to the accuracy of the results that were reported to me, but with the unfriendly attitude. Not questions, but ad hominems as a first choice for response. I'm quite certain that nothing I've said in this or any other thread warrants that sort of pedantic garbage. That's the first time I've seen it on this site. So be it.
Click to expand...

I think with a lack of links or other supporting evidence, you have to anticipate some skepticism. Besides, aside from a few posts, no one even came close to being rude. I believe the first few responses to your claim were along the lines of asking for links or more information and some skepticism of a "my friends friend did this" claim.
It's not a questioning of your or anyone's character, nor does paying for something keep someone immune from giving bad information. Using that logic, I give less bad information that you and bottlebomer, who give less bad information that theveganbrewer. Let's not play the "I payed for this service" game. It's tacky. It's simply human nature to doubt something coming out of left field, with zero evidence mind you, when there's some actual discussion, and evidence, of the topic at hand.
So anyway, do you have anything that supports the claim of this being a lager yeast? Or are we to take your word that someone you know told you this in light of the fact that people on this thread and elsewhere on the internet are documenting their experiments with this yeast?
 
The thought was to share information that I found extremely vexing, which I got from a Siebel certed commercial brewer.
The decision to withhold a name has to do with professional courtesy... I believe it would be inappropriate to put a brewer's name out there who could be giving information relevant to cloning a popular, but hard to get, commercial beer. That'd have to be his place, not mine.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone to do anything in particular. I got what I considered to be a shocking bit of info, and passed it along. This was all in the process of trying to start my own Conan starter, to do exactly the same stuff you guys are doing. I don't WANT there to be any truth to it... I want it to be a contaminated sample, because it'd otherwise be a real wrench in the gears for at least the equipment I have to manage ferm temps.

Clearly sharing what I was told falls short of having had an exhaustive Q and A with the guy. As mentioned, I told him we needed to try it again and see if we got the same results. I didn't ask him how he found out it was lager yeast, but LHBS said that a lager yeast colony would often look different than an ale yeast colony, in that ale yeast will tend to bunch more, like a pile of goo, and lager yeast will tend to have a little more of a chaotic pattern on a dish. I don't have the space for temp control equipment, so I've not made a lager, and therefore, never worked with lager yeast. I'm going by what I'm told. Is this incorrect? Would there be no visual cues toward whether a colony is ale or lager?

This shouldn't be something to get wild over anyways, if folks are cloning HT and the Conan starters are giving the right results. But I rather like to know the details of the ingredients I'm working with.
 
I've never had Heady Topper, but it sounds amazing and I wish I could get my hands on it. But, living in CA, I'm far from getting any!

Anyway, just wanted to chime in and say props to you guys!! It's so awesome that you guys are harvesting the yeast from Heady. I honestly think it's pretty sweet because apparently this is the kind of beer that you couldn't clone without Conan. So goo job to you guys for taking matters into your own hands. :)
 
TapeDeck said:
The thought was to share information that I found extremely vexing, which I got from a Siebel certed commercial brewer.
The decision to withhold a name has to do with professional courtesy... I believe it would be inappropriate to put a brewer's name out there who could be giving information relevant to cloning a popular, but hard to get, commercial beer. That'd have to be his place, not mine.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone to do anything in particular. I got what I considered to be a shocking bit of info, and passed it along. This was all in the process of trying to start my own Conan starter, to do exactly the same stuff you guys are doing. I don't WANT there to be any truth to it... I want it to be a contaminated sample, because it'd otherwise be a real wrench in the gears for at least the equipment I have to manage ferm temps.

Clearly sharing what I was told falls short of having had an exhaustive Q and A with the guy. As mentioned, I told him we needed to try it again and see if we got the same results. I didn't ask him how he found out it was lager yeast, but LHBS said that a lager yeast colony would often look different than an ale yeast colony, in that ale yeast will tend to bunch more, like a pile of goo, and lager yeast will tend to have a little more of a chaotic pattern on a dish. I don't have the space for temp control equipment, so I've not made a lager, and therefore, never worked with lager yeast. I'm going by what I'm told. Is this incorrect? Would there be no visual cues toward whether a colony is ale or lager?

This shouldn't be something to get wild over anyways, if folks are cloning HT and the Conan starters are giving the right results. But I rather like to know the details of the ingredients I'm working with.
Click to expand...


A few posts up I posted photos of a common ale and a common lager strain under a high powered 'scope. Ale forms strings, lager clumps. If you're lucky, under a scope the differences can be seen. I found those images with a Google search for "____ yeast under microscope". What I didn't get was any results for "Conan yeast under microscope" other than links to this thread. I'd like to see more evidence of what your saying your friend saw, not his/her name, place of work or CC#, just a simple write up or photo would lend more credibility to the claim. Now, I'm not saying I disbelieve you, or doubt your friend's credentials, so don't take it personally. I, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, saw your claim as something less than credible, seeing as there's ZERO information available to back it up and the results (albeit very limited) point squarely to Conan being an ale yeast of European origin.

