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

I definitely don't get to TH or drink as much TH as I would like, but from my understanding there can be a bit of a variance between batch to batch - their monthly thread on BA has a huge amount of people who argue this. This in theory could lend itself to "blending" which means you're dealing with 2 different beers that can have even the slightest of variations...or at least not having everything down to a science.

 

I mean my guess is as good as anyone else's, I don't know, but just to play devil's advocate, depending on the amount of one side of the blend in any given beer, you may not have to tie up 2 or more fermenters for each. For instance, let's say you were blending a 100% WB-06 batch with an S-04/T-58 co-pitch and releasing several beers with a percentage of the WB-06 beer at a given time. If you want say 20% of the WB-06 in the finished blend, you could use 1 fermenter for 5 different beers. The differences in hopping, etc. would come either after blending or in the 80% part of the blend.

Just thinking out loud.

 

that's an excellent point, i'm not sure why i just assumed blends had to be 1:1

 

Wouldn't

Wouldn't staggered pitch have a limited effect as most of the O2 would be gone for growth and all the yeast would be doing is clearing up what the rest left?

 

This is what I'm thinking if they're blending the finished beer. Not really a 1:1 blend and I cant get the overcarbed and undercarbed blend out of my head. i really want to try something like this.

 

that's my line of thinking.

I mean, i suppose you could experiment with doing a first pitch with un-aerated wort and lower ferm temps - 61-62?. This could slow the yeast down and limit o2 consumption. Then pitch the second yeast with a dry hop - which would naturally add some o2, then crank ferm temps to 69-71 for 3 days and cold crash. Ideally this would occur in a unitank or similar so you can drop the initial yeast out - as to avoid their esters during the increased temp.

i'm only now just really diving into yeast, so i can be just WAY off here.

 

Yes, that was a conundrum, since I wanted to keep temps low for S-04 but raise them for the T-58. I pitched the T-58 around 1.024 or so, and in 24 hours it was at 1.012.

Edited to add - no 02 was added before either pitch.

 

Dry yeast is packaged with a bunch of sterols, so the lack of O2 later in the ferment may not be as bad as if you were to use liquid yeast. Never tried this though.

 

I'm by no means an expert, but I would speculate that if Treehouse is blending beers, they would be doing so going into the brite tank. In other words, the beers being blended would not be carbonated - carbonation would happen after blending.

 

I've read some breweries use spunding valves to naturally carbonate to save on CO2 and help against oxygen exposure. The brite tank is the normal course for most breweries though. Another thing to add to the questions list i guess. Someone near there should ask these questions on a tour. I might be just overthinking their carbonation method and its more of a water chemistry thing? Who knows asking questions is the only way to get answers.

 

Their beers are naturally carbonated, or at least used to be, said so right on the growlers. The presence of what seems to be CBC-1 kind of confirms this. The mouthfeel is IMHO a culmination of Water, PH, mash profile, foam stability, etc and is much less related to grain bill.

You can naturally carbonate in a bright tank no problem, just inject some sugar/yeast in-line as the beer is on the way there, or top off with krausened beer or even some fresh wort. You don’t need additional O2 if adding dry yeasts at any point and adding any would be very detrimental.

Has anyone done any research on phenol production and lower PH. If you were to add the other yeasts on say day 2 or at the beginning of krausen as the first yeast has dropped the PH will you get less phenols? So4 is a big acid producer and will drop PH a ways real quickly.

 

Funnily enough, the latest sequencing data may support this. There was a bit of a weird result from the 1002 Genomes project, which put "Safale S-40" (sic) in amongst WLP006 Bedford and WLP013 London rather than with the Whitbread B group. They have got a bit of a track record in mislabelling things, and who knows whether "S-40" is really S-04, but it's something to bear in mind.

If you're looking for dry yeasts that are related to 1318 then it's a bit tentative at the moment, but things like K-97 and Windsor may be closest. They're also in the same group as T-58.

 

I have read that 007 and 1098 are the same, or at least from the same source. But 1099 and 1098 are both supposed to be Whitbread strains, right? Then, is it possible that S-04 is the same as 1099 and not 1098/007? I have never used 1099, so I can't speak personally to its character.

 

1099 is different

If you look at the characteristics of each 007/1098/S04 they’re slightly different. Wyeast says 1098 ferments well down to 64. I’ve found S04 ferments no problem with an average pitch at 59, not slow at all.

 

You have to remember that Whitbread was one of the most aggressive of the Big Six in buying up other breweries, and had possibly the biggest private yeast bank in Britain. So a link to Whitbread in itself doesn't really tell you much. Whitbread B has a special place in British brewing as it was one of the few traditional yeasts that did well in the new environment of continuous tower fermentation introduced in the 1960s, and subsequently became widespread as smaller breweries switched from open fermentation to conicals. So it became possibly the single most widespread yeast in British ale brewing. So it's not something people would casually get confused about - 1099 isn't right as it has a much lower attenuation among other things. And assuming it's similar to WLP017 it's not right genetically either.

 

Having used WLP007 and since switching to S-04 (for ease and cost) I can say they have behaved similarly but definitely different.

S-04 is definitely more of an expressive strain ester-wise, given the same fermentation temps (generally pitch at 64 and ferment at 66). I've tried lowering the temp on S-04 but strangely enough, I seem to get more yeast character around 62-64. WLP007 lets the hops shine a bit more, but I do not get the same kind of mouthfeel from it when I DH during fermentation, nor does it ever get quite as cloudy as S-04

 

Has anyone compared WLP007 with 2nd+ gen S-04? You often get weird things happening in tne first generation of dry yeast, thanks to the trauma of drying.

