Search results

It's not biotransformation that causes the haze. The haze is a mixture of things, mostly polyphenols from the hops and malt complexing with proteins in the wort/beer. When I make a NEIPA (with the method you describe) the beer (before I dry hop it cold) looks like an almost clear and very pale...

Ok, the appearance of the beer will eventually stop being such a milky haze, but it is unfortunately just a matter of time. For this yeast you want to see consistent hydrometer samples for three days at an absolute minimum, five is best. Even then it will still drop out slowly - quicker if cold...

Shhhhhh, keep it secret, people don't seem to realise how awesomely versatile 3522 is. Treat it right and, as you say, it can be very clean, it can pretend to be British (it makes uncannily similar British beer to the Adnams dual strain house yeast, but without all the Sulphur), it can of course...

So, I'm afraid you couldn't really have picked a worse yeast given that you lack the ability to keep the fermenter hot and the ability to cold crash. Basically, your beer isn't nearly done yet, and wasn't when you took it off the yeast cake. Citrus, aka WLP 644, is a total nightmare yeast to...

London Fog is from the same origin as LA3, Juice etc.

I'd say so. All of the pure cryo beers I have had have been lacking, and they were made by very good producers of haze. They lacked body, and depth of hop character. I have had some exceptional beers that utilise both formats in combination.

I think the book is a treasure. A time capsule perfectly capturing the early craft beer movement in the US, and the magic of entrepreneurial spirit - hope you enjoy it!

He does go into the topic in Beyond the Pale in some depth, however it is some time since I read the book so my recollection isn't clear enough to speak with confidence here. Highly recommend the book, though.

With Hornindal I have observed fermentations with low FAN to exhibit acetaldehyde combined with sulphur. Farts and green apples.

Just for anybody curious, Hornindal ferments just fine under 30psi as long as it is kept hot. Done it several times, held at 30C+ you're all good. Make sure your wort is nutrient rich, Kveik are hungry for FAN.

It is random mutation combined with environmental pressures which domesticates yeast to a new environment, not the adaptation of individual cells. Those most suited cells will survive to pass on their specific genetic traits, those less suited will not.

Dry yeast production is not a spin up, harvest, spin down and then start again from a fresh culture process. The yeast is continuously grown and dried, so the operation would run for some time before they go back to a frozen aliquot of the 'original' strain. Be in no doubt, they keep an eye on...

In terms of compaction and flocculation rate it looks like M44, otherwise it looks like M42. If I was personally choosing a yeast for a hazy I would pick M42. I agree the email response is tenuous at best. In any case it's definitely not Verdant.

I...disagree? Certainly they didn't deny my suspicions when I emailed (or confirm). It has the same upper attenuation limit and temp range as M42, same flocculation too. All they've done, as far as I can see, is slightly fiddle the lower end numbers for temperature and attenuation. FWIW M42...

I have added an edit to my post regarding how I 'know' these things, and also a note to say that I came across like a bit of a dick, so I'm sorry about that.

Righty, rows 97 and 98, let's get those cleared up. M66 Hophead is absolutely NOT the same yeast as Verdant IPA. M66 Hophead is M42 with some added powdered glucosidase enzyme. Verdant IPA, for all intents and purposes, is Wyeast 1318. It derives as an isolate from a serial repitch of that...

No don't pitch half first then half 48 hours later, if you were going to do that then you'd be better off not pitching the second half at all and saving the rest for another beer. Why? Because in those 48 hours since you pitched the first half the wort has allowed those first 100bn or so cells...

Absolutely. There are good reasons for pressure fermentation on the right beers, though, so I do make a habit of it.

Yes, they definitely are diminished when fermenting under pressure, however you can counteract that with lower pitch rates and higher temperature.

I've used both quite extensively. In terms of fermentation behaviour and performance I would describe them as identical. They attenuate to the same predictable level, they both form an enormous krausen unless fermented under pressure, they both perform very well when fermented under pressure...