Isolated Yeast (Tree House): How to Identify and Characterize?

I'm surprised I didn't get any clove or banana when I used 7% of the WB-06 and that is close to the % you are using. I just did a batch last night and split it 50/50 with US04/WB06 and then 50/50 with US04/T58 and then another bucket with just US05 for control purposes. I wanna see what yeast will throw the most different flavors (either the 06 or 58) and then I can better judge which yeast will be better suited for the style. I know I may get more than I bargained for on both of those batches because I split them evenly and it may all end up crappy but at least I'll know and can start working backwards to find the sweet spot because it seems all we are doing is guessing and hoping we are correct.

 

Gotcha. Yeah, I didn't have any CBC-1 in those 1318 batches. The grist was super simple on the last one as well, pils malt with 4% crystal wheat. I mashed low, so it actually went from 1.062 to 1.011, but still had that nice sweetness too it. Although less than I've experienced with 1968.

I've been wondering this as well. If the CBC-1 is capable of cleaning up some of the phenols, maybe they are adding it earlier in their process than at conditioning. Eventually the other yeast's activity will stop. Just thinking out loud here.

 

Well everything attenuates more than 1968 - well, it looks like the new WLP066 London Fog doesn't, but that would make sense if it comes from Mann like I suspect.

I'd apply Ockham's Razor here - assume they're doing things as "normally" as possible unless there's evidence to the contrary. Starting conditioning a few points short of the main yeast FG is "normal", deliberately using it as a cleanup yeast much earlier than that...is less normal.

 

What temp were you at? Ambient or controlled? The clove will appear moreso at colder temps in my opinion.

25% T-58 at 64-66 controlled is crazy spicy. 10ish percent WB-06 at 64 pitch 66 ferment controlled is very phenolic (no amount of hops could cover it up)

 

I mean you never know, but my hunch is you're probably right. What led me to think that they might be using CBC-1 earlier than the few-points-left time frame is that I believe Nate posted something like 18-21 days pitch to packaging. At 21 days post pitch, my attempt was still super phenolic. But like you said, applying Occam's razor, it's more likely they are pitching less WB-06 than the 7.5% I used.

 

+1

Haven't used exactly these ratios, but did 7.5% or so WB-06 and got a lot of phenolic character so this makes a lot of sense to me. I even pitched and fermented warm - 77F pitch and 68-72F ambient uncontrolled ferment. Still made a bunch of clove.

 

I've been considering doing this same thing. I think 1318 makes a f'ing delicious beer, but I also think the complexity from small amounts of WB-06 and T-58 might be nice.

Also, I've heard that WY1098 and WLP007 might be the same strain as S-04? Not sure, I've heard conflicting reports. But 1098 and 007 don't mute hop character I've heard, so I have also been considering substituting one of those for the S-04 in this trio. The motivation being that maybe more of the hop flavor would come through.

Let us know what you do!

 

I'm drinking my single hopped Ekuanot IPA, and the aroma is reminiscent of a TH beer. Wouldn't be surprised if one of the cores contains it

 

I have a batch boiling now. I have a packet of Ekuanot cryo I was scared to use because the last flavor listed on the profile is green pepper

 

For this hop, the aroma and taste are not very aligned. There is indeed a bit of green pepper on the back end in my experience. Aroma is pure citrus and tropical fruit, however

 

I've used this combination twice, on 11 gallon batches. The approach I took was to make a large starter with 2 packets of S-04. That gets me to about 500B cells. Then on brew day I dump in about 1/3 of a packet each of WB-06 and T-58, which is maybe 40-50B cells each? So roughly 10% of each.

I pitched at 64F and held at 66F for the entirety of the fermentation. Here are my observations:
1. It ferments VERY fast...about 3 days or slightly more to hit 79% attenuation
2. It has a fairly tart finish
3. I feel like it has a fairly dry finish, the WY1318 is WAY sweeter
4. I get some bubblegum aroma
5. I have not gotten any off-putting banana or peppery spice. I think I can barely notice the WB-06 and T-58.

 

Which yeast profile do you prefer? I was planning my slurry if 007. Maybe I should split the batch w 1318. It is hard for me because my house is 007.

 

Although these things are never solid, there seems to be a consensus that all three are ultimately derived from Whitbread B - but S-04 is definitely descended from Whitbread B from a different source so has evolved a bit in a different direction. Whitbread B was spread widely throughout the British brewing industry, so it's no surprise that there's variation.

Plus dry yeast always behave slightly differently from the same strain in wet form.

 

I like the tartness that the S04 blend drives and I believe this helps with the juicy character. But I haven't gotten that nice full and round profile from it yet. But that could also be a function of my hopping and water profile to match.

The WY1318 just doesn't attenuate that well in my experience. Getting that thing over 78% doesn't happen for me. Those 8.2% ABV DIPAs that Tree House makes would be VERY difficult with London Ale III.

 

SO. FAST. I really have to mind my process to get the "biotransformation" hops in there on time, for me this is basically 24-36 hours, then I'm trying to get round two in at 3 days, because after that I worry yeast is essentially done cranking out the C02.

Last beer at 88|10|2 and one now on day 3 of fermentation with the same ratio,( this one 7.6% ABV and already at FG). No cloves and everything "belgian-y" below what I think might be threshold levels for most folks.

 

Also no heat on the 7.6 ABV which is nice. Noticed some of Trilliums DIPA's have a pinch of abv burn, and I don't get that in TH and I don't get that here
Forgot to add fermentation temp: 62F

 

I am getting a fairly "thin" body from this yeast but I'm not sure if it's a function of the yeast or water treatment.