 

Dry and liquid yeasts of the same strain will never produce the same results, especially with re-pitching. Dry yeasts are propagated respiratively in a molasses type medium and are held beneath the crabtree threshold, meaning their growth is aerobic. They never see alcohol until they are pitched into wort and are allowed to ferment anerobically. This results ina significant change in ester/flavor development. Moreover, successive generations with dry yeast can show radically different cell morphology, often being smaller and slower to to ferment...hence, why you rarely want to repitch dry yeast.

 

We haven't noticed any weird things - fermentations are generally the same sensory wise for the 3-4 generations we use the yeast before starting over with some fresh bricks.

Interesting! I did not know that about how dry yeast is manufactured. As far as 'radically different cell morphology', we have not seen much if any evidence of this (we plate every batch). But, we only go out 3-4 generations before starting over with fresh bricks (due to selectively pressuring our yeast into being high floccing with harvest times we see slower fermentations and lower attenuation).

 

Do you look at the cell wall thickness and diameter or just colony size? There are a few concerns with decreased cell thickness with repitched dry yeast/bursting strength, among other things, but its probably not an issue for the average micro brewery.

 

No we do not go to such an extent - colony size sure, but under the scope for counting we notice little to no differences between generations.

 

Treehouse does not have tours. They did indicate that one of the recent curios beers was spunded.

 

I believe it was mentioned earlier in the thread Nate had said on twitter that they don't spund (but have on the one curiosity beer)

 

my last brew with the mix came out great, may have over pitched the T-58 as it had a little more pepper than I wanted still came out great though. Tempted to give 007 a try next but S-04 has been so good its going to be tough to stray from it

 

Sweet! Looks good. Was this with or without wb-06? Also what type of grain?

 

I used the wb-06 forgot the ratios I used but definitely was too much T-58, grain was

2-row UK
Carafoam
Carahell
Flaked Wheat

 

Someone on twitter had asked if they fermented under pressure. Nate responded that they had tried it but didn’t presently do it. I would consider spunding and fermenting under pressure two different things. Capping/bunging the fermenters with a point or two to go is a very common practice across a lot of breweries.

Curiosity 44 description said that the carbonation developed naturally in the fermenter during conditioning.. this could mean spunding yes but it doesn’t mean primary fermentation necessarily..

 

Is anyone having success using CBC-1 for carbonation?

 

Define success... I’ve really only used it for carbonating aged mixed ferment beers and/or dark beers and it works great for that. Still don’t even know why it would be used on a 2 week old beer so I have only used it once or twice with IPAs. IMHO there’s so much yeast in suspension anyways I don’t see the need???

 

Yeah that’s what I thought there is no need when there is still yeast in suspension, this thread is already long and I do not remember people opinion on using it. I was going to spund but I am late to do that it almost reach F.G.

 

I have used it on all three of my attempts with the core trio with good results.

The only thing I can think of for why it would be necessary is an insurance policy against having the POF+ strains kick out anything weird during conditioning. I would think after a relatively high gravity primary and cold crash, pitching active dry CBC-1 would outcompete the others to carb up. I haven't done a comparison though, this is just me thinking.

 

So I'm happy to report that my last attempt yielded much better success - the staggered pitch worked pretty well, added some complexity at the finish, and I'm very happy to report there is no tartness. It's only been in the keg for 4 days, but fingers crossed it stays that way. Important to note that I did not use WB-06. The whole diastaticus thing makes me a little leery.
This was 12 lbs 2 row, 2 lbs Carafoam, and 10 oz of 15L Crystal. Mine is on the left, Haze is on the right. Clearly mine lacks haze. I'm planning on using oat malt next time around.

I definitely think softer water is important - I used distilled water, and targeted 35Ca, 29Mg, 200ish CaSO4, 140 Cl.

 

Anyone using yeast nutrient with their batches? Supposedly helps with consistent, healthy fermentation and reaching FG quicker.

 

I use yeast nutrient in just about every batch I make, seems to speed up the time it takes for everything to get going and once it does the yeast blows through fermentation

 

Yeast nutrient every time, every batch, all beers. Starters too

Especially if you use RO

 

Ok cool. I have used it before, but havent recently. How much are you guys using per gallon?

 

Edit: I checked beersmith looks like i only use 1 tbsp for 5 gallons (guess this is why we keep notes)

 

1/2 teaspoon for a 5-6g batch of beer. The Wyeast stuff is what I use.

Yeast Nutrient is one of the only variables I just trust works. I’ve never bothered to “test” it as every pro brewer I know uses it. I’ve always used it since batch 1. It costs pennies per batch and if it even helps the yeast/fermentation slightly it’s worth it in my book.

https://wyeastlab.com/wyeast-nutrient-blend-he

And it’s one of those things where more is not merrier.

 

can you elaborate on this? I use RO and have yet to use nutrient, and just curious as to why RO makes it more necessary than other water.

 

after fiddling with final malt profile (a revamp over one i've brewed a few times, dropping flaked wheat/oats) and water profile (i spent way too much time on this).

I brewed up a 1.062 IPA yesterday and pitched 1 package of Imperial Juice (1318) and 2grams of t-58. It's happily bubbling away at 66*F right now. I'll do the first dry hop tomorrow morning (which would be ~38H after pitch or so). Plan right now is that on Friday I'll pump it to 68F, second dry hop and hit it with just a little co2, day 6 i'll turn it to 69F, day 7 will be 70, day 8 or 9 I'll "cold crash" it (my ferm chamber only gets beer down to about 43*), day 10 I'll keg and force carb and should be having a decently carbed pint for Memorial Day weekend.

Mash pH 5.23, Calcium 78, Magnesium 10, Sodium 49, Sulfate 115, Chloride 160