I'll ask again; do you have a link, or a name of a magazine article, or a photo or, a qualified person's statement to corroborate what you're saying? Or are we going to continue to derail this thread with talks of can conditioned lager boogeymen and you complaining that no one believes you? This isn't a matter of pride man, or people being rude or whatever. If I chimed in on the Bell's Yeast Harvest thread with claims of Bell's being a filtered beer containing only a trace of Brett left in the bottle, people would probably chime in to the contrary.
 
NordeastBrewer77 said:
Let's not play the "I payed for this service" game. It's tacky.
Click to expand...
How true.. I mean some members have had to show their wives vaginas to the Interwebz to earn their memberships. What's $25 bucks a year to get a man?
 
bottlebomber said:
How true.. I mean some members have had to show their wives vaginas to the Interwebz to earn their memberships. What's $25 bucks a year to get a man?
Click to expand...

It's just not classy (the "I payed" thing, not the wive's vaginas, that's a few steps beyond "not classy"). Personally, I'd like to see TapeDeck post a link or tell us of an article (Seibel? Bound to have been documented if it happened) or something instead of just puffing his chest and whining that we aren't more accepting of his statement. I think we all should've just left well enough alone when we read it's filtered, force carbed and re-yeasted with lager, seeing as we all know that's not the case.
 
theveganbrewer said:
“The heart of the beer is my private strain of Conan ale yeast,” John explained
Click to expand...

Thank you sir! If Oregon were closer, I'd buy you a pint. :mug:

We also know that the beer isn't "can conditioned" or filtered. Or re-yeasted. I think that's where the silliness lies, three out of four things claimed in that post are completely false and WE KNOW IT. I think it's safe to assume that unless some sort of data can be provided, the fourth claim is also. I'd take someone's word (no TapeDeck, not your's at this point) if they said that they themselves saw lager yeast cells when the looked at Conan under a scope over this heard it through the grapevine stuff. I'd still ask to see some evidence at this point, but it's at least more believable. I honestly laughed when I first saw the post we're talking about, I thought it was a joke, seriously. Doubt is undoubtedly raised when a story starts with "Someone once told my friend...."
 
TapeDeck said:
Regarding yeast culturing from the can... I have a commercial brewer friend, whom I asked to help me in trying to start a Conan culture. He went through the procedure, and his (autoclaved, sterilized) petri dishes had 9 out of 10 lager yeast colonies. In talking to a couple of other brewer friends, it's indicated that when canning beer, it's not uncommon to use a clean lager yeast on a finished commercial ale.
Click to expand...

i think everyone needs to take a step back and chill for a minute

TapeDeck never claimed HT was can conditioned with lager yeast

he simply pointed out the brewer saw lager colonies in his petri dishes. that's the only claim he's made.

it wasn't a friend of a friend of a friend - the guy hasn't spread any misinformation. there has been tons of speculation throughout this thread by many people

:mug:
 
It's the implication made by making the claim. If you're finding lager colonies in a sample of a beer that's fermented with ale..... never mind, the original claim makes that very connection. Again, red herring. And yes, Terrapin, there's tons of speculation throughout this thread. Most of it over the last few days highly unnecessary. I think the very quote by Kimmich that has made us harvest Conan yeast in order to clone Heady explains it. I think the guy would know if his personal strain of yeast was a lager yeast. No, it's not uncommon to use lager to condition an ale in the least... but that ale would have to be conditioned in the first place in order for that to be the case, which we know HT isn't. I'm just sayin', I think we're all up in arms about something that was so obviously false from the get go.
 
perhaps it is completely wrong - but I don't see the need to pile on TapeDeck as if he's purposely spreading false info - re-read all of his posts in the thread. he even stated they were going to attempt to retry the experiments and they could be wrong
 
Been enjoying this thread immensely up until the past day or two.

I personally don't believe anyone should be bashed for posts or claims made on HBT, especially when they are just trying to help.

Here is a thought, why doesn't someone else send off their Conan yeast for analysis?

Remember we don't know if it's ale or lager yeast, NEITHER has been actually "proven" yet.
 
I've been interested and lurking on this thread since it's inception. This lager debate got me thinking...

Isn't a California steam beer a lager yeast at ale temps? It's been done before, why can't heady topper use a lager strain that adds these fruity flavors at a medium temp (60f)?medium for lager anyway. I would call it an ale still. Maybe technically incorrect but that's what I'd do. Nobody wants an IPL they want an IPA.
And wouldn't an ipa flavorful and hoppy hide weird flavors of a lager fermented warmly?
food for thought
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

refect
Too much cryo hops?
Replies
1
Views
574
RCope
RCope
J
Non-alcoholic homebrew - buzzed feeling?
Replies
7
Views
583
mashdar
mashdar
A
Problems Keeping O2 out of NEIPA (I think)
Replies
13
Views
597
Dog House Brew
Dog House Brew
refect
Has Sabro ruined my beer?
Replies
28
Views
2K
Brooothru
Brooothru
H
Spectrum hops
Replies
4
Views
432
HT Shen
H
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top