The last one I did was 1.060, finished at 1.012. It was about 40% split between wheat, flaked wheat, flaked oats, carafoam. Water built from RO to hit 150PPM sulfate and 75PPM chloride.

What are your perceptions? Water treatments?

 

Hmm. Are they thin objectively — like you've compared them to commercial examples, or are they thinner than you think they should be? When I've thought that some of mine were thinner and compared them, they weren't, it was more relative to my expectations I think. That said, this current batch fermenting is 20% carafoam and 10% flaked oats and I'm finding it almost viscous. One change here for me per some advice in here, was adding half the chloride in the boil, and it does seem softer and fuller, (225 on the chloride).

 

I emailed Lallemand, and their reply was that 11 gram retail packages of Danstar LalBrew New England Ale yeast should be available by mid 2018. Here is the link to the technical data sheet. No clove, no banana, and lots of tropical fruit (and particularly stone fruits).

http://www.lallemandbrewing.com/wp-...11/LalBrew_New_England_Datahseet_11201701.pdf

 

Thanks. I am always comparing everything to Tree House. There aren't many commercial examples that can hit the same mouthfeel as them. Bissell Brothers comes close but they still can't reach the Tree House level, in my opinion.

I am probably going to brew another one this weekend. I was going to keep it simple at 2-row and about 20% carafoam, where 12% is the highest I've gone on carafoam. I have found that adding all the adjuncts doesn't do anything for the finish beer except maybe mask some of the hop character and aroma.

I have always stayed with about 125-150PPM SO4 and 75-100PPM of CL based on the following tweet from Nate:

https://twitter.com/treehousenate/status/697190895150592001?lang=en

 

Melville - what's your targeted water profile? I'm not sure what Nate is doing here but this article with the Alter Ego analysis shows the Calcium levels pretty low:

https://byo.com/stories/issue/item/3590-minerals-profile-in-the-glass

If you look at Tonsmeire's measured water profile to the finished beer there was a drop...not sure how that's the case unless he only measured the mash water and didn't treat the sparge or kettle with the additional treatments. I'll email him to find out.

Either way, the finished Alter Ego is pretty soft.

 

Yep this is the article guiding me more than the tweet, which I see as being a specific comment about Hoppy Things, a west coast style IPA vs Nate's actual beers (that aren't Bright variants). I don't have it in front of me but 225:100 for chloride:sulfate based on how close Tomsmeire's "actuals" are vs Alter Ego #'s (well, except calcium)

 

The ward labs results from Haze almost match the results posted for Alter Ego exactly which is rather shocking to me. It's crazy actually how close they are.

 

I particularly like the before and after profiles. Thanks for the link

 

Lol. I'm not from central mass but one could say the same thing about La La Land.

 

Where does one find the haze results?

 

pretty sure that @couchsending sent a can in himself.

 

A couple things:
1. I posed a follow-on question to Nate about NEIPAs and he said he doesn't go high on Chloride and lower on Sulfates. But he is pretty obscure with his responses so who knows.
2. I agree with you that the sulfate and chloride levels of Mike's beer were right in line with the Alter Ego. The only difference is that the Alter Ego's total hardness was much lower with lower Calcium and slightly lower magnesium. Michael's sulfate levels increased fro 90 to 318 and chloride from 262 to 448 from the "measured" to the "beer". So how do we think they can hit those sulfate and chloride levels with such little hardness?

 

Epsom salt and NaCl

Hill Farmstead beers are consistently 90ppm NA, lagers and ales.

 

Where have you seen this?

 

Beers I sent in to Ward Labs

 

The NA and CA seem impossibly low. Like you can't put any CaCl in there to get to CA in the 30's , and the more salt you add the higher the Na goes. Ideas?

 

K is awfully high. Why not KCl?

 

The calcium precipitates out. I think it changes depending on a lot of variables but with Michael’s system in order to get around 34 CA you could start close to 100.

The alkalinity is also something to look at....

 

Gives me the impression they're using a water softener with KCl exchange. I've played around with KCl in batches after fermentation and really liked it.

Also the high Alkalinity doesn't seem possible unless he's mashing high (5.6-5.8 pH).

I have a batch going now with 0 ppm Ca, KCl as the only salt addition and mash pH of 5.7. I'm very curious how the blended yeast respond.

Been a long time lurker, many thanks to those who have unraveled much of this so far.

 

I see a 40% drop in Ca in his numbers, so for me that keeps Ca at 60-ish which means greatly increasing NaCl, which then of course bumps your Na. Just make the wild assumption that you need to start with 125-ish SO4 and 250-ish chloride, man it's hard for me (at least using beer smiths water profiler) to get there. It does seem like you need to moderate your use of CaCl to get there in order to keep your hardness low.

 

Only issue is with a softner all you get is the K or NA... CL is flushed out.

Also Mash PH can have virtually nothing to do with final beer PH, everything can be manipulated along the way depending on what you’re trying to do.

 

I guess I looked at it as a drop in total PPM and not as a percentage... 60ppm drop

If you look at the thread on here with the Heady results you’ll also notice at the end someone sent in a beer they made using 22g of CaS04 in 4.77g of mash water (sparged with his tap water that was 22g CA) and his final CA number was 83. Sooo I think there are a lot of variables and these ward Labs reports while interesting can be very misleading.

 

Yeah, agreed. Still gotta add some salts to get the Cl. But it would explain the massive amount of K in the water report.

 

It does sort of seem like KCl could explain his Ca and Na numbers and his tweet.